|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Oh yes, just like Roosevelt allowed for Pearl Harbour. Yes. A good number of ships were at sea that day which prevented the attack from being a crippling blow to the Pacific fleet. 'At this point, what difference does it make?'
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
I'm sure the president has no control over training exorcises. And Pearl was a crippling blow to the Pacific fleet. The US just had a shitton of idle resources and manpower that it could throw into rebuilding damned quick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I am not saying there's a conspiracy, more as a response to someone saying there were opportunistic. "Hey man, I'm just asking questions. Proof? Well, it doesn't make any difference now anyway. I'm just sayin' is all." If a CIA analyst or FBI translator had uncovered loving 9/11 before it happened, don't you think he would have said so? Don't you think one of his bosses would have said something? Don't you think the loving 9/11 Commission would have noticed documentation of the very plot they were investigating? Or is this another conspiracy with dozens of participants from both political parties and bureaucrats from every federal agency?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Never attribute to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence. Ultimately it doesn't really matter. But these are people who lied about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction to drag America into a war that costs trillions and has destabilised the middle east massively. They (the top level neocons in the Bush administration) were deeply involved in a lot of the shady poo poo going down in the 1980s including things such as training and supporting paramilitary death squads in south America, supporting dictatorships, and at the very least looking the other way when drugs were used to fund the contras. These are people who are reprehensible war criminals, and 9/11 was the catalysing event they needed to kick it all off. They were very lucky with those terrorist attacks. Ultimately it doesn't matter whether they knew or not, whether they let it happen, helped it along or just made the most of the situation. There's enough to hang them for without that particular conspiracy theory and personally I think to focus on it detracts from the clear crimes which they have committed and should be held accountable for. Was 9/11 another Gulf Tonkin or Operation Northwoods? As I said, it doesn't really matter, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it was. And you're right, there is no hard evidence, and it could all just be a happy co-incidence. JFairfax fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Never attribute to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence. Whenever you find conspiracy theories plausible, just repeat this to yourself until you no longer feel the need to make dumb posts, Mr. "I wouldn't be surprised at all if 9/11 was an inside job, even if that makes only the slightest strategic sense".
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
By the PNAC's own admission it made a lot of strategic sense as it allowed them to advance their own agenda far more rapidly than if it, or a similar event, hadn't happened. Do you think that the Bush administration would have been able to invade Afghanistan and Iraq without 9/11? It would have been a much tougher sell that's for drat sure. Anyway, it's an interesting historical event. It's the Reichstag fire of our generation. JFairfax fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Ultimately it doesn't really matter. That's obscene- it matters enormously how and why people die, both as a matter of historical understanding, and as a matter of justice. If you can provide evidence that the The Big Florist lobby had a hand in the murder of Lady Di, Princess of Wales, and not merely evidence they stood to gain from her death, then you are obligated to tell us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Lady Di was killed by the Daily Express, i think that much is clear, they have clearly benefitted most from her death: and I think this is just the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
I thought those were all from the 90's until I saw the ad for Iron Man 3 at the top of one 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:By the PNAC's own admission it made a lot of strategic sense as it allowed them to advance their own agenda far more rapidly than if it, or a similar event, hadn't happened. You're operating on confirmation bias. The report doesn't say anything that they need or would benefit from a "New Pearl Harbor" - only that presuming a status quo, their policy changes would progress slowly. And not only that, you edited the report very selectively to provide that quotation: let's look at the "transformation" that they mention: PNAC posted:To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. That's from the chapter with the infamous phrase, which the report uses in the context military strategy and development instead of general policy or foreign affairs. You could even argue that the use of the phrase presumes symmetrical warfare instead of terrorism (guess how many times "terrorist" and "terrorism" are even mentioned in the whole text). The report mentions "Pearl Harbor" twice, and the other is in the very literal sense of an attack on the US Navy. PNAC posted:Absent a rigorous program ofexperimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age e: The implication is there, but it's just that - an implication, which seems sinister in hindsight. e2: There's much more worrying stuff in there, so good job picking the least threatening bit. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:By the PNAC's own admission it made a lot of strategic sense as it allowed them to advance their own agenda far more rapidly than if it, or a similar event, hadn't happened. If they really wanted to use a terrorist attack they could have just set off another car bomb under the WTC and put an "I LOVE SADDAM" bumper sticker on it, or left a bunch of forged documents in the trunk implicating Iraqi terrorists. You don't need an elaborate plan involving 4 simultaneous plane hijackings and the deaths of thousands of people. That makes no sense. And there's the fact that the administration didn't give two fucks about Afghanistan until 9/11. And there's the fact that Iraq was completely uninvolved in the 9/11 attack. And there's the fact that the attack on Iraq was justified justified with a search for chemical weapons, a matter that had been escalating in Iraq for a decade by the time the 9/11 attacks occurred. In other words no, the Bush administration really didn't need 9/11 to justify an invasion of Iraq, you're an idiot
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Quite, the PNAC itself is rather sinister and very real - so far they seem to be doing quite well regarding their objectives, and Obama is continuing their strategy with the Asia pivot. This is why I say ultimately it doesn't matter whether or not 9/11 was an inside job or not, it's the results from it and the fallout we are now dealing with that are more important. The increased militarisation and defacto war footing that we seem to be on permanently, the resurgence of the military, industrial, congressional complex that is utterly unchallenged. In the context of this thread, and 9/11 trutherism I think the PNAC are worth a discussion as they represent a much more plausible angle than the missiles, controlled demolitions, vanishing planes or anything else that represents 'trutherism'. And as you point out Lamps there is much more worrying stuff that these folks have done and are doing. Their legacy will be with us for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In other words no, the Bush administration really didn't need 9/11 to justify an invasion of Iraq, you're an idiot Maybe they didn't need it, but they sure as gently caress made the most of it, eventually they admitted there was no link. All they did was repeatedly mention 9/11 and Iraq together, so much so that a majority of the American people believed Saddam was involved directly. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3119676.stm Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two. A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks. Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for the 11 September attacks. President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September. We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed. Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime. President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003. For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength. They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities. President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:In the context of this thread, and 9/11 trutherism I think the PNAC are worth a discussion as they represent a much more plausible angle than the missiles, controlled demolitions, vanishing planes or anything else that represents 'trutherism'. It's actually not any more plausible, mainly because there's no evidence for an inside job or anybody reliably foreseeing the attack for the purpose of strategic goals. In fact, it makes you look dumber for grasping at a more "plausible" conspiracy theory. e: JFairfax posted:This is why I say ultimately it doesn't matter whether or not 9/11 was an inside job or not, it's the results from it and the fallout we are now dealing with that are more important. Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories actually matters, no matter how you try to deny it. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist. Thank God our justice system disagrees in every way with everything you just said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist. This is literally an appeal to ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Well those aren't my words, but rather those of Donald Rumsfeld speaking about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
If you want to reference check that. http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3490
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Maybe they didn't need it, but they sure as gently caress made the most of it, eventually they admitted there was no link. Which means that they didn't cause it and didn't know with certainty that it was about to happen. JFairfax posted:There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist. That's just baseless speculation, and it's a logical fallacy JFairfax posted:Well those aren't my words, but rather those of Donald Rumsfeld speaking about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So you're as intellectually honest as DRums talking about WMDs? You're not making a strong case for yourself here
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
If you actually want to make a statement that isn't mealy-mouthed "but maybe it happened" and dodging questions when confronted on bullshit, try to accept that any statement must be falsifiable. "9/11 might have been an inside job/allowed because there's not absolute uncertain evidence that it wasn't(that I approve of)" isn't an argument. Arguments need actual proof.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
I wish 'arguments need proof' had been the message of the day when Rumsfeld, Cheney, Blair and the rest were making the case for war with Iraq.QuarkJets posted:So you're as intellectually honest as DRums talking about WMDs? You're not making a strong case for yourself here Part of the point of that is that Rumsfeld, secretary of defence was willing to lie to America and the world, to initiate wars of aggression at a huge human and financial cost. They talked about creating their own reality at the time. Do I believe that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Co. ordered 9/11? No. There is no evidence for that. They sure as hell benefitted from it, they exploited it, utilised it and are at best war criminals. Given that I think they're murderous war criminals who would lie to, and bankrupt their own people, it's a case of how far would they go. And frankly I wouldn't put anything past that lot. But obviously that isn't evidence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I wish 'arguments need proof' had been the message of the day when Rumsfeld, Cheney, Blair and the rest were making the case for war with Iraq. We already agree that their statements were stupid, as did most liberals at the time. You're not going to get anywhere by trying to do the same thing that they did quote:Part of the point of that is that Rumsfeld, secretary of defence was willing to lie to America and the world, to initiate wars of aggression at a huge human and financial cost. They talked about creating their own reality at the time. Yes, obviously baseless speculation is not evidence, therefore the entire idea that people in the Whitehouse knew 9/11 was about to happen and ignored it so that they could invade Iraq despite having many solutions that did not require 9/11 is an idea that is moronic at best. Your entire fallacious concept relies on the idea that they needed 9/11 to happen. But they didn't. Your assumptions are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I wish 'arguments need proof' had been the message of the day when Rumsfeld, Cheney, Blair and the rest were making the case for war with Iraq. Whoa, keep those radical ideas in check, next thing you'll tell us that Bush was a bad president like that wasn't one of the bedrocks of our political consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Yes. A good number of ships were at sea that day which prevented the attack from being a crippling blow to the Pacific fleet. Only the 3 carriers in the pacific, which were very busy doing carrier stuff. It's not unlikely they would be out at sea when there was so much for them to do. What really prevented Pearl Harbor from being a crippling blow was Nagumo getting spooked and not launching more waves. If they had hit the fuel depot we would have been far more hosed. Ultimately though Japan hosed themselves because you really should not kick off an oceanic war, the most expensive kind of war, against the largest economy and industrial base in the world. Japan was doomed and even if Pearl had been a total success they still would have lost the war by 1945.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
They did lie and everyone called them on it and they did it anyway and nobody cared. They didn't have to bother with a conspiracy because the powerful do whatever they want and only sometimes can anybody stop them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:They did lie and everyone called them on it and they did it anyway and nobody cared. They didn't have to bother with a conspiracy because the powerful do whatever they want and only sometimes can anybody stop them. But you're not them. Why are you trying to do the same thing? EDIT: Oh that wasn't you. Sorry!
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Maybe they didn't need it, but they sure as gently caress made the most of it Which proves they were politicians and had
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:30
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I don't know guys he's just asking some pretty interesting questions, like what if the planes were actually holograms and the towers were destroyed by lizard people? Sure seems awfully convenient
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I wish 'arguments need proof' had been the message of the day when Rumsfeld, Cheney, Blair and the rest were making the case for war with Iraq. Whoa whoa slow down there buddy, are you saying........ the bush administration did bad things?! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:Whoa whoa slow down there buddy, are you saying........ the bush administration did bad things?! My trust in the infallibility of the world government is deeply shaken. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
The closest thing to a proper 9/11 conspiracy is that the firefighters didn't do a good job fighting the fires. That and the CIA/FBI are lazy assholes who don't really give a gently caress about stopping terrorism unless it is incredibly easy or George Bush literally has a gun to their head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Krotera posted:Here, let me help you. What the CIA is actually doing, I'm not 100% sure, but it's easy to speculate because they employ so many people, and I do think they are clever enough to do something like that. Give them some credit, jeez. Basically the only thing you’re disagreeing with me on is that they rig the elections. Get real on that one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
You can see that I am jumped on by four CIA agents and attacked, though, on this very forum. I'm offering essentially a middle-ground stance on the issue. Is is a coincidence, though, that George Bush bows down to statues of Satan?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Yeah CIA agents keep jumping on me on this forum, too. Like I posted a poll asking for people to vote for their favorite tentacle rape anime, and a bunch of CIA agents came into the thread and jumped all over me! The CIA presence here is so crazy!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Apthous posted:The closest thing to a proper 9/11 conspiracy is that the firefighters didn't do a good job fighting the fires. What the gently caress were they supposed to do? The situation was unprecedented.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Chastity In Anime is out of control and did 9/11
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:What the gently caress were they supposed to do? The situation was unprecedented. Magical fire hoses that could reach 90 floors, don't you know that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Magical fire hoses that could reach 90 floors, don't you know that? The Niedner company is in on the conspiracy! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:What the CIA is actually doing, I'm not 100% sure, but it's easy to speculate because they employ so many people, and I do think they are clever enough to do something like that. Give them some credit, jeez. I think they're clever enough to do a lot of things they aren't necessarily doing! The problem is that it's most likely they're only doing a particular number of those things, and while those things are likely to be shady (they're a pretty shady agency!), they aren't necessarily likely to be the things you think they are, because there's a pretty large potential pool of shady things even on this scale and the CIA has a relatively small number of shady people. In fact, many of the shady things the CIA might be doing mutually exclude other shady things! For instance, I am a hypothetical person who believes that Mossad orchestrated 9/11 to dupe the US government into starting global war. This leaves the CIA open to do plenty of shady things other than orchestrating 9/11, but it doesn't leave them open to do that. As near as I can tell the evidence for my theory is similar in scope and the agencies involved are similar in shadiness, so I don't see why I should believe your theory and not mine. This is where it becomes important that your evidence not only substantiate your own pet theory but also suggest the falsity of others' pet theories. Because, not only does the CIA have seemingly unlimited (but emphatically finite!) resources to be shady, but when the conspirators of shadiness could be as few as nineteen in six-billion people, there's a seemingly unlimited pool of shady parties that could have orchestrated the whole affair! Of course, since it seems to me that you'd like to revise your position to "the CIA is probably doing something shady," we're in total agreement! But we aren't necessarily in agreement about any of your more specific complaints, particularly your seemingly semi-ironic statement that the CIA's sending shady dudes to keep your posting on the down-low and that -- although I don't see how any reasonable person could argue that Bush isn't a closet satanist! (or lizardocrat!)
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 19:15
|
|