well in this case I believe the reference to be true. prove me wrong. otherwise dont waste your time with useless comments. at least byzine was able to produce some evidence of his position
so america got what it deserved huh?
People often spell my name wrong Jlew, but 'byzine'? :eek:
that pretty much sums up your point of view to me...let's just say we vehemently disagree on just about everything
as far as your 911 point...you're basically saying...U.S. foreign policy has been evil, and we have really pissed off some people, so these people acted on it...yet you are somehow not saying we got what we deserved? I'm not baiting you. I'm asking you to explain yourself. It sounds to me like you are saying like we got what we deserved, but don't have the guts to actually say it. That's understandable...liberalism is all about easy, emotional, catch phrase arguments rather than genuine debate
hah! sure it was a random event for america. and i hope it is never repeated anywhere. but there are countries around the world that for them this 'random event' would seem par for the course.
i
So true!
It really fucking bothers me that every year now on July 7th in England people will be acting all melencholy and sanctimonious, whilst talking of the London terrorist attacks when 50 people were killed, whilst for Iraqi's, this shit has been happening EVERY FUCKING DAY for the past 4 years.
Can you imagine Iraq in the future having a remembrance day? They'd need to have one 365 days of the fucking year!
I didn't say Osama was bad or not-bad. I really have no clue. And what I hear is so distorted that I don't trust anything but my own perceptions. And they are drawing a blank. Bush on the other hand, he's pretty obvious.
WOW, I thought more highly of you than this...
Tell me you've seen at least one of the videos of Osama preaching about Jihad and killing Infidels. Just google some stuff on him. It is all translated word for word from his mouth. There is not dispute these are his words, and there is no distortion of his goals. He says it in plain language.
Preconceptions that you are intelegent enough to see through ALL the propaganda no matter who it supports or helps, and understand that Osama Bin Laden wants infidels who will not submit to his interpretation of Islam to die?
I mean he's said it over and over and over... it's no secret.
Okay, I'll throw that out...
It doesn't bother me to question things. But it is disturbing that somebody couldn't judge Osama Bin Laden based on his own words and/or deeds.
NCfan, truthfully, there are aspects of you that remind me very much of myself, particularly your conscientiousness and seeming well-intended nature. I truly believe you earnestly are seeking the best solutions. At the same time, there is one big difference between you and I: from what I've read of your posts, you are looking at events through an ethnocentric view. You are seeing everything through your American mind and your American culture. Therefore, the world events that you view, rather than view them as they are, you seem to see them through the American view, as interpreted through your own self.
I live, eat, breathe and sleep moving past my preconceptions and achieving actual understanding of what is happening. I accept nothing less than problem solving. And therefore, there is very, very little your government is doing that I can accept, because there is little to no real problem solving taking place. My focus is on a world-centric view--a global mindset. I am unwilling to pick sides, and accept one side as bad/wrong, and another as "right". This view is two-dimensional, unrealistic and fuels the problems we have going on worldwide. I've said this stuff to you before, so it should not surprise you.
Allow me to be clear--and in order for you to hear me, you will have to put aside your preconceptions of what you might want me to think and say. I have not committed to this stance here before, but here is what I think: Terrorism is ugly and brutal--and so is war. You've been accused of talking about these subjects as though you were playing a game of risk. And I've agreed with that interpration of you. AT THE SAME TIME, just like you will partake of strategic thinking, in order to utilise power and make things happen in the world, I UNDERSTAND terrorism and the purposes behind it. It is a strategy. And a very, very effective one. Just like you can be "objective" and play risk, so can others. In my mind it is what it is. Do you believe your strategies of destruction and killing are morally superior? I suspect so, hence you considering others "bad" and your own side "good". I don't follow the ethnocentric stance, however, and therefore cannot agree. Yes there are differences between terrorism and the ugly destruction your country acts out. However they are two sides of the same coin ultimately. In the heart of every man there are great heights of beauty, and there are great depths of ugliness. I happen to be empathic, like many others on this board, and I cannot help but understand "the other side".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
In order to get the concept of Osama-as-boogie-man, you have to recognise it for what it is and how it's been manipulated in order to keep people playing along so far. It's not about hatred, it's about awareness.
For the record, I don't know whether Osama is being deliberately overlooked and let free or not. I have seen enough speeches, though, and I'm quite up on my communication skills that I can see that Osama has been painted as a boogie-man and that his image, and the prevalent Amerian idea of the "bad guy out there somewhere" is being manipulated. You may be correct if you believe Bush desperately wants to capture Osama. Even if that is the case, Osama being absent ALSO has value to Bush, which he has regularly exploited.
In my quote, I said "in order to get the concept of Osama-as-boogie-man you have to recognise it for what it is." Your response was: I don't believe Bush has been manipulating the people by creating Osama the boogie man." In my opinion, if you don't see the manipulation, you show that you cannot truly understand the concept of the manipulated boogie man. You show that you believe he is a real boogie man, which is the purpose of the ploy in the first place. Of course I see the real ways the man is dangerous, but I'm talking about the concept of his danger that is being reaffirmed and built to mythic proportions. If you understood this concept, you would see it. If you saw it, you would not believe it to be false, because you would recognise it before your own eyes.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
modern wars make money for american companies. for global companies. end of story. that's is ALL what it is about. if you drill down deep enough that is what it comes down to.
after all this time, I cant believe you would make such a stupid statement
what is so stupid about it? you're the one making the illogical assertion that thinking anyone who thinks 9/11 was not a big surprise also feels america deserved it. that's a ridiculous contention, as ridiculous as the short skirt-rape thing. the analogy works... perhaps it explains why one entity was targeted as opposed to another, but it by no means implies that said entity deserved the crime that followed. america did not deserve 9/11. but given some of its actions in the past, it is not exactly shocking that it happened. do you really have such trouble wrapping your simple-minded black and white worldview around this concept?
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot". Mark Twain
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
what is so stupid about it? you're the one making the illogical assertion that thinking anyone who thinks 9/11 was not a big surprise also feels america deserved it. that's a ridiculous contention, as ridiculous as the short skirt-rape thing. the analogy works... perhaps it explains why one entity was targeted as opposed to another, but it by no means implies that said entity deserved the crime that followed. america did not deserve 9/11. but given some of its actions in the past, it is not exactly shocking that it happened. do you really have such trouble wrapping your simple-minded black and white worldview around this concept?
american did not deserve to be attacked on 9/11 given its actions in the past.
american did not deserve to be attacked on 9/11 given its actions in the past.
No one is saying America deserved to be attacked. What people are saying is that humans are fallible. When people get upset by American policies and actions, humans do not operate reasonably. They become upset and they become a threat. They will act in threating ways. This is because humans do not know how to operate ideally, especially when upset. This is just the way it is.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot". Mark Twain
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
No one is saying America deserved to be attacked. What people are saying is that humans are fallible. When people get upset by American policies and actions, humans do not operate reasonably. They become upset and they become a threat. They will act in threating ways. This is because humans do not know how to operate ideally, especially when upset. This is just the way it is.
I know I got it. america's foreign policy upsets so many that big bad america finally got what it deserved.
Example: Who/whom is standing by the gate?
He is standing by the gate. So who is correct.
Example: Gail wished she knew who/whom won.
Gail wished is a subject and verb pair (also called a clause). She knew is another subject and verb pair (clause). Who/whom won, the third clause, is the one we care about here. We would say he won so who is correct.
Rule: Use whom when you could replace it with him.
Example: To who/whom am I speaking?
Let’s turn the question into a sentence to make it easier: I am speaking to who/whom. We would say I am speaking to him. Therefore, whom is correct.
boy I really need to dumb things down for you dont I
ok whom did it
funny.
a small group.we know 100% that Chaney was in on it.the bush crime syndicate is a given,if you know anything about that families history.anyone who studies the facts knows the gov. version of the story is the conspiracy.
wait...jlew24asu..here comes the Shepherd,time to go.
"baahhh"
i know you do/think as your told,c ya later dude.
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot". Mark Twain
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
a small group.we know 100% that Chaney was in on it.the bush crime syndicate is a given,if you know anything about that families history.anyone who studies the facts knows the gov. version of the story is the conspiracy.
wait...jlew24asu..here comes the Shepherd,time to go.
"baahhh"
i know you do/think as your told,c ya later dude.
o well since you say its 100% how can I argue with that. I stand corrected.
on 9/11 america was the victim. IMHO america did nothing to warrent such an attack
I understand what you are saying. America did not deserve that attack. It is inappropriate to kill thousands of people in order to make an point. The people who died were innocent victims of a cruel plot.
Did you understand what I said two posts back? People rarely live up to our expectations. People are flawed and when they are upset, they respond in anger, sadness and sometimes violence. We never, EVER deserve a violent response. And still sometimes that is what happens when you make people angry. If America makes someone angry, America is responsible for the action they did that made another country or group angry. America is NEVER responsible for any response by another country, or group because America is only responsible for what America controls (their own actions), which is separate from the feelings or actions of another which they do not control.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I understand what you are saying. America did not deserve that attack. It is inappropriate to kill thousands of people in order to make an point. The people who died were innocent victims of a cruel plot.
Did you understand what I said two posts back? People rarely live up to our expectations. People are flawed and when they are upset, they respond in anger, sadness and sometimes violence. We never, EVER deserve a violent response. And still sometimes that is what happens when you make people angry. If America makes someone angry, America is responsible for the action they did that made another country or group angry. America is NEVER responsible for any response by another country, or group because America is only responsible for what America controls (their own actions), which is separate from the feelings or actions of another which they do not control.
Do you agree with me? Do you agree that America is responsible for when they cross lines, and harm other people and use power irresponsibly?
And do you agree with me that terrorists are responsible for when they cross lines, harm other people and use power irresponsibly?
Do you agree that we cannot blur those lines? And do you agree that when anyone is accountable for their actions, that they just are? Whether they accept that accountability or not?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Dick Cheney was running several war games in the north eastern portion of the United States. These drills included many hijacking scenarios, where commercial jets were hijacked and flown into buildings. At the same time Cheney had arranged for a drill involving a bio attack on NY. This resulted in FEMA setting up a command post on pier 29 in New York on September 10th.
Some of these drill were scheduled for later in the year but Dick Cheney rescheduled them and made sure that they all took place on the same day. This was unprecedented.
The war games involved live fly exercises, and electronic drills where fake blips were placed on radar screens. Cheney was in charge of a communications system that superseded those of the FAA, NORAD and NEADS. Some of the drills possibly included remote control planes.
Dick Cheney is member of the Project for a New American Century. This is an organization of political ideologues (neocons) who wrote detailed plans than included invading Afghanistan, Iraq & the middle east. Their goal is ensure America is the only super power in the world. You can research their work for it is public information. Members of PNAC include Donald Rumsfeld and more than ten members of the Bush foreign & defense policy teams. In their documentation they openly state that the public and Congress would not accept their agenda and that the transition would be a slow one “absent a catalyzing and catastrophic event like a New Pearl Harbor!”
Cheney was in a position to have the air defense agencies stand down.
From from September 2000 to June 2001, 67 planes steered off course. All 67 times our air defense systems worked as they should, and interceptors were launched. You may remember this happening when Payne Stewart and his crew died in flight. On September 11th, 2001, when Dick Cheney was running his war games, 4 jet airliners were supposedly hijacked, and all our systems that have worked flawlessly 67 times that year, failed. Coincidence?
While these facts seem to incriminate Cheney, all you can do within reason is ask these questions:
Was Cheney in a position to have the defense systems stand down?
Did Cheney, a member of PNAC, a group who expressed the fact that their agenda would be better accepted if we had a “new Pearl Harbor”, have a motive? Did he benefit from the events?
Could the events have been an accident? Could the drills have gone bad?
Why did the 9/11 Commission Report omit the information about the drills, making only 1 mention of them in a single footnote. The report only mentioned 1 drill, and falsely described it as a drill to defend against Russian Bombers. In the age of ICBMs, are we to believe that we have to practice defending the nation against Russian bombers in the north eastern portion of the US?
Why have the news media neglected to inform the public of Cheney’s actions that day?
Why did Bush and Cheney insist on being questioned by the commission together, without being taped, without taking an oath and with no records kept?
If you did not know this information, you have to ask yourself why it is not common knowledge? You also have to ask what else don’t you know?
In the years following the event, have you ever heard from the people who you were told committed these acts? Or, have you only been told why this happened by the people who want you to believe their story.
Use your common sense. Do you think the global intelligence powers failed this badly? Do you think men who could barely pilot a 2 seat plane can navigate across several states and find their target? Are you that gullible? Have some self respect, and think before you believe what you are told.
also.
Osama bin Laden: "I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot". Mark Twain
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
Osama bin Laden: "I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."
Do you have a reliable source on this? The only ones I could find were Al Jazeera or whatreallyhappened.com.
Also the pnac part is very interesting but I fail to find the names you mentionned on their website?
Do you have a reliable source on this? The only ones I could find were Al Jazeera or whatreallyhappened.com.
Also the pnac part is very interesting but I fail to find the names you mentionned on their website?
american did not deserve to be attacked on 9/11 given its actions in the past.
fair enough. you see it one way. i see it as america did not deserve to be attacked on 9/11 despite some of its mistakes in the past. you're gung ho nationalistic, imperial foreign policy. im not. but regardless, we both agree that 9/11 was a sickening act that we did not deserve. im just less surprised that it happened than you were.
On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Dick Cheney was running several war games in the north eastern portion of the United States. These drills included many hijacking scenarios, where commercial jets were hijacked and flown into buildings. At the same time Cheney had arranged for a drill involving a bio attack on NY. This resulted in FEMA setting up a command post on pier 29 in New York on September 10th.
Some of these drill were scheduled for later in the year but Dick Cheney rescheduled them and made sure that they all took place on the same day. This was unprecedented.
The war games involved live fly exercises, and electronic drills where fake blips were placed on radar screens. Cheney was in charge of a communications system that superseded those of the FAA, NORAD and NEADS. Some of the drills possibly included remote control planes.
Dick Cheney is member of the Project for a New American Century. This is an organization of political ideologues (neocons) who wrote detailed plans than included invading Afghanistan, Iraq & the middle east. Their goal is ensure America is the only super power in the world. You can research their work for it is public information. Members of PNAC include Donald Rumsfeld and more than ten members of the Bush foreign & defense policy teams. In their documentation they openly state that the public and Congress would not accept their agenda and that the transition would be a slow one “absent a catalyzing and catastrophic event like a New Pearl Harbor!”
Cheney was in a position to have the air defense agencies stand down.
From from September 2000 to June 2001, 67 planes steered off course. All 67 times our air defense systems worked as they should, and interceptors were launched. You may remember this happening when Payne Stewart and his crew died in flight. On September 11th, 2001, when Dick Cheney was running his war games, 4 jet airliners were supposedly hijacked, and all our systems that have worked flawlessly 67 times that year, failed. Coincidence?
While these facts seem to incriminate Cheney, all you can do within reason is ask these questions:
Was Cheney in a position to have the defense systems stand down?
Did Cheney, a member of PNAC, a group who expressed the fact that their agenda would be better accepted if we had a “new Pearl Harbor”, have a motive? Did he benefit from the events?
Could the events have been an accident? Could the drills have gone bad?
Why did the 9/11 Commission Report omit the information about the drills, making only 1 mention of them in a single footnote. The report only mentioned 1 drill, and falsely described it as a drill to defend against Russian Bombers. In the age of ICBMs, are we to believe that we have to practice defending the nation against Russian bombers in the north eastern portion of the US?
Why have the news media neglected to inform the public of Cheney’s actions that day?
Why did Bush and Cheney insist on being questioned by the commission together, without being taped, without taking an oath and with no records kept?
If you did not know this information, you have to ask yourself why it is not common knowledge? You also have to ask what else don’t you know?
In the years following the event, have you ever heard from the people who you were told committed these acts? Or, have you only been told why this happened by the people who want you to believe their story.
Use your common sense. Do you think the global intelligence powers failed this badly? Do you think men who could barely pilot a 2 seat plane can navigate across several states and find their target? Are you that gullible? Have some self respect, and think before you believe what you are told.
also.
Osama bin Laden: "I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."
lol/ Bush orchestrated 9/11.... but i heard he actually planted the bomb in the rider truck for the first world trade center attack. I also heard he was hanging out in africa during the late 90's for the embassy bombings.
And Oklahoma.... Timothy mcveigh served in the first iraq war...which means George Bush did it.
Comments
You reap what you sow.
So true!
It really fucking bothers me that every year now on July 7th in England people will be acting all melencholy and sanctimonious, whilst talking of the London terrorist attacks when 50 people were killed, whilst for Iraqi's, this shit has been happening EVERY FUCKING DAY for the past 4 years.
Can you imagine Iraq in the future having a remembrance day? They'd need to have one 365 days of the fucking year!
NCfan, truthfully, there are aspects of you that remind me very much of myself, particularly your conscientiousness and seeming well-intended nature. I truly believe you earnestly are seeking the best solutions. At the same time, there is one big difference between you and I: from what I've read of your posts, you are looking at events through an ethnocentric view. You are seeing everything through your American mind and your American culture. Therefore, the world events that you view, rather than view them as they are, you seem to see them through the American view, as interpreted through your own self.
I live, eat, breathe and sleep moving past my preconceptions and achieving actual understanding of what is happening. I accept nothing less than problem solving. And therefore, there is very, very little your government is doing that I can accept, because there is little to no real problem solving taking place. My focus is on a world-centric view--a global mindset. I am unwilling to pick sides, and accept one side as bad/wrong, and another as "right". This view is two-dimensional, unrealistic and fuels the problems we have going on worldwide. I've said this stuff to you before, so it should not surprise you.
Allow me to be clear--and in order for you to hear me, you will have to put aside your preconceptions of what you might want me to think and say. I have not committed to this stance here before, but here is what I think: Terrorism is ugly and brutal--and so is war. You've been accused of talking about these subjects as though you were playing a game of risk. And I've agreed with that interpration of you. AT THE SAME TIME, just like you will partake of strategic thinking, in order to utilise power and make things happen in the world, I UNDERSTAND terrorism and the purposes behind it. It is a strategy. And a very, very effective one. Just like you can be "objective" and play risk, so can others. In my mind it is what it is. Do you believe your strategies of destruction and killing are morally superior? I suspect so, hence you considering others "bad" and your own side "good". I don't follow the ethnocentric stance, however, and therefore cannot agree. Yes there are differences between terrorism and the ugly destruction your country acts out. However they are two sides of the same coin ultimately. In the heart of every man there are great heights of beauty, and there are great depths of ugliness. I happen to be empathic, like many others on this board, and I cannot help but understand "the other side".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Here is the commentary as it stood. To which I added:
For the record, I don't know whether Osama is being deliberately overlooked and let free or not. I have seen enough speeches, though, and I'm quite up on my communication skills that I can see that Osama has been painted as a boogie-man and that his image, and the prevalent Amerian idea of the "bad guy out there somewhere" is being manipulated. You may be correct if you believe Bush desperately wants to capture Osama. Even if that is the case, Osama being absent ALSO has value to Bush, which he has regularly exploited.
In my quote, I said "in order to get the concept of Osama-as-boogie-man you have to recognise it for what it is." Your response was: I don't believe Bush has been manipulating the people by creating Osama the boogie man." In my opinion, if you don't see the manipulation, you show that you cannot truly understand the concept of the manipulated boogie man. You show that you believe he is a real boogie man, which is the purpose of the ploy in the first place. Of course I see the real ways the man is dangerous, but I'm talking about the concept of his danger that is being reaffirmed and built to mythic proportions. If you understood this concept, you would see it. If you saw it, you would not believe it to be false, because you would recognise it before your own eyes.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
what is so stupid about it? you're the one making the illogical assertion that thinking anyone who thinks 9/11 was not a big surprise also feels america deserved it. that's a ridiculous contention, as ridiculous as the short skirt-rape thing. the analogy works... perhaps it explains why one entity was targeted as opposed to another, but it by no means implies that said entity deserved the crime that followed. america did not deserve 9/11. but given some of its actions in the past, it is not exactly shocking that it happened. do you really have such trouble wrapping your simple-minded black and white worldview around this concept?
nuff said.
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
not who,whom.
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
ok whom did it
http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/?p=3
Rule: Use who when you could replace it with he.
Example: Who/whom is standing by the gate?
He is standing by the gate. So who is correct.
Example: Gail wished she knew who/whom won.
Gail wished is a subject and verb pair (also called a clause). She knew is another subject and verb pair (clause). Who/whom won, the third clause, is the one we care about here. We would say he won so who is correct.
Rule: Use whom when you could replace it with him.
Example: To who/whom am I speaking?
Let’s turn the question into a sentence to make it easier: I am speaking to who/whom. We would say I am speaking to him. Therefore, whom is correct.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
funny.
a small group.we know 100% that Chaney was in on it.the bush crime syndicate is a given,if you know anything about that families history.anyone who studies the facts knows the gov. version of the story is the conspiracy.
wait...jlew24asu..here comes the Shepherd,time to go.
"baahhh"
i know you do/think as your told,c ya later dude.
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
I understand what you are saying. America did not deserve that attack. It is inappropriate to kill thousands of people in order to make an point. The people who died were innocent victims of a cruel plot.
Did you understand what I said two posts back? People rarely live up to our expectations. People are flawed and when they are upset, they respond in anger, sadness and sometimes violence. We never, EVER deserve a violent response. And still sometimes that is what happens when you make people angry. If America makes someone angry, America is responsible for the action they did that made another country or group angry. America is NEVER responsible for any response by another country, or group because America is only responsible for what America controls (their own actions), which is separate from the feelings or actions of another which they do not control.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I hear what your screamin.
And do you agree with me that terrorists are responsible for when they cross lines, harm other people and use power irresponsibly?
Do you agree that we cannot blur those lines? And do you agree that when anyone is accountable for their actions, that they just are? Whether they accept that accountability or not?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Some of these drill were scheduled for later in the year but Dick Cheney rescheduled them and made sure that they all took place on the same day. This was unprecedented.
The war games involved live fly exercises, and electronic drills where fake blips were placed on radar screens. Cheney was in charge of a communications system that superseded those of the FAA, NORAD and NEADS. Some of the drills possibly included remote control planes.
Dick Cheney is member of the Project for a New American Century. This is an organization of political ideologues (neocons) who wrote detailed plans than included invading Afghanistan, Iraq & the middle east. Their goal is ensure America is the only super power in the world. You can research their work for it is public information. Members of PNAC include Donald Rumsfeld and more than ten members of the Bush foreign & defense policy teams. In their documentation they openly state that the public and Congress would not accept their agenda and that the transition would be a slow one “absent a catalyzing and catastrophic event like a New Pearl Harbor!”
Cheney was in a position to have the air defense agencies stand down.
From from September 2000 to June 2001, 67 planes steered off course. All 67 times our air defense systems worked as they should, and interceptors were launched. You may remember this happening when Payne Stewart and his crew died in flight. On September 11th, 2001, when Dick Cheney was running his war games, 4 jet airliners were supposedly hijacked, and all our systems that have worked flawlessly 67 times that year, failed. Coincidence?
While these facts seem to incriminate Cheney, all you can do within reason is ask these questions:
Was Cheney in a position to have the defense systems stand down?
Did Cheney, a member of PNAC, a group who expressed the fact that their agenda would be better accepted if we had a “new Pearl Harbor”, have a motive? Did he benefit from the events?
Could the events have been an accident? Could the drills have gone bad?
Why did the 9/11 Commission Report omit the information about the drills, making only 1 mention of them in a single footnote. The report only mentioned 1 drill, and falsely described it as a drill to defend against Russian Bombers. In the age of ICBMs, are we to believe that we have to practice defending the nation against Russian bombers in the north eastern portion of the US?
Why have the news media neglected to inform the public of Cheney’s actions that day?
Why did Bush and Cheney insist on being questioned by the commission together, without being taped, without taking an oath and with no records kept?
If you did not know this information, you have to ask yourself why it is not common knowledge? You also have to ask what else don’t you know?
In the years following the event, have you ever heard from the people who you were told committed these acts? Or, have you only been told why this happened by the people who want you to believe their story.
Use your common sense. Do you think the global intelligence powers failed this badly? Do you think men who could barely pilot a 2 seat plane can navigate across several states and find their target? Are you that gullible? Have some self respect, and think before you believe what you are told.
also.
Osama bin Laden: "I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
Do you have a reliable source on this? The only ones I could find were Al Jazeera or whatreallyhappened.com.
Also the pnac part is very interesting but I fail to find the names you mentionned on their website?
lol At that quote....
fair enough. you see it one way. i see it as america did not deserve to be attacked on 9/11 despite some of its mistakes in the past. you're gung ho nationalistic, imperial foreign policy. im not. but regardless, we both agree that 9/11 was a sickening act that we did not deserve. im just less surprised that it happened than you were.
i agree 100%.
dude, did you ever see jfk??? it's so TRUE man!
lol/ Bush orchestrated 9/11.... but i heard he actually planted the bomb in the rider truck for the first world trade center attack. I also heard he was hanging out in africa during the late 90's for the embassy bombings.
And Oklahoma.... Timothy mcveigh served in the first iraq war...which means George Bush did it.