kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Did you not read my reply to you about 30 posts back? It was from a bad Tom Clancey novel.
'9/11 Truth Movement' and Academia
- Thread starter Dillinger4
- Start date
Did you not read my reply to you about 30 posts back? It was from a bad Tom Clancey novel.
Yossarian said:
Thank you mate.
But it's the hounds who have the problems, not the hounded...!
[incidentally, i think you'd be surprised at my basic views on 911. This forum is notoriously difficult to come out exactly with what you want to say on this topic, but i spend more than half the time dealing with some unbelievable reactions and alarming hostility at times. In any case, my view is just that i don't know what happened that day, shit did happen, and for various reasons and reasonings i believe american elites were somehow involved. But, i just don't know! So, when you're faced on urban with this almost non-stop barrage requesting evidence and proof all the time, when none is available to any of us, is an attempt to shut down debate. In an orderly place it's a great topic to debate.]
Yossarian said:
We're only asking what his qualifications are because he made a point based on his academic attainments. He was called up on them and ever since he's wriggled, flim-flam'd and generally evaded answering...
If I ever make points based on something I expect to be pulled up and asked about it. The same goes with Fela...
fela fan said:
Ah, I see...! Thats the problem...! On U75 you're supposed to support your posts with facts + evidence. But then thats the problem with facts. You think anything can be won with them...
I've an idea... Why not go and post on the conspiraloon sites...? You'd like them, they don't require any facts like we do...
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
jonH said:
A bunch of intelligent nutters in a cave.
Seriously - the whole conspiracy business...there had been exmples of Islamist terrorism years before 9/11 happened; indeed, during the 90s Islamist groups were extremely successful in destablising some governments in North Africa, not to mention having Afghanistan, and ample funding from Saudi conservatives - 9/11 wasn't the start of this, indeed, there are many observers, both from the US and elsewhere, who viewed 9/11 as the actions of a failing and desparate organisation, whose successes were being reversed qutie rapidly at the time thanks to concerted efforts by many governments worldwide.
As for where the idea came from - sit down for 10 minutes and think about what you'd do if you were planning a terrorist attack; you want to create maximium impact and disruption; do you also want to kill lots of civilians, or go for a military asset (and by this I'd define something like the Pentagon as a military target, even the non-military personnel are legitimate targets under the Geneva convention...if you're in a state of war that is...); or do you want to do something symbolic, something to say 'We can do this any time we want?'...from there all you need are the resources (money, personnel) and time to implement it.
Lots of people point to PNAC for their various conspiracies - why bother? The Islamists were already pissed off enough with the US to have previously bombed the WTC, not to mention massacring Swiss citizens at Luxor etc; there's no question that as an organisation 'Al-Q' had the resources and talents necessary to mount such an operation without outside help...
The biggest irony of course is that people like fele go on about the terrible global criminal the US is, and yet when someone actually strikes back at them, the only people who could possibly have done, could possibly have allowed it to happen are..the Americans themselves.
kyser_soze said:
Your post is persuasive, but it's just one version, and just speculation. It could have happened this way, accepted.
But so could it have happened any number of other ways. If we say that okay, these events transpired, who planned them, then more than your answer is possible. As to likelihood of any one way, up to the person holding that opinion.
There are no 'people like' me, i am an individual...
I go on about the USGs and their appalling criminal record, and have done for over 20 years now. For good reason. It's true.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
That's true fela, there's no one quite like you...however, there are any number of people, many on this board, who express amazement that despite all the horrors the US has heaped upon the world, that anyone else could have the ability or motivation to hit back at them, that only the Americans themselves could have done such a horrendous thing to advance their own aims.
It's a position that has no logic, no coherence of any kind.
kyser_soze said:
Maybe so, but you really ought to know by now that i don't belong in that category you describe.
Have you read Blowback? That perfectly describes all the 'unintentional' side effects of american foreign policy, in the way of attacks against americans.
I don't know who was responsible, or what country they come from. I can only guess. Could have been america, could have been other countries.
But in a way you could be right about the americans not carrying out 911, normally their actions are far worse than in this event. They are far more terrifying killers than whoever committed the attacks on 911. And note any other posters reading this, i'm comparing two kinds of attacks against each other. I'm not passing any opinion on the injustice of all of this ridiculous killing that human beings with power seem to get involved in.
Have you actually read the thread?jbob said:
If someone's rude and patronising to someone else while bigging up their own academic credentials as a way of attempting to be personally demaning, is it not valid to ask them to justify said credentials?
Sometimes "a circle forms" because it's so obvious that someone is being a prick.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Fela, I know that you have issues remembering your own posts, but you've argued on countless occassions that there was clearly US involvement in 9/11, and by the same tack you also say that they are the biggest terrorists on Earth who have pissed millions of people off - the two combined say that you think the Americans had to have had something to do with it.
I have read Blowback, and I agree that the creation - or at least the funding and support of - the muj in Afghanistan was a classic piece of blowback, but that had more to do with the Ivy leaguers in the CIA thinking they were dealing with a bunch of unsophisticated theocrats who would be easy to manipulate, rather than some sophisticated and cynical theocrats who viewed the CIA and US with as much disdain as they did the occupying Russians.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I probably shouldn't post on this thread any more because I am not eloquent enough to not sound like a prick.
But I agree with what Kyser says ^^
But I agree with what Kyser says ^^
kyser_soze said:
Er, basically, no, that is not the case at all. And i have not argued that countless times at all. My conclusion is always the same: i don't know what happened, i just make an educated 'guess' according to all the information and understanding available to me, and that guess is that there was US involvement. But as always, i don't know really. That's why your previous description was persuasive, precisely because it seems really quite possible. But it's not enough.
After five years of debating this topic on urban, you do me a disservice to continue reducing my 911 thoughts and ideas down to one tiny conclusion each time. I don't conclude that americans had something to do with the attacks, i suspect they did. But i can't do any more than that because other explanations are plausible.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Why do you even bother with language? There's nothing that you want to convey. Quite the contrary - you simply want to say that you have nothing to say. Well why not just shut the fuck up then?
fela fan said:
So what you saying is that you're not sure who did the attacks...? Could be AQ, but who know's really... Could be the Americans, but who can really tell. Could be a bunch of Thai lady-boys for Fela know's...!
If you don't have any actual reason, any evidence, or any concrete suspicions that why bother posting this up...?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
And you can fuck off too you pampered twat.
I too find the level of most of this so called ‘evidence’ that goes around somewhat infuriating because it simply does not stand up to analysis, yet is parroted endlessly. They believe it proves their point and that you are not ‘awake’ or will just throw more and more at you without ever having the decency to discuss with you any contrary proof. That is the point that bothers me, not the raising of things like Building 7, but the refusal for example to accept clear evidence that there was massive debris and fire damage in building 7. They just ignore it completely.
However, the idea that governments or police/ intelligence services are capable of allowing such attacks to go ahead is not conspiraloonacy.
You can see for example the Omagh bomb and the Russian apartment bombings as examples of highly suspect, ‘let the attacks happen knowingly’, (Omagh) and direct involvement (RAB). Such things are difficult to prove 100%. It is the intelligence agents, their handlers, and their governors who operate out of the public eye that hold all the evidence and knowledge.
They are powerful enough to cover their arses, and to stop people speaking out. Full inquiries invariably do not take place.
As far as 911, I am unconvinced either way. Given that the USG had long before had defininate designs on Iraq and Afghanistan at least establishes a possible motive. The character and ideology of these guys adds to it too. So the only way it could possibly have happened in this way, in my mind, would be a deliberate turning a blind eye somewhere in the chain of command to specific prior intelligence.
I am with Fela insofar as I cannot prove anything, but neither can I definitely dispel the notion.
However, the idea that governments or police/ intelligence services are capable of allowing such attacks to go ahead is not conspiraloonacy.
You can see for example the Omagh bomb and the Russian apartment bombings as examples of highly suspect, ‘let the attacks happen knowingly’, (Omagh) and direct involvement (RAB). Such things are difficult to prove 100%. It is the intelligence agents, their handlers, and their governors who operate out of the public eye that hold all the evidence and knowledge.
They are powerful enough to cover their arses, and to stop people speaking out. Full inquiries invariably do not take place.
As far as 911, I am unconvinced either way. Given that the USG had long before had defininate designs on Iraq and Afghanistan at least establishes a possible motive. The character and ideology of these guys adds to it too. So the only way it could possibly have happened in this way, in my mind, would be a deliberate turning a blind eye somewhere in the chain of command to specific prior intelligence.
I am with Fela insofar as I cannot prove anything, but neither can I definitely dispel the notion.
editor
hiraethified
No, it doesn't.EddyBlack said:
I cant find any credible motive why the USG would set about mass slaughtering its own citizens, blowing up great chunks of NYC and humiliating itself on the world stage in an unprecedented self inflicted attack when they've traditionally felt free to invade countries at will. No highly risky mass murder of US citizens needed.
I would also add that as far as mass slaughtering of its own citizens, or rather allowing the enemy to strike if it is in the wider interest as they see it, the mentality of many of these people is difficult to understand. If they see their agenda as fundementally crucial then they can indeed countenance mass death of their own people. Its not to hard to think of historical examples.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Invasion of where? Since everyone knows that the US only ever goes to war for oil, why would they invade Afghanistan? It was always going to be an arduous conflict, the weight of military history in the region was against invading and there's no oil - in fact apart from opium, there's fuck all in Afghanistan - it's not even as strategically important as the other 'stans!
So you've got:
1. Why invade Afghanistan
2. An enemy that's already hit US soil once, attacked US assets overseas, and has gone through a success-failure cycle
3. This enemy has resources, money, time and skill.
4. They hate the US
America already had an enemy that wanted to attack it...
So you've got:
1. Why invade Afghanistan
2. An enemy that's already hit US soil once, attacked US assets overseas, and has gone through a success-failure cycle
3. This enemy has resources, money, time and skill.
4. They hate the US
America already had an enemy that wanted to attack it...
editor
hiraethified
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
kyser_soze said:
Just on the Afghanistan point...
I read a book pre 9/11 about the Taleban and Afghanistans relations with the US. There was quite a big argument about a proposed pipeline by unocal (or another oil consortium) that the Taleban regime refused to allow. It has now been built.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The UNOCAL pipeline could have taken a different route - it certainly wasn't worth killning 3500 US cits and starting a full scale war against someone who the US had been fighting for over a decade.
kyser_soze said:
What about the Oil Pipeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline) ...? If thats not a reason to organise terrorist attacks on its own people, I don't know what is...
Similar threads
- Locked
