Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!

[fela fan]

And why would the British publivc need things 'pointed out' to them by a non-resident?

What makes you think you know what's best for them, fela?

Non-resident? Well i was one for 27 years. Does that not count?

I am an insider on the outside looking in. Such opinions should at least be worth listening to.

I don't know what's best for them, but it doesn't stop me trying to find out, nor from trying to put forward my ideas. Freedom of speech is a precursor to freedom to listen.

Alternative viewpoints not wanted or what? You can listen, or you can dismiss, it's up to the listener. But if one cannot speak, then one cannot listen.

 

[editor]

And from my work which requires me to innately understand our language, and what shapes it, influences it, and governs the use of it.

So how does that give you any special insights into the events of 9/11?

It wasn't a dictionary that hit the WTC towers.

 

[editor]

I don't know what's best for them, but it doesn't stop me trying to find out, nor from trying to put forward my ideas.

The best way to do that would be to live in the country before you start telling them how they should vote.

 

[fela fan]

And why would the British publivc need things 'pointed out' to them by a non-resident?

What makes you think you know what's best for them, fela?

This is very defensive stuff mate. Just because someone is not in the in-crowd, does this invalidate their ideas and opinons?

Often an outsider can point out things that those on the inside don't see. Such observations can be deemed intefering, or useful, depending on the listener's attitude.

Everybody thinks they know what's best for others, that's why they speak out. Aren't you the same?

 

[fela fan]

The best way to do that would be to live in the country before you start telling them how they should vote.

Mate, i am british, i lived in england for my first 27 years. South for 22 years, north for five years.

I'd never tell them who to vote for, i'd tell them to not vote.

 

[Lock&Light]

Often an outsider can point out things that those on the inside don't see. Such observations can be deemed intefering, or useful, depending on the listener's attitude.

Whether or not such observations are deemed interfering or useful depends on a lot more than only the listener's attitude. The quality (or lack of it) of the observations must be the first and foremost deciding factor, I would have thought.

 

[fela fan]

So how does that give you any special insights into the events of 9/11?

It wasn't a dictionary that hit the WTC towers.

Dictionaries are only vaguely useful to understanding the use of a language. It doesn't, for example, cover the socio and psychological aspects and use of a language.

Knowing what those in power are capable of, knowing precedents that have happened, knowing the USGs' previous record, all this can lead me to seriously suspect what they tout as being the truth. And that's my starting point with regard to 911.

Especially when they claim to have found one of the hijacker's passports completely unsinged in a mountain of ash and debris.

 

[Lock&Light]

I'd never tell them who to vote for, i'd tell them to not vote.

Thereby ensuring the election of the very people you regard as insane.

 

[fela fan]

Whether or not such observations are deemed interfering or useful depends on a lot more than only the listener's attitude. The quality (or lack of it) of the observations must be the first and foremost deciding factor, I would have thought.

And you'd be right. Up to a point. You are forgetting the human's need to hear what they want to hear. If anything pierces their comfort zone, then some serious reactions are required.

Surely you are aware of this?

 

[fela fan]

Thereby ensuring the election of the very people you regard as insane.

How can anyone be voted in if no-one voted?

 

[Lock&Light]

How can anyone be voted in if no-one voted?

Might be hard to persuade the people standing for election to withhold their votes.

 

[fela fan]

Thereby ensuring the election of the very people you regard as insane.

And in any case, i have no doubts blair was mostly sane when he got voted in. But the power of office has eaten away at that sanity, and produced a largely insane person.

It's the power that causes insanity, and without office that power is unavailable.

Look at the likes of hitler, mao, stalin, mugabe, bush, reagan, ceausescu, and tell me no insanity exists in leaders who get too much power in their hands.

 

[Jo/Joe]

What had this USG done previous to 9/11?

There is no comparable precendent, and a precendent isn't proof. All nations have had govts that have committed groos injustices. Does that mean all subsequent govts will?

How can you possibly know if the members of this USG are capable of involvment in something like 9/11?

The only dodgy evidence is the poor use of intelligence, and that is not enough, yet, to prove complicity.

 

[fela fan]

Might be hard to persuade the people standing for election to withhold their votes.

Hair splitter!

The point is that if the vote included only a few percent of the population, change would have to be enacted due to this huge lack of turnout. The message would have been delivered.

 

[fela fan]

What had this USG done previous to 9/11?

There is no comparable precendent, and a precendent isn't proof. All nations have had govts that have committed groos injustices. Does that mean all subsequent govts will?

How can you possibly know if the members of this USG are capable of involvment in something like 9/11?

The only dodgy evidence is the poor use of intelligence, and that is not enough, yet, to prove complicity.

Comparable precedents depend on the criteria you are using.

I'm using criteria based on what a human being is capable of. I'm sure there are many such incidents, but one that i can definitively talk about is the thai government deciding to have a police station burnt down in 1992 in order to use this as an excuse to cold-bloodedly murder hundreds of peaceful protesters. Agent provocateur is the french term for it, and such language cannot exist if the event never existed.

Other precedents: the USG's willingness to have their own citizens (ones whose job rests in the army) killed to pursue their own hegemonic interests. And their willingness to have such soldiers maim and murder and genocide other nationalities in the process.

 

[editor]

Dictionaries are only vaguely useful to understanding the use of a language. It doesn't, for example, cover the socio and psychological aspects and use of a language.

Knowing what those in power are capable of, knowing precedents that have happened, knowing the USGs' previous record, all this can lead me to seriously suspect what they tout as being the truth. And that's my starting point with regard to 911.

There were no precedents for 9/11.

America had already invaded/bombed the fuck out of 20+ countries without the need to mass murder their own citizens and blow up their own cities.

So their previous record = invade+bomb at will. No need for highly complex, highly risky, citizen-slaughtering plots.

And I've no idea how your waffle about " socio and psychological aspects and use of a language" is supposed to help you 'know' the truth.

 

[editor]

Other precedents: the USG's willingness to have their own citizens (ones whose job rests in the army) killed to pursue their own hegemonic interests. And their willingness to have such soldiers maim and murder and genocide other nationalities in the process.

None of which are even remotely relevant precedents for the conspiracy-tastic version of 9/11 which involved the mass slaughter of US citizens, the mass destruction of chunks of US cities and a humbling humiliation for the US on the world stage.

 

[nosos]

They may not be definitive precedents but why aren't they relavent?

 

[fubert]

So their previous record = invade+bomb at will. No need for highly complex, highly risky plots.

statements like this make the conspiracy folks go a bit nuts.

while its perfectly correct to say that usg will do what they want, when they want, and fuck everyone else, a situation that's required to introduce things like the patriot act is a little bit more extreme. that's when the lizard/illuminati people come out of their caravans and start arguing.

 

[editor]

They may not be definitive precedents but why aren't they relavent?

What?! fela is making his wild claims on the existence of 'precedents'.

If he can't actually produce any, then his claims are rubbish.

You either have a precedent or you don't, you see.

 

[fela fan]

None of which are even remotely relevant precedents for the conspiracy-tastic version of 9/11 which involved the mass slaughter of US citizens, the mass destruction of chunks of US cities and a humbling humiliation for the US on the world stage.

Look man, i find some of all this just as hard to believe as you do. I've told you this before.

But i find it impossible to believe the USG official version of events. That is my basis.

The latter is more inconceivable to me than their not being involved to some degree.

 

[fela fan]

What?! fela is making his wild claims on the existence of 'precedents'.

If he can't actually produce any, then his claims are rubbish.

I am not making wild claims.

I have already produced precedents with the qualifier that it depends on one's criteria. Only moments ago, just check the post out.

 

[editor]

Look man, i find some of all this just as hard to believe as you do. I've told you this before.

But i find it impossible to believe the USG official version of events. That is my basis.

Can you now keep your inner beliefs to yourself because you've restated it enough times and without offering any evidence to back it up, it's a complete waste of time debating the issue with you.

 

[nosos]

If he can't actually produce any, then his claims are rubbish.

You either have a precedent or you don't, you see.

So you either have a 'true' precedent or you don't? There's no room for interpretation? God damn, don't tell the judges that, they'll be out of a job!

He's produced precedents which you dismiss as 'irrelavent'. That's interpretation, no? As he said, the evaluation depends on criteria - criteria which he has described - but you've yet to criticise despite your assertions that the precedents he has cited are [objectively, truly, universally] 'irrelavent'.

 

[editor]

I am not making wild claims.

I have already produced precedents with the qualifier that it depends on one's criteria. Only moments ago, just check the post out.

Another reason why it's a complete waste of time arguing with you.

A precedent means something similar that has happened before. I can't be arsed to deal with your ever-shifting interpretation of the word.

There was no precedent for 9/11. End of.

 

[editor]

So you either have a 'true' precedent or you don't? There's no room for interpretation? God damn, don't tell the judges that, they'll be out of a job!

Have you got a precedent for the conspiracy-tastic version of the events of 9/11 with the USG being responsible for its own citizens being mass murdered and US cities being attacked and its prestige buildings destroyed?

Could I see it please?

 

[nosos]

There was no precedent for 9/11. End of.

A statement of 'inner belief', surely?

 

[editor]

A statement of 'inner belief', surely?

Answer the question above, please.

I'm dealing with facts. What precedent was there for 9/11 please?

PS You may find a search for 'unprecedented 9/11' on google enlightening.

 

[nosos]

Have you got a precedent for the conspiracy-tastic version of the events of 9/11 with the USG being responsible for its own citizens being mass murdered and US cities being attacked and its prestige buildings destroyed?

Can you answer a question with a answer?

I'm just curious about your interpretation of the notion of a precedent. What you think it is, when you think it's valid and where this validity is derived from.

 

[nosos]

Answer the question above, please.

Answer my questions, please.