FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
BOOSH!@
"I Hate All Iranians"
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Why don't you read the playbook from which the Bush Administration has been operating .. PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses .. which calls for the installation of a controlled government in Afghanistan .. which they got .. so the Central Asia pipeline could be built .. which they got .. the removal of Saddam Hussein .. which they got .. and a "new Pearl Harbor" so they could execute their plans for Afghanistan and Iraq .. which they got.
If you believe that 19 non-pilots from a cave could climb into the cockpits of heavy aircraft they've never flown, in fact were incapable of flying a Cessna, and fly these planes flawlessly executing manuevers that seasoned combat pilots couldn't do .. then pardon me while I laugh my ass off.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm not trying to be difficult but I still don't see how your theory plays out. So PNAC planned for the attack and allowed it to happen but how was it executed?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
PNAC didn't allow it to happen, the Bush Administration did .. and what level of participation they had in the exceution of the attacks is unknown, but it takes no genius to recognize the fairy-tale of the 9/11 story.
The events of 9/11 took place while 4 wargames were being executed that covered for the hijackings and confused air traffic controllers.
NORAD did not respond as they have done successfully for almost 40 years because of a new prder dated June 1, 2001, that changed command and control from commanders in the field to the Secretary of Defense.
The identities of the supposed hijackers were known to the FBI for more than a year and 2 of the hijackers lived with an FBI informant who intorduced them to a field agent, but they were still allowed to exit and re-enter the country and nothing was done to prevent their activities.
During the attacks on 9/11 this administration did absolutely nothing and the president read about goats.
The administration covered up and removed critical evidence from the crime scene (documented and proven) and ordered the debris from the WTC collected and shipped off to China with the quickness without any semblance of a proper investigation.
cy
correct, whenever i see/hear the word all referencing some group, i am immediately suspicious
uscitizen
Villified User
Yeah kinda reminds me of Ron Paul supporters....
Those 19 guys didn't live in caves, they had apartments in the US. Bin Laden may live in a cave now, but he is certainly a multi-millionaire.... Those guys probably never lived in caves. It is doubtful that they would know enough English learning from the University of Caveman to come to the US and take pilot's lessons.
The whole "live in caves" crap is racist demagoguery...
Weak. You can, and have, done better than this.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Or perhaps if one believes it is cowardly to take your own life, especially in an act that also takes the lives of innocent people.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I disagree. There is a difference between killing innocent people in the course of a war and deliberately taking the lives of innocent people. The latter is the act of a coward. Period. It is the same as if a person ran into a shopping mall and started spraying the crowd with bullets. It is a cowardly act. It has nothing to do with war mongering.
Obl and the 19 guys, by themselves, I'm sure didn't plan the attacks. They probably had plenty of help. OBL certainly knows engineering and building construction, but I'm quite sure Al Qaeda has plenty of sympathizers willing to help them in the Saudi and Pakistani security and intelligence forces. Don't forget that 28 pages were edited out of the congressional report on the 9/11 attacks, pertaining to saudi arabia's role. Former Senator Bill Graham is on record, stating that those redacted pages clearly show that 9/11 was an attack carried out by a foreign country on the United States. By law, he can't divulge who it was - but we can easily guess: Saudi Arabia.
As for Bush's role, I've seen no credible and corroborated evidence that the Bush admin was directly responsible for assissting in the attacks. However, I'm quite sure they let they're guard down, and did little to nothing to stop it. And I'm sure they saw the attacks as a way to implement their NeoCon foreign and domestic policies.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Let me be clear... you are a racist for believing that they are incapable of planning an attack. You are saying that they are not smart enough.
Just imagine if a person were to say the same thing about blacks that live in the ghettos.... just how would you respond to that??? You would call the person a racist and justifiably so.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
This is too funny. So you think it is that complex to fly a 747 into a building? That combat pilots couldn't do it? Ok, not only are you a racist, but you are also a moron with regards to this subject.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Oh really. Fine. Next time some American soldier is decorated for risking his or her life in an action in which civilians are killed I trust you'll be first in line to demand that the honor not be given to a coward.
Killing one's self and sacrificing one's life for a cause are merely two different ways of looking at the same thing. And innocent people are knowingly killed by "legitimate" (sic) acts of war all the time.
If it's for your "side" then it's honorable but if it's for the other it's cowardly? Can you say "double standard?" I knew you could.
Its not racist to believe that 19 average guys and bin laden didn't plan the attacks all by themselves. I'm quite sure they had help, from the financial, engineering, and technical end of things. As for me, I'm quite sure the help they recieved were from political and military elites in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Oh really. Fine. Next time some American soldier is decorated for risking his or her life in an action in which civilians are killed I trust you'll be first in line to demand that the honor not be given to a coward.
Killing one's self and sacrificing one's life for a cause are merely two different ways of looking at the same thing. And innocent people are knowingly killed by "legitimate" (sic) acts of war all the time.
If it's for your "side" then it's honorable but if it's for the other it's cowardly? Can you say "double standard?" I knew you could.
Give me a fucking break... I now have ZERO respect for you. This is a pathetic argument on your part. Yes, it would be cowardly to for any soldier to run into a group of unarmed civilians and start killing them. That is not an act of war, it is an act of cowardice. For you to equate the two is pathetic.
SF, I guess I am obliged to point out (before I'm accused of being a traitor) that the 9/11 attacks were a horrofic criminal act, perpetrated by thugs.
However, your president is directly responsible for ordering dubious and unneccessary military actions that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians - a scale that dwarfs 9/11.
Intent isn't really that relevant. The fact that Bush claims he intends to minimize civilian causualites is of little comfort to the millions of families that have lost loved ones because of Bush.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Disrespect from the morally crippled is, I suppose, a form of flattery.
You continue to cling to this self-serving, bankrupt notion that there's some deep moral distinction between dropping bombs that you KNOW perfectly well will result in civilian casualties, on the one hand, and blowing one's self up in a crowded square, on the other. In fact, the two acts require exactly the same mentality: the willingness to accept the deaths of innocents in pursuit of some "higher" cause.
And of the two, the latter requires more courage.
Who's worse, the guy who sits in a cockpit and fires off a missile that hits a home with innocent civilians in it and then flies back to his base for high fives or the guy who sacrifices himself for his religion and, in his own mind, his people by blowing himself up in a market? Frankly, there's little to choose between them and I'm very leery of anyone who sees such a distinction.
Look, all I'm saying is that one can exhibit bravery even in pursuit of a wrongheaded cause. Calling the hijackers cowardly is just petty and counter-productive. They can be wrong, even criminal, and still brave enough.
Disrespect from the morally crippled is, I suppose, a form of flattery.
You continue to cling to this self-serving, bankrupt notion that there's some deep moral distinction between dropping bombs that you KNOW perfectly well will result in civilian casualties, on the one hand, and blowing one's self up in a crowded square, on the other. In fact, the two acts require exactly the same mentality: the willingness to accept the deaths of innocents in pursuit of some "higher" cause.
And of the two, the latter requires more courage.
Who's worse, the guy who sits in a cockpit and fires off a missile that hits a home with innocent civilians in it and then flies back to his base for high fives or the guy who sacrifices himself for his religion and, in his own mind, his people by blowing himself up in a market? Frankly, there's little to choose between them and I'm very leery of anyone who sees such a distinction.
Look, all I'm saying is that one can exhibit bravery even in pursuit of a wrongheaded cause. Calling the hijackers cowardly is just petty and counter-productive. They can be wrong, even criminal, and still brave enough.
Here is the difference; I think that the pilot dropping a bomb can fool himself into believe he is not going to hit civilians. I think his commanders help with that willful suspension of disbelief.
But of course as you say, intent, conscious or otherwise, matters not to the civilian, and certainly not to the loved ones they leave behind.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
True enough. You can make the case that the suicide bomber is actually LESS cruel and callous. I know Quakers who believe precisely that.