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

[nosos]

What precedent was there for 9/11 please?

I pretty much agree with what Fela Fan said.

 

[editor]

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.

I have no 'interpretation' of the word. I'm going by the dictionary definition.

I believe the events of 9/11 to be unprecedented. If you're going to argue the toss, kindly illustrate why the attack wasn't an unprecedented one.

 

[fela fan]

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.

Well, why on earth have you been debating with me for two years then?

I gave you a valid precedent that fits your own stated criteria here. It's called agent provocateur, and the one i talked about happened in thailand 11 years ago.

The only difference is the nationality of those involved. But the similarity is that both groups consist of human beings.

Now is that not 'something similar that has happened before'?

 

[editor]

I pretty much agree with what Fela Fan said.

Ah. Well, if you're going along the 'no proof needed because I just know' route, I'll leave you to it.

 

[fubert]

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?

oh lord, you've just sent an invitie to 'conspiracies r us : oklahoma bomb chapter'

 

[editor]

The only difference is the nationality of those involved. But the similarity is that both groups consist of human beings.

Now is that not 'something similar that has happened before'?

Good grief. That's too ridicuous to even bother with.

 

[nosos]

I have no 'interpretation' of the word. I'm going by the dictionary definition.

Do you believe there are standards for assessing and ranking precedent? Or are they either 'true' or 'false'?

I believe the events of 9/11 to be unprecedented.

Yeah I noticed.

If you're going to argue the toss, kindly illustrate why the attack wasn't an unprecedented one.

As I say, I agree with what Fela posted on the subject and don't see why it's irrelavent. You've yet to even try to demonstrate why it's irrelavent beyond asserting your belief that 'there is no precedent [god darn it!]'.

 

[fela fan]

I have no 'interpretation' of the word. I'm going by the dictionary definition.

Just as a dictionary didn't attack the towers, nor does it have the final say on meaning in life.

Connotations mate, interpretations, perceptions...

 

[nosos]

Ah. Well, if you're going along the 'no proof needed because I just know' route, I'll leave you to it.

No, that's what you're doing, matey - as wonderfully demonstrated by your lack of concern in demonstrating why precedents x,y,z are irrelavent - they just are! More fool us for not realising that things become true by virtue of you asserting them ...

 

[fela fan]

Good grief. That's too ridicuous to even bother with.

Since this is a debating forum, not a playground, could you let me know why? I thought it at least pertinent to the discussion at hand.

 

[Jo/Joe]

But all nations have sacrificed their young in war. And we know that humans, or groups of them are capable of horrific things. Neither of these general facts suggest USG involvment in 9/11. They are so vague as to be useless.

 

[editor]

You've yet to even try to demonstrate why it's irrelavent beyond asserting your belief that 'there is no precedent [god darn it!]'.

FFS: let's look for the precedent:

Has the USG ever felt the need to attack its own cities, destroy its own prestige buildings and mass murder its own citizens in a highly complex, highly risky plot to create an excuse to invade a weaker country?

YES/NO?

 

[nosos]

Good grief. That's too ridicuous to even bother with.

Or what I say has a level of objective truth that I don't even need to begin to explain why contrary views are false.

 

[Jo/Joe]

and why did Bush and co need the Patriot Act, assuming it isn't a sincere response to 9/11?

 

[fela fan]

But all nations have sacrificed their young in war.

That may or may not be true, although i suspect it to be untrue. Certainly in modern times.

More importantly, the US regularly do it, unlike all other nations, except perhaps britain.

It is simply part of the american way of life, to invade and torture and kill.

 

[nosos]

FFS: let's look for the precedent:

Has the USG ever felt the need to attack its own cities, destroy its own prestige buildings and mass murder its own citizens in a highly complex, highly risky plot to create an excuse to invade a weaker country?

So the only valid precedent is that which relates to the exact factual circumstances of 9/11?

YES/NO?

 

[fela fan]

FFS: let's look for the precedent:

There's no need to look mate, i provided it for you. Why don't you comment on it?

 

[nosos]

Why don't you comment on it?

Because he's right and you're wrong.

Duh.

 

[editor]

So the only valid precedent is that which relates to the exact factual circumstances of 9/11?

YES/NO?

Can you answer a question with a answer?

What a grand old waste of time this is proving to be.

As usual.

 

[nosos]

I should have added a smiley ...

I'm still having trouble getting to grips with your idea of what constitutes valid and relavent precedent though. Do the factual circumstances have to replicated? Have you tried thinking through the consequences this would have on the judicial system?

 

[fela fan]

Because he's right and you're wrong.

Duh.

And that's the way it's always been on these particular threads.

I feel a binning coming along. It always happens when the kitchen gets too hot.

Unfortunately i have to get my sleep time in, so will have to bow out.

Nice to see you here nosos, it's hard work on my own which is what is the norm. Enjoy mate.

 

[editor]

There's no need to look mate, i provided it for you. Why don't you comment on it?

Well 'mate' yours bears no relation whatsoever to the events of 9/11 and I really can't be arsed to list the immense differences between the two.

But if you think what happened in Thailand all those years ago somehow 'proves' your conspiracy-tastic version of 9/11 with no facts needed, feel free to dream on, 'mate'.

 

[editor]

I feel a binning coming along. It always happens when the kitchen gets too hot

What a dreamer.

It's pathetic, it really is, 'mate'.

 

[nosos]

Well 'mate' yours bears no relation whatsoever to the events of 9/11 and I really can't be arsed to list the immense differences between the two.

So precedents do have to replicate factual circumstances to be deemed valid?

 

[fela fan]

I'm still having trouble getting to grips with your idea of what constitutes valid and relavent precedent though. Do the factual circumstances have to replicated?

I don't think you'll find out mate, but good luck anyway.

 

[fubert]

and why did Bush and co need the Patriot Act, assuming it isn't a sincere response to 9/11?

so they could have further control over the people of the usa. it all leads up to a microchipped population or something. global world facist state... blah blah...

reptilian/illuminati agenda innt.

(i'm just quoting, these are not my opinions or beliefs)

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

What had this USG done previous to 9/11?

How long have you got, mate. Cuba, Nicoragua, Chile, Argentina, Haiti, Angola, the list goes on and on.

There is no comparable precendent,

Pearl Harbour - USG knew about the attack in advance, but did nothing to stop it as they wanted involved in WW2

Operation Northwoods - USG Plot to invade Cuba, by orchestrating a terror campaign in Florida, blame it on Castro and use it to justify invasion.

Rickstag Fire - (different) rogue g'ment burnt down the parliament building and blamed it on the communists, using it to justify a "security crackdown" and introduce legislation which severely curtailed citizens freedoms

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

Err, because most of them were in the usg during the Regan/Bush 1 years, funding Bin Laden, Hussain, and just about every other "god-damn evil minded terrorist" that it could find to do its dirty work for them.

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

There is far, far more than that - forget all the lizards, holographic planes etc
- why was the only plane to be shot down the one that the passengers were taking over?

- how could a plane crash into the best defended building in the world without triggering its defence mechanisms - flown by a crap pilot executing a damn good flight path, leaving a hole a fraction of the size of the plane and no debris?

- how could a kerosene fire (approx 600 degrees) melt steel (at 2000 degrees) so completely that the floors offered no reistance and collapsed in 8 seconds.

- how come the South Tower which was hit 2nd and at an angle - so had less kerosene to burn, collapsed first.

- why was NORAD so slow to respond

- if they genuinely wanted an independant inquiry why on earth did they initially appoint KISSENGER! to lead the 911 commission (he refused when he was told he had to declare his interests)

I appreciate that it is difficult to beleive some nut on the net over the good ol' beeb, and the quality of reporting in the tabloids is celebrated the world over, but things are gradually getting out.

Farenheit 911 has raised a lot of preliminary questions about the links between Bush and the Bin Ladens

www.cooperativeresearch.org have a timeline made up of mainstream newspaper reports which contradict each otehr and raise more questions than they answer.

The New Pearl Harbour (David Griffin, foreword Michael Meacher MP) is at sales rank 814 on Amazon. This book basically accuses the usg of complicity in 911.

Of course this is taking a while to get out - the whole thing is really quite horrific, that the US Government have colluded in the mass murder of its own citizens for geo-policitical dominence, and it is unsurprising that given the lack of any one decisive piece of evidence (but hundreds of small evidences that the usg story is untrue) that they are reluctant to put their careers on the line. Look what happened to Pierce Morgan when he reported that UK soldiers were involved in abuse in Iraq; or Andrew Gilligan when he reported that the 45 min claim was included in the Iraq dossier even tho they knew it was untrue, or Greg Dyke, when he wouldn;t grovel to the g'ment.

Best wishes
Qwerty

 

[fela fan]

Well 'mate' yours bears no relation whatsoever to the events of 9/11 and I really can't be arsed to list the immense differences between the two.

No need to list all the immense differences, that'd take up too much of your time.

But one or two would be nice. You know, in the name of debating the topic.

Mate.

 

[editor]

I'm still having trouble getting to grips with your idea of what constitutes valid and relavent precedent though. Do the factual circumstances have to replicated? Have you tried thinking through the consequences this would have on the judicial system?

I don't think you understand what 'precedent' means.

But to help you out, type in "9/11 unprecedented" into google and then ponder why so many people all agree that the events of 9/11 were indeed described as unprecedented.

I certainly can't be arsed to keep trying to explain it to you any more.

 

[editor]

No need to list all the immense differences, that'd take up too much of your time.

Yes, 'mate'. It would.