allan harper said:I might be wrong and got the wrong poster but are not fully convinced with what we are lead to believe that happened on 9/11 ?
Personally, I believe that a group of terrorists living in Germany, funded by people in Egypt and Saudi Arabia who were independent from any greater terrorist body, organised and committed a brazen act of terrorism. They did so as an act of revenge against the US for what they saw as illegal acts within their paternal and religious homeland. Those acts were committed by the US for greater economic or political power in the region.
On the "independent from any greater terrorist body" comment, I just want to clarify. I have never supported the notion that Al-Qaeda is, was or will ever be a large organisation with cells, structure and lines of command. I've never supported this simply because there's no evidence to support it; only one person has ever even alluded to this, and he was caught years before 9/11, and is roundly seen as somebody who made it up in a deal with the US Government so that they could charge Bin Laden for his previous crimes in absentia.
However, this doesn't mean that Al-Qaeda is a fallacy in itself. I'd describe Al-Qaeda as a collection of ideas and a view of history that is been taught by radical Imams through various places in the Middle East and Africa. I do believe that the 9/11 hijackers (or at least the head hijacker) bought in to these ideals. I also believe that people with similar objectives sometimes loosely help each other out to achieve a common goal. When some of the hijackers visited Spain in July 2001, I imagine that they were visiting a business partner rather than their boss in an organisation.
I have problems with both sides in this debate, and I always have done. On the truthers side, my problem was that they pick and choose evidence. They like to focus on the melting point of steel, but not on other questions. Why would you put explosives in a building that a plane has just twatted into at 500 mph? Doesn't the plane strike achieve the same goal in a Northwoods scenario? How did the US get the funding to Atta without been traced? Why did they choose a group of guys from Hamburg when they could have easily had a group of Saudis suicide bomb the middle of Times Square and numerous other places for far less cash and risk? 9/11 as a government operation makes no logical sense.
On the other side, I feel that many of the people on this side refuse to acknowledge why 9/11 happened at all. The United States is one of the only nations in history to be found guilty of international terrorism by the World Court. In 1980s, the actions committed by them in Nicaragua were abhorrent and shameful. Similarly, the actions of the United States and their intervention in the political landscape of the Middle East has been an absolute disaster. Then we have the government mandated prison, which has admitted to torturing people and holding them without trial whilst been hid in an offshore/friendly country.
Even more recently, 79 Navy SEALS invaded a foreign land, stormed an unguarded complex, shot an innocent woman because she "lunged at them" then summarily executed Bin Laden, performed no autopsy and dumped him into the sea.
If the US would have put him in the Hague, they could have put the 9/11 truth movement to bed for good. Just as the Nuremberg Trials put the crimes of Nazism to bed once and for all. There's no arguing the Holocaust when you've got guys who admitted slaying millions of people because they were Jewish.
The United States has done so much good in this world at various points in its history, but it has also committed depraved and sickening acts of violence. My annoyance with some people is how they want to live in a comic book, where there are "good guys", "bad guys", heroes and villains. Neither Islamic terrorists nor the United States fit these roles. Or maybe they fit both of these roles simultaneously. The terrorists are certainly heroes to many whilst the US is the villain whilst in the West it tends to be the US as the heroes and the terrorists as the villains. In a purely human context, morality is a byproduct of environment. However, nations aren't human so their morality isn't as wavering, especially one which describes itself which such hyperbole as the United States does.
BASIC morality, and I mean that of a child, dictates that you may commit acts of immorality but you acknowledge them and their impact upon your life. Many in the US have failed to reach this stage in regards to their country. They believe that morality is a set of scales, whereby they can feed Africa but slaughter Afghanistan and it will "even itself out". It isn't, every act is taken in isolation. In a more human context, this is like been a person who feeds the homeless all day long but then murders a few people. Are you going to jail? Of course, the morality of the West is that a single act of immorality outweighs the good done of a lifetime. We do not apply this to our countries though, it is expected that we may cause the odd genocide, violate a few basic human rights or asset strip developing countries in order to feed ourselves.
When I was growing up, I loved the US. The cultural impact that it's had on the world has been immense. From my perspective, all of the cool stuff in my life came from America. My main interest in life at that time, space, was explored by Americans - not because they needed to but because they wanted to. America is a country of dreamers and I found myself quite envious when comparing it to rainy Manchester. In fact, my life ambition was always to work at NASA, even as a cleaner, just because I could then say that I was part of it.
As I became more aware of global politics, I kept finding things that irked me about how it went about things as a nation. Over time, as more things came along, those irks became problems and those problems became massive incredulity at the hypocrisy of it all.
My main annoyance with many on 9/11 is the mass hypocrisy. You, as a nation, have been bombing the shit out of these people for decades. You have destabilised their nation through infiltrations. You have slaughtered their people, innocents and soldiers. You have armed both sides of a war to the teeth, hoping that they will blow each other apart. You have invaded their lands in both the sense of wars and placement of military bases. You have told them that their way of life is wrong and they should embrace yours. For generations, you treated them as second class citizens, second class nations and second class religious beliefs.
So they eventually hit you back. And NOW every loss of life was a tragedy that needs vengeance, whereas before it was a necessary evil? You think that the US hasn't purposely killed innocent civilians in these countries before?
As I say, basic morality. It's the ignorance of the major faults and a heightening of the great achievements, that gets to me.
9/11 was an act of war. Not by a nation or an organisation, but by a group sharing ideals. The war is now 60 years old and counting. Taking it outside of any historical context is stupid and ignorant.
allan harper said:Damocles said:allan harper said:Equally stupid was our government trying to fool us into believing Iraq had WMD, that swine flu was gonna be a global killer. Police are getting more power before long we won't be able to make a phone call without it being monitored. We're becoming more and more a police state, we even get encouraged to spy and snoop on each other.
When you hear hooves, don't think zebras.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
I might be wrong and got the wrong poster but are not fully convinced with what we are lead to believe that happened on 9/11 ?
twinkletoes said:allan harper said:Damocles said:When you hear hooves, don't think zebras.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
I might be wrong and got the wrong poster but are not fully convinced with what we are lead to believe that happened on 9/11 ?
I was with you until your comment about 9/11.
allan harper said:Apart from his mad reptilian theory he talks a lot of sense.
Damocles said:allan harper said:I might be wrong and got the wrong poster but are not fully convinced with what we are lead to believe that happened on 9/11 ?
I rarely post on 9/11 because I don't have anything to add that I didn't say before, I just repost this instead:
Personally, I believe that a group of terrorists living in Germany, funded by people in Egypt and Saudi Arabia who were independent from any greater terrorist body, organised and committed a brazen act of terrorism. They did so as an act of revenge against the US for what they saw as illegal acts within their paternal and religious homeland. Those acts were committed by the US for greater economic or political power in the region.
On the "independent from any greater terrorist body" comment, I just want to clarify. I have never supported the notion that Al-Qaeda is, was or will ever be a large organisation with cells, structure and lines of command. I've never supported this simply because there's no evidence to support it; only one person has ever even alluded to this, and he was caught years before 9/11, and is roundly seen as somebody who made it up in a deal with the US Government so that they could charge Bin Laden for his previous crimes in absentia.
However, this doesn't mean that Al-Qaeda is a fallacy in itself. I'd describe Al-Qaeda as a collection of ideas and a view of history that is been taught by radical Imams through various places in the Middle East and Africa. I do believe that the 9/11 hijackers (or at least the head hijacker) bought in to these ideals. I also believe that people with similar objectives sometimes loosely help each other out to achieve a common goal. When some of the hijackers visited Spain in July 2001, I imagine that they were visiting a business partner rather than their boss in an organisation.
I have problems with both sides in this debate, and I always have done. On the truthers side, my problem was that they pick and choose evidence. They like to focus on the melting point of steel, but not on other questions. Why would you put explosives in a building that a plane has just twatted into at 500 mph? Doesn't the plane strike achieve the same goal in a Northwoods scenario? How did the US get the funding to Atta without been traced? Why did they choose a group of guys from Hamburg when they could have easily had a group of Saudis suicide bomb the middle of Times Square and numerous other places for far less cash and risk? 9/11 as a government operation makes no logical sense.
On the other side, I feel that many of the people on this side refuse to acknowledge why 9/11 happened at all. The United States is one of the only nations in history to be found guilty of international terrorism by the World Court. In 1980s, the actions committed by them in Nicaragua were abhorrent and shameful. Similarly, the actions of the United States and their intervention in the political landscape of the Middle East has been an absolute disaster. Then we have the government mandated prison, which has admitted to torturing people and holding them without trial whilst been hid in an offshore/friendly country.
Even more recently, 79 Navy SEALS invaded a foreign land, stormed an unguarded complex, shot an innocent woman because she "lunged at them" then summarily executed Bin Laden, performed no autopsy and dumped him into the sea.
If the US would have put him in the Hague, they could have put the 9/11 truth movement to bed for good. Just as the Nuremberg Trials put the crimes of Nazism to bed once and for all. There's no arguing the Holocaust when you've got guys who admitted slaying millions of people because they were Jewish.
The United States has done so much good in this world at various points in its history, but it has also committed depraved and sickening acts of violence. My annoyance with some people is how they want to live in a comic book, where there are "good guys", "bad guys", heroes and villains. Neither Islamic terrorists nor the United States fit these roles. Or maybe they fit both of these roles simultaneously. The terrorists are certainly heroes to many whilst the US is the villain whilst in the West it tends to be the US as the heroes and the terrorists as the villains. In a purely human context, morality is a byproduct of environment. However, nations aren't human so their morality isn't as wavering, especially one which describes itself which such hyperbole as the United States does.
BASIC morality, and I mean that of a child, dictates that you may commit acts of immorality but you acknowledge them and their impact upon your life. Many in the US have failed to reach this stage in regards to their country. They believe that morality is a set of scales, whereby they can feed Africa but slaughter Afghanistan and it will "even itself out". It isn't, every act is taken in isolation. In a more human context, this is like been a person who feeds the homeless all day long but then murders a few people. Are you going to jail? Of course, the morality of the West is that a single act of immorality outweighs the good done of a lifetime. We do not apply this to our countries though, it is expected that we may cause the odd genocide, violate a few basic human rights or asset strip developing countries in order to feed ourselves.
When I was growing up, I loved the US. The cultural impact that it's had on the world has been immense. From my perspective, all of the cool stuff in my life came from America. My main interest in life at that time, space, was explored by Americans - not because they needed to but because they wanted to. America is a country of dreamers and I found myself quite envious when comparing it to rainy Manchester. In fact, my life ambition was always to work at NASA, even as a cleaner, just because I could then say that I was part of it.
As I became more aware of global politics, I kept finding things that irked me about how it went about things as a nation. Over time, as more things came along, those irks became problems and those problems became massive incredulity at the hypocrisy of it all.
My main annoyance with many on 9/11 is the mass hypocrisy. You, as a nation, have been bombing the shit out of these people for decades. You have destabilised their nation through infiltrations. You have slaughtered their people, innocents and soldiers. You have armed both sides of a war to the teeth, hoping that they will blow each other apart. You have invaded their lands in both the sense of wars and placement of military bases. You have told them that their way of life is wrong and they should embrace yours. For generations, you treated them as second class citizens, second class nations and second class religious beliefs.
So they eventually hit you back. And NOW every loss of life was a tragedy that needs vengeance, whereas before it was a necessary evil? You think that the US hasn't purposely killed innocent civilians in these countries before?
As I say, basic morality. It's the ignorance of the major faults and a heightening of the great achievements, that gets to me.
9/11 was an act of war. Not by a nation or an organisation, but by a group sharing ideals. The war is now 60 years old and counting. Taking it outside of any historical context is stupid and ignorant.
buzzer1 said:allan harper said:Apart from his mad reptilian theory he talks a lot of sense.
Mate he is bob on, don't really know where you don't get the Reptillian bit, i think you understand what he is saying but are just not having it, i for one am(no shit) havin' it, absofukinlutely i am.
Personally i sooooooo wish there would be a full on full day debate with an independant TV station with Icke, jones, O'Brien,Crane Vs both Clintons, Kissinger, both Bush's, Blair, the Queen, Cressida Dick, Cheney,Rumsveld, Karsozy and as many Former and present Israeli pms(top men), oh i and albright.
Icke et al would destroy them and open peoples eyes, but instead they just get fked off as nutters, unreal Allan.
allan harper said:buzzer1 said:allan harper said:Apart from his mad reptilian theory he talks a lot of sense.
Mate he is bob on, don't really know where you don't get the Reptillian bit, i think you understand what he is saying but are just not having it, i for one am(no shit) havin' it, absofukinlutely i am.
Personally i sooooooo wish there would be a full on full day debate with an independant TV station with Icke, jones, O'Brien,Crane Vs both Clintons, Kissinger, both Bush's, Blair, the Queen, Cressida Dick, Cheney,Rumsveld, Karsozy and as many Former and present Israeli pms(top men), oh i and albright.
Icke et al would destroy them and open peoples eyes, but instead they just get fked off as nutters, unreal Allan.
Mate I'm not having all that reptilian stuff, I'm just not that way out. I'd of thought that knock to your head might of knocked some sense into you !!!!! Joking mate !!!!
That jones bloke is on you tube basically saying that Icke losses all credibility ( some may laugh at that word !) when he go's on about the reptilians.
buzzer1 said:allan harper said:buzzer1 said:Mate he is bob on, don't really know where you don't get the Reptillian bit, i think you understand what he is saying but are just not having it, i for one am(no shit) havin' it, absofukinlutely i am.
Personally i sooooooo wish there would be a full on full day debate with an independant TV station with Icke, jones, O'Brien,Crane Vs both Clintons, Kissinger, both Bush's, Blair, the Queen, Cressida Dick, Cheney,Rumsveld, Karsozy and as many Former and present Israeli pms(top men), oh i and albright.
Icke et al would destroy them and open peoples eyes, but instead they just get fked off as nutters, unreal Allan.
Mate I'm not having all that reptilian stuff, I'm just not that way out. I'd of thought that knock to your head might of knocked some sense into you !!!!! Joking mate !!!!
That jones bloke is on you tube basically saying that Icke losses all credibility ( some may laugh at that word !) when he go's on about the reptilians.
Hahhaa cheeky.
I see that Jones had a little pop at Icke but that was a while ago and i am sure (unless i dreamt it) that Jones started mentioni' it on his radio show and the like. So Jones can talk about conspiracies that would appear FAR OUT, but he won't walk the extra mile? The rabbit hole is bottomless dude.
Just a thought, has Jones ever tripped and have you?