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

[editor]

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

Err...hello? That never happened!

 

[nosos]

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

So you're not going to answer the question then?

Do the factual circumstances have to replicated? Have you tried thinking through the consequences this would have on the judicial system?

At any point are you going to even bother to try to begin to explain why the precedents cited thusfar are 'irrelavent'?

 

[nosos]

Err...hello? That never happened!

But it's still precedent because it shows that there are historical examples that the US gov / military would consider such operations ...

Obviously that's irrelavent though because the only precedent for 9/11 would be if the US gov had already let the twin towers be blown up once before. Wait a minute ...

 

[fela fan]

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

A top top post man. But when i first gave out that link in reply to incessant questions, the thread got almost instantly binned.

You touch upon everything that makes the USG version so unacceptable in one succinct post.

Good stuff.

 

[editor]

Do the factual circumstances have to replicated? Have you tried thinking through the consequences this would have on the judicial system?

At any point are you going to even bother to try to begin to explain why the precedents cited thusfar are 'irrelavent'?

Sorry. I've given up trying to explain what 'precedented' means.

But be sure to look up the thousands of news articles stating that the 9/11 attacks were unprecedented and drop the authors a line if you're still confused.

 

[fela fan]

Yes, 'mate'. It would.

But one or two wouldn't...

 

[nosos]

Sorry. I've given up trying to explain what 'precedented' means.

You've not even begun to try and explain why you think the word means what you think it means!

But be sure to look up the thousands of news articles stating that the 9/11 attacks were unprecedented and drop the authors a line if you're still confused.

Fallacy of popularity - I can find millions of articles that say god exists - does he? Or does the principle (fallacy of popularity) only apply when it validates your own views?

 

[nosos]

It's a simple question: why do you think the precedents cited are irrelavent?

 

[Jo/Joe]

qwerty, this usg has done very little to those countries you mention. even then, you listed nothing comparable to 9/11.

how and why the towers fell as they did is explained clearly by civil engineers. there isn't any controversy in their community. use google and read it yourself.

since 9/11 is unprecedented, despite what you think, no one can say that any memebr of the USG is capable of being responsible for it. supporting dictators is run of the mill geo-politics. it is different to murdering thousands of your own citizens. why do that when simpler, less risky and more acceptable alternatives exist?

the failure to deal with the planes by us defences is a legit question, but not one that necessarily points towards the conspiracy suggested on this thread.

 

[editor]

But it's still precedent because it shows that there are historical examples that the US gov / military would consider such operations ...

Obviously that's irrelavent though because the only precedent for 9/11 would be if the US gov had already let the twin towers be blown up once before. Wait a minute ...

Err, during the Cold War all sorts of terrifying plans were dreamt up (including mutual nuclear destruction) but that doesn't mean that you can then conveniently cherry-pick long forgotten plans from decades ago and project them on to a different era with a different world order.

 

[fela fan]

Sorry. I've given up trying to explain what 'precedented' means.

But be sure to look up the thousands of news articles stating that the 9/11 attacks were unprecedented and drop the authors a line if you're still confused.

No, we're not talking about precendented or unprecedented, we're talking about 'precedents' and i gave one which you have dismissed, but have given no reason for said dismissal.

Why don't you just say why my precedent is invalid? It won't take more than a minute surely?

 

[Loki]

A top top post man. But when i first gave out that link in reply to incessant questions, the thread got almost instantly binned.

You touch upon everything that makes the USG version so unacceptable in one succinct post.

Good stuff.

I've seen that link maybe half a dozen times and it's failed to convince me that the USG was complicit in 9/11.

 

[Jo/Joe]

what do those 'precedents' prove? that some people are nasty?

 

[nosos]

Err, during the Cold War all sorts of terrifying plans were dreamt up (including mutual nuclear destruction) but that doesn't mean that you can then conveniently cherry-pick long forgotten plans from decades ago and project them on to a different era with a different world order.

Yeah, I agree partly but - especially in cases where the machinations behind these 'terrifying plans' were in place - it does mean that ideas such as these were considered very seriously and some were put into the very early stages of operation. Obviously it's not 8/11, the 'precedent' you seemingly seek though ...

 

[nosos]

what do those 'precedents' prove? that some people are nasty?

That the assertion "there's no precedent" for government's seeking to (do) x,y,z is factually incorrect ...

 

[fela fan]

what do those 'precedents' prove? that some people are nasty?

precedents don't prove anything. They do however, provide rationale to the human brain that something out of the ordinary, something difficult to believe, can actually be true due to something similar previously happening.

 

[nosos]

have given no reason for said dismissal.

Why don't you just say why my precedent is invalid? It won't take more than a minute surely?

Well that's what I thought myself but hey what do I know?

 

[editor]

It's a simple question: why do you think the precedents cited are irrelavent?

Simple answer: because I fail to see enough similarities to make it a relevant precedent to 9/11.

It was in a different country for starters. Different targets. Different people. Different government. Different time.

If you disagree, perhaps you could list the vital similarities?

 

[nosos]

Simple answer: because I fail to see enough similarities to make it a precedent.

It was in a different country for starters. Different targets. Different people. Different government. Different time.

Thankyou

 

[editor]

That the assertion "there's no precedent" for government's seeking to (do) x,y,z is factually incorrect ...

Err, so where's the precedent for the US Government - as the world's sole super power - to mass slaughter its own citizens and attack its own cities in a highly complex, highly risky plot in order to gain an excuse to invade (another) weaker country?

 

[nosos]

Which leaves us with the question of what qualifies as a 'relavent' precedent: do the factual circumstances have to be exactly replicated?

 

[nosos]

Are we looking for a precedent that the US Gov would be complicit in 9/11 or a precedent that they would be capable of being complicit in 9/11?

 

[fela fan]

Simple answer: because I fail to see enough similarities to make it a relevant precedent to 9/11.

It was in a different country for starters. Different targets. Different people. Different government. Different time.

If you disagree, perhaps you could list the vital similarities?

Good lord!

Similarities: same target - ie the people of that government's country; leaders both being humans; action taken to create the means to achieve one's ends; the fact that such planning goes on in leaders' minds; the fact that leaders are prepared to blow up their own citizens.

As for different times, any precedent will surely happen before its follow-up similar action???

 

[nosos]

As for different times, any precedent will surely happen before its follow-up similar action???

 

[fela fan]

Are we looking for a precedent that the US Gov would be complicit in 9/11 or a precedent that they would be capable of being complicit in 9/11?

Very pertinent question: it's the capability that the argument rests or falls on.

I must get my sleep now, tis a pity, coz this is good urban stuff. Fucking times zones!

 

[editor]

Similarities: same target - ie the people of that government's country; leaders both being humans; action taken to create the means to achieve one's ends; the fact that such planning goes on in leaders' minds; the fact that leaders are prepared to blow up their own citizens.

Oh well. That's it then. Humans were involved in both, so there's the precedent!

No other evidence needed then, eh 'mate'?!

 

[Jo/Joe]

there is no such precendent

 

[editor]

Which leaves us with the question of what qualifies as a 'relavent' precedent: do the factual circumstances have to be exactly replicated?

Something vaguely related to the events with one or two striking similarities would be a start.

What have you got?

 

[nosos]

What have you got?

Two pints of larger and a packet of crisps?

 

[nosos]

Are we looking for a precedent that the US Gov would be complicit in 9/11 or a precedent that they would be capable of being complicit in 9/11?

Anyway, my time on the internet cafe is running out now but this is the crux of the issue for me: which standard of precedent do you require?

Is it possible to establish the former? Is it necessary in order to make substantive assertions about what the US gov is capable of? I'd answer no to both questions.

Is the former acceptable as 'relavent' precedence? If so, no one's yet to counter Fela's precedents posted earlier on the thread ...