The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie

g under p

Byrnzie wrote:

Interesting logic:

Muslim extremists attacked America. Therefore, Iraq was a legitimate target.


That's like saying that because some terrorists blew up a bar in Bali a few years ago and killed a bunch of Western tourists, that Laos is now a legitimate target because the people there have slanty eyes.

But, fuck it, who needs a valid reason to bomb the shit out of a sovereign nation when you regard yourselves as being above the law, and you have a subservient media and a politically disengaged and apathetic public? Yesterdays Vietnam is today's Iraq. Today's Iraq is tomorrows Iran. And the carnage and the lies just go on, and on, and on.

Word it appears we don't need much of any excuse to attack any nation even one where we sold arms and gave money to it's leader.

Peace

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

Interesting logic:

Muslim extremists attacked America. Therefore, Iraq was a legitimate target.

who said this?

Byrnzie

Jlew: "..there were many people in power who wanted to go to war with Iraq and keep America as a super power. I ask...SO WHAT. what does this prove? fact is, 9/11 was an attack on our country by Muslim extremists."

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

Jlew: "..there were many people in power who wanted to go to war with Iraq and keep America as a super power. I ask...SO WHAT. what does this prove? fact is, 9/11 was an attack on our country by Muslim extremists."

how does that statement have anything to do with this..

Muslim extremists attacked America. Therefore, Iraq was a legitimate target. ?

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

Jlew: "..there were many people in power who wanted to go to war with Iraq and keep America as a super power. I ask...SO WHAT. what does this prove? fact is, 9/11 was an attack on our country by Muslim extremists."

since you will mostly likely put words in my mouth and make your own conclusions, I'll be clear.

my statement is saying that many people in power in America wanted to go to war with Iraq. America was attacked on 9/11 by Muslim extremists. these are mutually exclusive statements. if you followed the conversation you might have a fucking clue as to what we were talking about. but I'd be asking way too much.

Byrnzie

Nice attempt at backtracking and covering your ass. Shame you were too late.


Edit: At the very least it looks like someone around here needs to take a chill pill, as it looks like their mouth is running faster than their brain.

I'm gonna step back from the board for a while and just watch this train wreck unfold. :P

polaris_x

i like how this thread totally proved my point

the demonizing of people's independent thought is quite rampant ... just cuz you call people "crazy" or whatever you want doesn't make it so ...

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

Nice attempt at backtracking and covering your ass. Shame you were too late.


Edit: At the very least it looks like someone around here needs to take a chill pill, as it looks like their mouth is running faster than their brain.

I'm gonna step back from the board for a while and just watch this train wreck unfold. :P

how am I backtracking? my statement is very clear and I'm not backtracking on anything i said. certain people, like you and Nibblets, believe that Bush and the PNAC planned or allowed 9/11 to happen so we can go into Iraq. I say Musilm extremists attacked us on 9/11, and Bush and co went into Iraq anyway. you always need things dumbed down for you. hopefully you take a long step back from this board. your act of putting words in peoples mouth and spinning things has grown so old.

Pepe Silvia

Byrnzie wrote:

Interesting logic:

Muslim extremists attacked America. Therefore, Iraq was a legitimate target.


That's like saying that because some terrorists blew up a bar in Bali a few years ago and killed a bunch of Western tourists, that Laos is now a legitimate target because the people there have slanty eyes.

But, fuck it, who needs a valid reason to bomb the shit out of a sovereign nation when you regard yourselves as being above the law, and you have a subservient media and a politically disengaged and apathetic public? Yesterdays Vietnam is today's Iraq. Today's Iraq is tomorrows Iran. And the carnage and the lies just go on, and on, and on.

but to embrace that logic shouldn't they say 9/11 was an acceptable loss, just some random collateral damage for all the civilians we've killed in other countries?

Pepe Silvia

g under p wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Interesting logic:

Muslim extremists attacked America. Therefore, Iraq was a legitimate target.


That's like saying that because some terrorists blew up a bar in Bali a few years ago and killed a bunch of Western tourists, that Laos is now a legitimate target because the people there have slanty eyes.

But, fuck it, who needs a valid reason to bomb the shit out of a sovereign nation when you regard yourselves as being above the law, and you have a subservient media and a politically disengaged and apathetic public? Yesterdays Vietnam is today's Iraq. Today's Iraq is tomorrows Iran. And the carnage and the lies just go on, and on, and on.

Word it appears we don't need much of any excuse to attack any nation even one where we sold arms and gave money to it's leader.

Peace

maybe 1 day governments will learn not to sell anyone weaponry. during Iran/Contra Israel was our go between transferring the thousands of missiles to the Iranians and now they claim Iran is supplying rockets to terrorists? and look at our past 5 wars: panama, iraq, kosovo, afghanistan, iraq. as far as i know the only 1 we didn't arm was kosovo. they sell weapons then sell weapons in the war to overthrow that hostile nation. just like Halliburton sold Iran supplies that could be used to build nuclear weapons and before 2000 he actually lobbied to have the ban on business with them and some other countries removed! not that he cared, they still violated US law and did business with a few countries

Pepe Silvia

Byrnzie wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

And not only that National Geographic had a 2 hr show called 911 conspiracy and science where they debunked all of Dr.Ray Griffith's and the 911 truthers claims on how they think the Towers were brought down. It made them look like a bunch of fools. I couldn't stop laughing. Every time they debunked one of their claims all they would say is Oh that's irrelevant or that's ridiculous. It was a damn joke.

National Geographic - or was it discovery? - also aired a show in which they claimed to debunk the 'conspiracy theories' surrounding the murder of JFK, and it was all just a whitewash. They debunked nothing but just made themselves lose credibility and look ridiculous.
It makes you wonder who pays their wages.

i caught part of this national geographic special, inside 9/11. sadly i only saw the 80's through mid 90's. but a few observations.

the entire time span of the muhjadeen it only mentioned the CIA 2 times. the first time it said only the CIA was there. the 2nd time is to say the CIA gave them the stinger rockets which allowed them to shoot down the helicopters.

there's no mention of US/CIA and other countries funding of this, in fact they make it look like islamic 'charities' funded them.

when they get to the part of bin laden creating what would become al qaeda, again, they make no mention of US and other countries dumping a lot of funds into it, bin laden was working with the CIA when he created this group. the only mention they make of the funding is making it seem like bin laden funded it entirely saying he used some of his fortune to create the group.

so, a little on the sloppy side, i'd say, in not mentioning the foreign governments who pumped money into him/them and never mentioned the ISI who were the go betweens for the CIA and muhjadeen, they helped distribute the money as well but none of this is mentioned, it's made to seem like it's 100% islamic funding

Pepe Silvia

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

And not only that National Geographic had a 2 hr show called 911 conspiracy and science where they debunked all of Dr.Ray Griffith's and the 911 truthers claims on how they think the Towers were brought down. It made them look like a bunch of fools. I couldn't stop laughing. Every time they debunked one of their claims all they would say is Oh that's irrelevant or that's ridiculous. It was a damn joke.

National Geographic - or was it discovery? - also aired a show in which they claimed to debunk the 'conspiracy theories' surrounding the murder of JFK, and it was all just a whitewash. They debunked nothing but just made themselves lose credibility and look ridiculous.
It makes you wonder who pays their wages.

i caught part of this national geographic special, inside 9/11. sadly i only saw the 80's through mid 90's. but a few observations.

the entire time span of the muhjadeen it only mentioned the CIA 2 times. the first time it said only the CIA was there. the 2nd time is to say the CIA gave them the stinger rockets which allowed them to shoot down the helicopters.

there's no mention of US/CIA and other countries funding of this, in fact they make it look like islamic 'charities' funded them.

when they get to the part of bin laden creating what would become al qaeda, again, they make no mention of US and other countries dumping a lot of funds into it, bin laden was working with the CIA when he created this group. the only mention they make of the funding is making it seem like bin laden funded it entirely saying he used some of his fortune to create the group.

so, a little on the sloppy side, i'd say, in not mentioning the foreign governments who pumped money into him/them and never mentioned the ISI who were the go betweens for the CIA and muhjadeen, they helped distribute the money as well but none of this is mentioned, it's made to seem like it's 100% islamic funding

i'm sure the 2nd 1/2 is where it starts to get factual :roll:

he still stands

I've found that this logic usually holds true in every complex situation that I find myself in... it might be good for the 'truthers' to at least take a glance and consider the implications:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor

Additionally, like I originally posted, everyone's mind contains a 'thinker' and a 'prover.' If you truely believe in something, you will find ways to prove it is true. This essentially is all the "Secret" is, if you've ever read the book. Be careful with this, because it seems like some people believe in the 9/11 conspiracies to such an extent that no matter how much evidence is stacked up against them or whatever assumptions are proven wrong, they will replace those assumptions with new ones to 'prove' what they think or believe. I have found it good to believe in nothing (except love and optimism) and be open to all points of view. ok ok, i'll stop this existentialist diatribe.

polaris_x

he still stands wrote:

I've found that this logic usually holds true in every complex situation that I find myself in... it might be good for the 'truthers' to at least take a glance and consider the implications:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor

Additionally, like I originally posted, everyone's mind contains a 'thinker' and a 'prover.' If you truely believe in something, you will find ways to prove it is true. This essentially is all the "Secret" is, if you've ever read the book. Be careful with this, because it seems like some people believe in the 9/11 conspiracies to such an extent that no matter how much evidence is stacked up against them or whatever assumptions are proven wrong, they will replace those assumptions with new ones to 'prove' what they think or believe. I have found it good to believe in nothing (except love and optimism) and be open to all points of view. ok ok, i'll stop this existentialist diatribe.

would the reverse not apply here? ... that those who refuse to believe that 9/11 could be an inside job?

all i know about 9/11 is this: since then - personal freedoms have been limited in the US; two wars have been waged against sovereign nations; military spending is up; profits for oil companies have skyrocketed; profits for engineering companies have skyrocketed ...

jlew24asu

polaris_x wrote:

would the reverse not apply here? ... that those who refuse to believe that 9/11 could be an inside job?

all i know about 9/11 is this: since then - personal freedoms have been limited in the US; two wars have been waged against sovereign nations; military spending is up; profits for oil companies have skyrocketed; profits for engineering companies have skyrocketed ...

personal freedoms are not limited in the US. I'm just as free as I was on 9/10/01 except for tighter security at airports and other places of importance.

and profits for oil companies only have skyrocketed because of higher demand for oil. which is completely irrelevant to anything to 9/11 or any wars

polaris_x

jlew24asu wrote:

personal freedoms are not limited in the US. I'm just as free as I was on 9/10/01 except for tighter security at airports and other places of importance.

and profits for oil companies only have skyrocketed because of higher demand for oil. which is completely irrelevant to anything to 9/11 or any wars

higher demand? ... you THINK the skyrocketing cost of oil in the international markets is based on demand???????

jlew24asu

polaris_x wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

personal freedoms are not limited in the US. I'm just as free as I was on 9/10/01 except for tighter security at airports and other places of importance.

and profits for oil companies only have skyrocketed because of higher demand for oil. which is completely irrelevant to anything to 9/11 or any wars

higher demand? ... you THINK the skyrocketing cost of oil in the international markets is based on demand???????

yes, absolutely. the price of oil is traded on the open market. thus making speculators are part of that demand as well just as much as SUV owners..

he still stands

jlew24asu wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

personal freedoms are not limited in the US. I'm just as free as I was on 9/10/01 except for tighter security at airports and other places of importance.

and profits for oil companies only have skyrocketed because of higher demand for oil. which is completely irrelevant to anything to 9/11 or any wars

higher demand? ... you THINK the skyrocketing cost of oil in the international markets is based on demand???????

yes, absolutely. the price of oil is traded on the open market. thus making speculators are part of that demand as well just as much as SUV owners..

i think you need to read an economists definition of "demand." Speculation is certainly not part of it. $70/barrel was due to speculation when it was priced at $150. Same thing goes with corn (I work in agriculture)... during the past few years $1 can be added per bushel due to speculation, other than during profit taking periods.

jlew24asu

he still stands wrote:

i think you need to read an economists definition of "demand." Speculation is certainly not part of it. $70/barrel was due to speculation when it was priced at $150. Same thing goes with corn (I work in agriculture)... during the past few years $1 can be added per bushel due to speculation, other than during profit taking periods.

speculators were also partly responsible for bring the price of oil back to $40. its a classic move to blame them on the way up and praise them on the way down. either way, they take on the risk and move the price along with they believe demand for the product will be. they are part of the supply and demand curve.

he still stands

jlew24asu wrote:

he still stands wrote:

i think you need to read an economists definition of "demand." Speculation is certainly not part of it. $70/barrel was due to speculation when it was priced at $150. Same thing goes with corn (I work in agriculture)... during the past few years $1 can be added per bushel due to speculation, other than during profit taking periods.

speculators were also partly responsible for bring the price of oil back to $40. its a classic move to blame them on the way up and praise them on the way down. either way, they take on the risk and move the price along with they believe demand for the product will be. they are part of the supply and demand curve.

"part of the supply and demand curve" ?????

so you'd agree that speculation isn't "TRUE DEMAND." Dude you don't have to use language to conceal meaning... you can also use it to convey meaning.