Iraq 911 link? What say you if true??

[kallend 2,107]

I made it up to be just as credible as rushmc's original post in this thread.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Everon 0]

I completely agree with you. I've been a U.S. citizen my whole life, and learned many years ago to take any information from the media here with a huge grain of salt. I always look elsewhere.

The problem is that the people here are extremely gullible, and tend to believe anything thrown at them without even the slightest interest in doing any verifiable research.

As far as 9/11 goes, Saudi Arabia is where one should look for links. And there will never be any ties found between SH and Osama bin Laden's network. After the Afghan war, OBL wanted to team up with Saudi Arabia to attack Iraq for invading Kuwait. The kingdom instead allied itself with the U.S. and let troops in. This infuriated OBL. By this point in time, OBL labeled SH an infidel, and remains one to this day. There is no way he would have ever worked with him. NO WAY.

[AlexCrowley 0]

I truly dont believe its a case of gullibility. We tend to solidify the edges of our world as we mature. Talk to a taxi driver one day about the number of fares they have that are mid-twenty year old males who are flying somewhere far away to a new life. More stay at home.

I could yammer on about perceptual realities but that tends to freak people out and they miss the point.

It's simply a case of what you're used to, familiarity breeds contempt, but it also provides a level of comfort, it's very easy to stop moving forward if you dont shake up your perceptions now and again.

Most people have their first and last shake up when they move away to college. Some will constantly move around, most will move back home, or to their boy/girlfriends home town and settle down.

There's no negative in that, its simply a matter of whats important to an individual. If there's a greater level of comfort in simply accepting the available information thats presented without looking deeper then thats fine. Perception *is* reality, whether we like that fact or not in BOTH directions.

So no, I dont think gullible is at all accurate. A society that has allowed the majority to attain a level of comfort that no longer requires an individuals educated participation in the decision making process? perhaps.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Everon 0]

You and I disagree on gullibility, but, hey, that makes for a good debate. I do agree with you to some extent on your thoughts, though. I believe people here just accept what they're told as the "gospel." For example, approximately 76% of U.S. citizens is christian. And the vast majority that I have met have this "magic bullet mentality" and accept things they are told with no scrutiny. I'm not sure on the percentages on this one, but I guarantee you that very few have actually read the bible from cover to cover. I have, on my own volition, and this led me straight to atheism. Not only is it wildly inaccurate and unverifiable, it's the most repulsively disgusting book I've ever read. But they are unaware of the vulgarity of it because they've never read it.

I have a master's in science, so I'm trained to accept nothing without solid proof or at the very least extremely compelling evidence - and this training flows over to all aspects of research I do - including sorting through what's reality and what's bullshit in the media. At one time, three quarters of the American public believed in a SH OBL connection. The first time I heard that one blurted out of sonny boy's mouth I couldn't stop laughing. Then to hear that 75% buy it? BEGGARS BELIEF! Not one of those people could have possibly done their homework on the relationship between the two.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I could yammer on about perceptual realities but that tends to freak people out and they miss the point.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I'm completely freaked about this. Ackkk, I don't get it.


{{{I don't think it's 'gullibility' it's more comfort zones and laziness. Easier to just accept something without thinking critically about it than to go get the real info. And I can comment without having to make a lame, impotent political reference - that's not necessaryilty to you AC}}}

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

1) you did not respond to the original question

ok fair comment. hypothetically, if it turned out that SH was involved in 9/11 then he should be charged and sentenced appropriately.

It wasn't a "crime" then, it was an act of war, in which case I would say we've been quite lenient. Terrorism, and their sponsors cannot be applied to the standard "criminal codes" (like what Clinton liked to do).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[crozby 0]

Quote

It wasn't a "crime" then, it was an act of war, in which case I would say we've been quite lenient. Terrorism, and their sponsors cannot be applied to the standard "criminal codes" (like what Clinton liked to do).

Hypothetically maybe, but the reality is that Bush had a whole lot more to do with 9/11 occuring than SH ever did.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

It wasn't a "crime" then, it was an act of war, in which case I would say we've been quite lenient. Terrorism, and their sponsors cannot be applied to the standard "criminal codes" (like what Clinton liked to do).

Hypothetically maybe, but the reality is that Bush had a whole lot more to do with 9/11 occuring than SH ever did.

And Clinton had a whole lot more to do with 9/11 happening than Bush. So whats your point?

[AlexCrowley 0]

The CIA had a whole lot to do with 9/11 happening far more than any head of state.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

The CIA had a whole lot to do with 9/11 happening far more than any head of state.

Now explain why. Why was the CIA's Intel so bad? Why wasn't the CIA and FBI able to communicate?

Hint: Gorelick.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

It wasn't a "crime" then, it was an act of war, in which case I would say we've been quite lenient.

IIRC there were military offices in each of the buildings involved in the attacks of 9/11. Doesn't that make them legitimate military targets?

I'm not defending the actions, or saying you are wrong, just trying to understand your logic.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

And Clinton had a whole lot more to do with 9/11 happening than Bush. So whats your point?

Given that morning's failures of NORAD, which appeared to be in good working order when Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted by fighter jets on Slick Willie's watch, I find this assertion difficult to believe.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

And Clinton had a whole lot more to do with 9/11 happening than Bush. So whats your point?

Given that morning's failures of NORAD, which appeared to be in good working order when Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted by fighter jets on Slick Willie's watch, I find this assertion difficult to believe.

Failures of Norad, hm? Ah, I believe I've found your site...hmm, interesting...is this the same site that says a meteor hit TWA 800?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Quote

The CIA had a whole lot to do with 9/11 happening far more than any head of state.

Now explain why. Why was the CIA's Intel so bad? Why wasn't the CIA and FBI able to communicate?

Hint: Gorelick.

Actually I was thinking more about their role in creating Al Quaida without considering the longer term ramifications.

But that on top of intels short sightedness re: middle east data gathering, a lack of decisiveness when initially handling the threat, and just totally missing the point all led to 9/11 being not only possible but totally probable.

Going into the various failures of military and law enforcement around 9/11 really doesnt prove anything except incompetance.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

It wasn't a "crime" then, it was an act of war, in which case I would say we've been quite lenient.

IIRC there were military offices in each of the buildings involved in the attacks of 9/11. Doesn't that make them legitimate military targets?

I'm not defending the actions, or saying you are wrong, just trying to understand your logic.

In military terms, I would agree, to a point. I don't recall what branches had offices there, or what their functions were. However, compared to the Pentagon, the WTC a private enterprise overall. It isn't difficult to see the military value of one building over the other.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The CIA had a whole lot to do with 9/11 happening far more than any head of state.

Now explain why. Why was the CIA's Intel so bad? Why wasn't the CIA and FBI able to communicate?

Hint: Gorelick.

Actually I was thinking more about their role in creating Al Quaida without considering the longer term ramifications.

Buzzer. Al Qaeda was created after the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan, and after Pakistani ISI and Saudi covert support for the Mujahideen (the CIA supported behind those two) during the war.

Quote

But that on top of intels short sightedness re: middle east data gathering, a lack of decisiveness when initially handling the threat, and just totally missing the point all led to 9/11 being not only possible but totally probable.

Going into the various failures of military and law enforcement around 9/11 really doesnt prove anything except incompetance.

Gorelick. The frigging wall. There were FBI field agents sounding the alarm about the would-be hijackers up to two years before 9/11. The CIA was gutted by Clinton in his first term. WTC attack Part I, 1993 didn't get the ball rolling right away, but there was a slow rebuilding effort of the agency, though losing all that HUMINT is hard to regain. Regardless, their approach to treating it as a crime, rather than an act of war, was proved not to work in the Embassy bombings in 1998, or the USS Cole in 2000.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The CIA had a whole lot to do with 9/11 happening far more than any head of state.

Now explain why. Why was the CIA's Intel so bad? Why wasn't the CIA and FBI able to communicate?

Hint: Gorelick.

Actually I was thinking more about their role in creating Al Quaida without considering the longer term ramifications.

Buzzer. Al Qaeda was created after the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan, and after Pakistani ISI and Saudi covert support for the Mujahideen (the CIA supported behind those two) during the war.

Buzzer? Urm.

So, I motivate a killer, I train a killer, I organize a killer and his buddies, I leave and then they choose a name so I'm not responsible?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[freethefly 6]

***What if Bush is an extraterrestrial?