52 replies to this topic

[mcrom901]

when a lot is at stake.... make sure you fight the right one....

[onesliceshort]

Quote

No, I'm still on the argument that I was originally at. I'm still waiting for an answer as to how a government that put together such an incredible production on 9/11 was unable to put together a much more relatively simple on finding the WMD's in Iraq. It was an impressive dance you did, and it would probably have worked if I was interested in the rest of the topic, but as it is, the argument was not addressed; indeed, it was just dismissed as irrelevant with the same casual wave of the hand that skeptics are accused of doing with the CT arguments.

If you are looking to get into the politics of 9/11, I recommend asking someone else. As a lot of people here know, I just don't get into those discussions.

The fallacy of that argument is that you assume that the sum total of the very same people who carried out 9/11 are one and the same as those who were involved in the WMD lie.
I believe the governments of both the US and Britain had a ROLE to play both before and after the event, but the actual carrying out of operations that day? No.
As we have seen they operate a well oiled PR propaganda machine but false smiles and empty words only go so far. They have ultimately failed in their parts in both the 9/11 saga and the WMD lie. But the seeds have been sown and for many it is easier to accept the official story, warts, lies and all, and seek a common enemy to rally against.
Fair enough I respect you not wanting to discuss the politics of 9/11. It gives me a sore head too lol.
My first post in this forum was actually along the lines of discussing actual proof of black ops that day. The heading is ´9/11, what is true about it?´
I was being very specific on the area of discussion so as to avoid the endless circle of discussion on the whole 9/11 political saga.
Sorry if I came across a little brash and disjointed but after years of being branded a ´nut´ just because I have serious founded doubts on what we have been spoonfed, I´ve developed a bit of a defensive attitude that sometimes blurs the lines between discussion and pushing a point.
Nice to meet you anyway mate.
Peace.

[aquatus1]

onesliceshort, on 08 September 2009 - 01:34 PM, said:

The fallacy of that argument is that you assume that the sum total of the very same people who carried out 9/11 are one and the same as those who were involved in the WMD lie.

Actually, I'm saying that there wasn't a lie, but there should have been.  If the government could pull off a show like the attacks, it could pull off finding WMD in Iraq.

Quote

Fair enough I respect you not wanting to discuss the politics of 9/11. It gives me a sore head too lol.

Well, thank you.     You don't know how often I get call nasty things because I don't like politics of whatever strip.

Quote

Sorry if I came across a little brash and disjointed but after years of being branded a ´nut´ just because I have serious founded doubts on what we have been spoonfed, I´ve developed a bit of a defensive attitude that sometimes blurs the lines between discussion and pushing a point.
Nice to meet you anyway mate.
Peace.

I know the feeling, man.  I get labeled a government disinformation agent on a regular basis here.  Puts one off an intelligent discussion, you know?  I get snarky on occasion as well.

[Jericho91]

9/11 an inside job in my eyes.

[Q24]

aquatus1, on 09 September 2009 - 11:10 AM, said:

Actually, I'm saying that there wasn't a lie, but there should have been.  If the government could pull off a show like the attacks, it could pull off finding WMD in Iraq.

The idea that 9/11 could not be a false flag operation because no WMD’s were found in Iraq is nonsensical.

I’m sure that the U.S. could have pulled off planting WMD’s in Iraq but this would have come with sizeable risks and the focal question is: was this imperative to continuing the war?  The answer is “no” and the conclusion is that such unnecessary risks would not be taken.

Cheney made clear he did not care for public opinion, the people were provided with alternative pretexts and the forces that brought about the Middle East conflicts still achieved their aim of regime change in Iraq.

[merril]

Q24, on 23 September 2009 - 08:43 PM, said:

The idea that 9/11 could not be a false flag operation because no WMD’s were found in Iraq is nonsensical.

No, it isn't without reason. It checks the claims made by propagandists who routinely allege that 9-11 was an American operation to get at Iraq, which is nonsense.

Q24, on 23 September 2009 - 08:43 PM, said:

Cheney made clear he did not care for public opinion, the people were provided with alternative pretexts and the forces that brought about the Middle East conflicts still achieved their aim of regime change in Iraq.

Listen to the opening remarks of liberal Democrat, Al Franken, regarding his views on this subject of taking public opinion into his deliberative process!

Franken Talks Down Angry Mob About How He Votes


It's just another part of politics. Would a cautious and conservative debate about Afghanistan or Iraq  have produced a different outcomes? Possibly.

The main point is, however, al-Qaeda was going to strike the U.S. no matter who was in the White House, in 2001. And, this raised some serious questions about what tasks lay ahead, in terms of U.S. responsibilities.

And, furthermore, there is not one jot of evidence about al-Qaeda cooperating with the USG. That is just speculation that various propaganda networks made up and spread over the Internet, and through the media and channels of various countries.

Edited by merril, 26 September 2009 - 05:24 PM.

[merril]

Q24, on 23 September 2009 - 08:43 PM, said:

Cheney made clear he did not care for public opinion, the people were provided with alternative pretexts...

and the forces that brought about the Middle East conflicts

still achieved their aim of regime change in Iraq.

"and the forces that brought about the Middle East conflicts" were not unilateral.

The main agenda for the U.S. even prior to 9-11 was to douse future prospects of WMD from Iraq, and to contain them as much as possible from those countries that did not have them. That became even more imperative after 9-11.

The problem is now Iran. At least, it may be a problem. And, perhaps Iraq will not even so much as facilitate WMDs.

Edited by merril, 26 September 2009 - 07:51 PM.

[b_kid]

It is a shame that checktheevidence.com didn't particapate here.

Mr Random Guy, I suggest you look at the events relating to the Pentagon and WT7, why is it that conventionalists fail to acknowledge these events and only focus attention the twin towers?

I'm not even trying to say you're foolish for trusting mainstream news services and political authorities, it is hard to accept it, but 9/11 is clearly, something we have been lied to about.

Edited by b_kid, 28 September 2009 - 03:15 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Q24, on 23 September 2009 - 08:43 PM, said:

The idea that 9/11 could not be a false flag operation because no WMD’s were found in Iraq is nonsensical.

I’m sure that the U.S. could have pulled off planting WMD’s in Iraq but this would have come with sizeable risks and the focal question is: was this imperative to continuing the war?  The answer is “no” and the conclusion is that such unnecessary risks would not be taken.

Cheney made clear he did not care for public opinion, the people were provided with alternative pretexts and the forces that brought about the Middle East conflicts still achieved their aim of regime change in Iraq.

Why would planting WMDs (burying a few tons of the nasty of your choice in the sand and then coming across it, "purely by chance", that's all they'd have to do) entail any risk at all, and if it did, why on earth would that put off a government that had apparently engineered the greatest con trick in history, in full view of millions? It disnae make sense.

[KennyB]

Q24, I don't think Al Quida had any more idea 9-11 was coming down than I did. I'll admit that later I was expecting the U.S. to find WMDs in Iraq. I guess they realized they didn't need to.  KennyB

[Q24]

merril, on 26 September 2009 - 07:00 PM, said:

The problem is now Iran.

You got it.  The sad thing is that you don’t see the pattern.

Problem:  the Neocon roadmap dictates that the U.S. must control the Middle East region.
Reaction:  the pretexts of terrorism... WMDs... now nuclear weapons…
Solution:  war with Afghanistan… Iraq… now Iran…

It was decided to go to war with Iran years ago.

747400, on 28 September 2009 - 02:33 PM, said:

Why would planting WMDs (burying a few tons of the nasty of your choice in the sand and then coming across it, "purely by chance", that's all they'd have to do) entail any risk at all, and if it did, why on earth would that put off a government that had apparently engineered the greatest con trick in history, in full view of millions? It disnae make sense.

The risks:  a large quantity of chemical/biological weapon “nasty” missing from U.S. facilities, transportation, the manpower involved in this and the “burying” of weapons, possibility of being observed, U.N. weapons inspectors identifying the source of the weapons.  All unnecessary to continuation of the Iraq war.  It disnae make sense that they would even try it.

KennyB, on 28 September 2009 - 05:04 PM, said:

Q24, I don't think Al Quida had any more idea 9-11 was coming down than I did. I'll admit that later I was expecting the U.S. to find WMDs in Iraq. I guess they realized they didn't need to.  KennyB

I always ask – who are Al Qaeda?  But no, I don’t think bin Laden saw it coming.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Q24, on 29 September 2009 - 03:35 AM, said:

The risks:  a large quantity of chemical/biological weapon “nasty” missing from U.S. facilities, transportation, the manpower involved in this and the “burying” of weapons, possibility of being observed, U.N. weapons inspectors identifying the source of the weapons.  All unnecessary to continuation of the Iraq war.  It disnae make sense that they would even try it.

The manpower necessary to do that, compared with the number of people who would have to be involved in some of the more colourful versions of the 9/11 conspiracy? I don't think that huge quantities of anything, or huge numbers of people, would be necessary actually; just a few tons of whatever would surely be enough. You could transport that nice and clandestinely with a couple of trucks and no more than a dozen or so men. A lot more cost-effective than setting up remote controlled planes or rigging the WTC with explosives. And surely the weapons inspectors could be distracted for an few hours; lead them off after a false trail somewhere else. You wouldn't have to take it from US stocks; you could buy them from somewhere else through a series of third parties that could never be traced fully.

[Q24]

747400, on 29 September 2009 - 07:31 AM, said:

The manpower necessary to do that, compared with the number of people who would have to be involved in some of the more colourful versions of the 9/11 conspiracy?

The manpower involved in 9/11 would surely have been greater than that required to plant WMDs in Iraq.  But why are you making a comparison?  I don’t believe anyone has said that the planting of WMDs could not possibly have been achieved – only that it was an unecessary risk.

747400, on 29 September 2009 - 07:31 AM, said:

I don't think that huge quantities of anything, or huge numbers of people, would be necessary actually; just a few tons of whatever would surely be enough. You could transport that nice and clandestinely with a couple of trucks and no more than a dozen or so men. A lot more cost-effective than setting up remote controlled planes or rigging the WTC with explosives. And surely the weapons inspectors could be distracted for an few hours; lead them off after a false trail somewhere else. You wouldn't have to take it from US stocks; you could buy them from somewhere else through a series of third parties that could never be traced fully.

It’s nice to see you being accommodating of such a covert operation.  Again, I agree that WMDs could have been planted in Iraq and at far less expense than the 9/11 false flag attack.  I’m not sure I concur with the idea of ‘distracting’ weapons inspectors – I was thinking along the lines that were WMDs found then the international community would require verification of their composition and source through U.N. inspectors.  With the suggestion of importing chemical/biological weapons through third parties this would still leave the risk of a trail of sorts which could be followed.

The above still misses the point:  whether WMDs had been discovered, by whatever means, in Iraq or not, this would not have changed the end game.

So why bother?  

[turbonium]

Q24, on 29 September 2009 - 10:52 PM, said:

The manpower involved in 9/11 would surely have been greater than that required to plant WMDs in Iraq.  But why are you making a comparison?  I don’t believe anyone has said that the planting of WMDs could not possibly have been achieved – only that it was an unecessary risk.



It’s nice to see you being accommodating of such a covert operation.  Again, I agree that WMDs could have been planted in Iraq and at far less expense than the 9/11 false flag attack.  I’m not sure I concur with the idea of ‘distracting’ weapons inspectors – I was thinking along the lines that were WMDs found then the international community would require verification of their composition and source through U.N. inspectors.  With the suggestion of importing chemical/biological weapons through third parties this would still leave the risk of a trail of sorts which could be followed.

The above still misses the point:  whether WMDs had been discovered, by whatever means, in Iraq or not, this would not have changed the end game.

So why bother?  

Why bother, indeed. Clearly, the absence of WMD's made no difference to the Chickenhawks' goals regarding Iraq - many years have past since they came up empty in their 'search', and the troops are still there.

If the lack of WMD's had become a real concern for their plans, it would have easy enough to plant and 'find'.

But 'finding' WMD's is just like 'finding' Bin Laden - it's no big deal!!

[Stundie]

turbonium, on 03 October 2009 - 06:30 AM, said:

If the lack of WMD's had become a real concern for their plans, it would have easy enough to plant and 'find'.

Err! How do you plant WMD?

I mean where abouts do you obtain WMD from? Creating WMD is not an easy process and it doesn't grow on trees.  

Then once they have gone and created it, how do they get it into Iraq without being noticed? Do you think they can carry it on a plane flying into Baghdad or do they bring it across one of the borders like Kuwait or Turkey.

Once it's planted, how do you make sure it is not traceable seeing as only a few countries would be capable of producing it.

The argument that it would be easy to plant WMD is laughable and can be easily dismissed when it is much, much easier for the perpetrators to lie about it with scary talk of AQ, underground bunkers and 45 minutes to launch threats.