Like you would survive a one on one encounter with any non-truther? That's hilarious! Let me get this straight. You run from discussion because we "avoid specific back and forth discussions". Aren't you doing EXACTLY what you claim we are doing? I believe that is called projection. You wrap up all the qualities about yourself you don't like and pretend others have these qualities. Truth of the matter is we respond to posts on a point by point basis. In general truthers run from this because they cannot respond to the facts. You, on the other hand, admit you run because you don't want to engage in discussion. How very telling. Who wants to believe someone who doesn't even want to discuss their own agenda driven theories? You're not going to convince anyone that way RWF.
No...I'm NOT going to convince anybody that doesn't want to be convinced. I don't engage in discussion with several characters in here because they have proven to be uninterested in the facts. Their only interest is in disinformation. It is completely pointless to engage in serious discussion with closed minds, or loyal "official" purveyors of all that is "official". These guys work hard night and day striking down any and all opposing views to anything that is counter to the popular fairy tale of what happened and how it happened. Pointless...wouldn't you conclude the same?
Not presenting your case under any pretense is a shame. Present it. I am curious. I don't believe everything we've been told about 9/11 myself. Present it.
I'll humor you...give me an example of what it is that you don't believe, and I'll share my insight on your particular point. So if debate and discussion is your objective, you'll respond accordingly. If it isn't...you'll ridicule and attack. Your turn.
This is such a typical truther reply. Ask them what they believe and they run away. Ask them to defend what they've claimed and they run away. But ask them for their opinion and they're more than happy to supply that as long as they don't have to get into the details.
This is such a typical truther reply. Ask them what they believe and they run away. Ask them to defend what they've claimed and they run away. But ask them for their opinion and they're more than happy to supply that as long as they don't have to get into the details.
Here we have the typical shill response. Giving them an avenue to specify their "disbelief" and open it up to scrutiny, and they fall back to the programmed ridicule versus pinning themselves down too tightly. A-Typical.
I don't have evidence to support my claims, but I believe that the US government had more knowledge about 9/11 than they have ever let on about. I'm a firm believer in the notion that there is a tidal wive of information that is behind lock and key, proverbially hidden from the public viewing eye in regards to 9/11. Granted, they have released a tsunami of information, but I know as well as anyone else that the American government does maintain a level of secrecy that would shake and level just about anyone's belief system in the government. So in theory, I believe that in one way or another, 9/11 was allowed to happen, a la the original Pearl Harbor.
Just to clarify . . . do you believe that the government could have stopped the attacks based on the information they had at the time but made the decision NOT to intervene and instead let the hijackers succeed?
But why? The people who were in power and supposedly benefited from the wars aren't in power anymore. Or do you believe that this decision had bipartisan support?
I believe that the influence of the business sector upon the American government, and all that of which entails, is of a persuasion that is unimaginable to us. I hardly think that the decision not to intervene was that of only the government on 9/11, just as I hardly believe that the decisions made behind closed doors are made by just governmental leaders. Into my analysis I factor into things like the military-industrial complex, and all of its influence. How much has the American military grown since 9/11? How many influential people have profited from 9/11, and then, from the invasions of both Afghanistan, and Iraq? And at a different level of analysis, to which I've previously questioned, but in another thread, to which extent did the United States previously explore invading Afghanistan? Was it not on the agenda of some American foreign policy think tanks? Nevertheless, we're unable to scour every State Department or DOD Top Secret report from the last thirty years, which in my mind, would turn all of hair grey, and in earnest, would probably give us the answers to many unsolved riddles. But like I said, I don't have evidence for my claims, I just have speculation, and a whole lot of other history and documents to paint a coincidental picture that indicates foul play.
Out of curiosity, have you ever worked for a Fortune 50 or even Fortune 100 company? Have you ever met a CEO for a large corporation to the point you felt you had a handle on his capabilities? I've worked for several fortune 50 companies and rubbed elbows with several of the CEOs. I was NOT impressed. So when people tell me it is these people driving the US government and behind all kinds of nefarious deeds, I have to laugh. In the end they are all still just people and not as "in control" as many people think. The internal politics in corporate America can rival and many times surpass public politics. Does this mean there are no back door deals? Under the table bribes and kickbacks? Closed door deals not involving people that shouldn't really be there? Oh hell no! Do I believe these hidden dealings have influence in the foreign policies of the US? Absolutely. Just as they do in most, if not all, countries. Here is why I disagree with you, Jango. While I believe there are evil people willing to do evil deeds to get their way, I do NOT believe there are as many of those people as people think or that could have pulled off / covered up the impending 9/11 attack. Looking back at 9/11 we know the outcomes. 3,000 people lost their lives. As bad as that sounds, it could have been FAR worse. People knowing the attack was coming including the how, where and when, would have to be aware the death toll could easily reach well into the five figure range. How many people do you know that could sleep with a clear concience with that many of their fellow American's deaths on their concience? I don't know of a single person who could. MOST people I know wouldn't be able to deal with being either directly or indirectly responsible for the death of one person. True, the military industrial complex (which is STILL just people no matter how nefarious it sounds) deals indirect death all the time, so the argument can be made that they would be use to it. But when you think about it, they do it so many levels removed and to our "enemies". I know the US has killed numerous people in its history. I know as a US citizen that I am in some small way responsible even if by voting in the people who did it. But that isn't what would be the case on 9/11. You would know an attack is coming that is going to kill thousands to tens of thousands and make the concious choice to do nothing and force those who can do something to do nothing. You would know that these people aren't Iraqis, Iranians, Russians, Jews, or any other enemy of the state. They are going to be Americans. You are going to know that people you KNOW are going to be either killed or affected. Think that doesn't make a difference? Now put it into another perspective. WHY was it done? For the money? CEOs by and large are already rich, so it isn't like it is going to make some huge difference in their lives. It isn't like if you or I suddenly had several tens of millions of dollars where that would be a life altering event. They are ALREADY rich. They would just be RICHER. I respect your opinion, especially the fact you make no bones it is just your opinion.
You bring up some excellent counterpoints, and I thank you for them, Patriot. But I must inform you, I have been down most of those roads already. I wanted to think that no American would allow an attack like 9/11 to happen. When 9/11 occurred, I was in the 10th grade. A lot of time has passed since then. I've served in the Marine Corps. I've grown up. And I've come to know people better. And I realized that Americans would sell Americans out. American History has this lesson all over it. Look at the way White Americans treated Black, Irish, and Native Americans, as well, White Women. They were all Americans, but were treated like garbage. And I must point out, when in comes to the discussion of conscience versus profit, and when being used in the application of the businessman, I do not believe that conscience wins out very often. As well the fact that the goal of any businessman is to make money. I think you might be overstating nationalism and patriotism in other people, of which, you do not know. As well the conscience. Our elected officials, usually at the behest of businessmen, have sent our armed forces into armed combat in so many different situations over the years now, which has accumulated a sizable death toll of American boys. That to me, is not nationalism nor patriotism nor conscience. That's sending our armed forces off to die to defend business interests in some far off land. So to answer your question, I think there are a lot of Americans that sleep soundly at night, and probably with a clear conscience because they don't care about the pawns in which they move about the board we call life with the strokes of their overpriced gold pens. Nevertheless, and not to mention, all of the "collateral damage" our military causes...
Point taken, but those were discriminations / crimes against a specific class, not Americans in general. One of man's ugly sides is the fact he can justify crimes against humanity through demonization and hatred. This is different. This is an attack directly against the American people in general. Not only that, but it is an attack that directly hurt the rich by crippling the financial sector and putting the US into a recession we are still feeling the impact from. Again you make an excellent point, but I have to clarify that while many will do petty crimes to make money via business, few are willing to commit or participate in a crime the size of 9/11. It is easy for some to sleep well at night knowing the sweatshops in China and the Phillipines are making them money while screwing over the workers. Being directly responsible for your fellow Americans' deaths is a whole different kettle of fish. Unfortunately, the lives of our servicemen are not viewed by many as the same as American civilians. It isn't nationalism or patriotism I am talking about, but a simple sense of community. Was it nationalism or patriotism that gave you that terrible feeling in your gut watching those towers burn or those people jumping to their deaths? Or was it the knowledge that these were people like you and I and if the circumstances were different it could well have been you or I? Our servicemen are not seen in the same light. A Marine being killed over in Somalia or some other (*)(*)(*)(*)hole where they are serving the interests of America barely makes the news whereas the killing of a black kid by a hispanic self appointed neighborhood watch chief shocks the entire nation. We don't disagree over this point, but these aren't the lives I was talking about. I was talking about the three thousand Americans who died on 9/11. It is not fair these people are mourned more than the servicemen that lost their lives post 9-11 in the military actions against Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is the truth of the matter.
On the contrary...it IS the least an average American could do for its veterans who lost their lives. Question WHY, discover truth and hold people accountable for their crimes against humanity. Make the war profiteers send their kids to die for profit.
Advocating killing people based on your paranoid delusions is a truther hallmark and one of the most despicable aspects of truthers. For someone always whining about the truth, why do you always run from it, RWAF? You make claims and when the lies are exposed, you run. How is anyone suppose to understand your "truth" when you can't even defend it?
Wanting a certain portion of people to be systematically killed to offset the grave injustices' that they had previously committed is not an unnatural thing to desire. I would consider the businessman's hands directing American troops to their deaths for over a hundred years to be a grave injustice for a lot of people, both foreign and domestic. I do not believe that American troops were protecting 'national security' in all of those deployments and/or missions around the world. I believe it as I have stated elsewhere and as I have here - they died protecting nothing more than American businessmen's interests abroad. And to my definition of ethical and moral behavior, I disagree with those methods. I find them deplorable. However, I also do not condone sacrificing the children of the guilty parties either. That is morally bankrupt behavior as well. Nevertheless, people, and lots of them, have simply floated through the system unscathed completely removed from punishment as one folded up flag after another gets handed over to some crying and broken human being. But hey, that's life.
Yeah, that kind of justification is how you get things like the holocaust. If someone has done something wrong, use the court system, not vigilante "justice" where you kill a person or their family to rectify an injustice that has not been proven. Do you have a proven example of this? So what interests were they defending in Iraq and Afghanistan? So why don't the families go after these businessmen in civil court?
1. Agreed. But as I stated, it isn't an unnatural desire. Look at how Americans reacted to 9/11. There was more than one person that said, "Turn 'em to glass." Furthermore, and as I also stated, I don't condone that kind of behavior 2. US history has plenty of examples of the military being deployed to protect the business interests of businessmen. Do I really need to cite examples of them for you? Here's a quote though: Smedley Butler 3. I don't think they were really defending much of anything in either country - in my opinion, they've gotten involved, or have taken over elements of things in the two countries. Since they wiped out pretty much any type of standing resistance to their efforts, they've been able to do the things they want to do in both countries. I mean, sure, they still have/had combat, but not like a standing army breathing down their necks. Well, I know that in Iraq, the military had the mission of securing the oil wells. Which IIRC, was one of the very first things on their 'to-do' list. Furthermore, and IIRC again, there are executive orders in place that have taken Iraqi property and made them American property, which would become American business property I would think. Then you have the natural gas in Iraq. I mean, Halliburton did set up shop over there. Hmm... Then you have Afghanistan. They have a how-many-billion-dollar drug trade. They have the pipeline. Afghan is more speculative. 4. I don't know. Good question. Maybe because people buy into the tagline of "men and women dying to secure our national security"? I know I used to.
