[Nyck]

Originally Posted by ninty

I see it as not a coincidence that the US wanted into Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran and then 9/11 happened.

your telling me you believe that the US orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and killed thousands, just to have a reason to go to war with Afghanistan oOo:

seriously.

[TGB!]

[quote:4be47]I guess it's pretty easy to justify either side of any topic when the response is always "that guy is lying" or deny things ever taking place.[/quote:4be47]

Another weak response NINTY. The DS memo is a foreign nationals TAKE/ASSUMPTION/INTERPRETATION of the "atmosphere" of American officials. You have YET to provide a domestic smoking gun. Hell you dont even know what the American Prez does - so why assume this is even getting through.

[quote:4be47]"lets label this person an idiot game"[/quote:4be47]

Again - letting NINTY cosign for ya. . .cmon dude - start arguing ON YOUR OWN. . .why does everything have to be in response to, or after something NINTY and/or what MACHETTE says?

[quote:4be47]your telling me you believe that the US orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and killed thousands, just to have a reason to go to war with Afghanistan[/quote:4be47]

Of course dude! Where the hell you been hiding (besides the closet) - havent you seen Farenheit 9/11! Oil Pipeline! Taliban came to TEXAS! Osama Bin Ladens family worked DIRECTLY WITH the Bush family! They helped HITLER get in and stay in power - I mean. . .DUH!!!

[ninty]

DS memo was minutes taken by Matthew Rycroft who is the foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair.

Originally Posted by Nyck

your telling me you believe that the US orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and killed thousands, just to have a reason to go to war with Afghanistan oOo:

seriously.

Not just for Afghanistan, but in essence, yes. The policy is in PNAC.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf

[quote:ea23d]"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."[/quote:ea23d]

PNAC's members include Cheney Rumsfeld Wolfowitz as well as a number of other Bush administration officials as well as Jeb Bush.

Another important aspect is Exectutive Order W199I:
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=12165

I could go into tens or hundreds of different aspects on 9/11, but i'll leave that for people to do themselves if they want to.

David Ray Griffin breaks down the way people think about the attacks into four categories which I think are very appropriate. You just have to figure out where you are:
1) The US was totally blindsighted by the attack and had no prior knowledge.
2) The US did not know of the attack, but are now using it to their advantage in foreign policy and in the US itself.
3) The US knew the attacks were coming and allowed them to happen, much like pearl harbour, in order to garner the support of the citizens to carry out certain goals.
4) The US was complicit in organizing and carrying out the attacks.

There is a multitude of evidence out there, you just have to want to find it.

I would recommend watching any of David Ray Griffins speeches. They are anywhere from 30 minutes to 1 hour long and he deals directly with what the Government's official story is through the 9/11 Comission report. His speeches can be found on most torrent sites.

[General Cobra]

The problem with President Fuckstick's administration is he does whatever the fuck he wants regardless of outcome. He's a reckless texan with a vocabulary problem. You've seen his exit strategy. He does'nt have one.

[c312]

ninty, you could find evidence of anything if you look hard enough for it. I recently looked at a website (http://www.911wasalie.com) and they had photos and stuff that supposedly showed the commercial airliner that crashed into the WTC firing a missile before it hit. I didn't see a damn thing in the "conclusive photographic proof." I don't think that searching through the internet to find a group of idiots beleiving something because they want to beleive in something against the mainstream or for whatever other reason is a wise use of the internet.

[ninty]

There is a lot of misinformation out there. Personally, I don't believe in that particular theory. When I started out researching and reading, it took a while for me to decide what was true and what was false. What drove me was that somehting was wrong with that day. For some people it's Building 7 collapsing without a plane hitting it. For others, it's the seamingly stand down on NORAD and other air defense systems. Some ask questions, and some accept what their being told as truth. It is important to know the truth because so many decisions have been made as a result of that day that have affected hundreds of thousands or millions of lives. Heck, you probably know of someone who is serving overseas.

[ninty]

I came across this in regards to the DSM:

[url=http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002215.htm:8768e]Link[/url:8768e]

[url=http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/finalreport.pdf:8768e]"The Constitution in Crisis."[/url:8768e]

[quote:8768e]When the Downing Street Minutes were first published by the Sunday London Times, shortly before the 2005 British election, the Blair Administration chose not to deny their authenticity. Shortly after the Minutes were released, sources within both the Bush and Blair Administrations confirmed their accuracy to the press. A former senior US official told Knight Ridder that the Downing Street Minutes were "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired." (Warren P. Strobel & John Walcott, Downing Street Memo Indicates Bush Made Intelligence Fit Iraq Policy, KNIGHT RIDDER, May 5, 2005.)[/quote:8768e]

[quote:8768e]Two senior British officials, who asked not to be further identified because of the sensitivity of the material, told Newsweek in separate interviews that they had no reason to question the authenticity of the Downing Street Minutes. (Michael Isikoff & Mark Hosenball, From Downing Street to Capitol Hill, NEWSWEEK.COM, June 17, 2005, [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8234762/site/newsweek/:8768e]available here[/url:8768e])[/quote:8768e]

[quote:8768e]By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, President Bush had decided to "remove Saddam, through military action."
This has been proven true -- on March 20, 2003, the U.S. military invaded Iraq and follow-up aspects of the Downing Street Minutes bear out that this decision was made well in advance of the war. In addition to the wealth of verification in [url=http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/section3a.pdf:8768e]Sections III(A)(1), (2), and (4) of Conyers' Report,[/url:8768e] and in particular as noted in the previous section, we know that in early August 2002, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair spoke by telephone. According to a White House official who has studied the transcript of the phone call, "The way it read was that, come what may, Saddam was going to go; they said they were going forward, they were going to take out the regime, and they were doing the right thing. Blair did not need any convincing. There was no 'come on Tony, we've got to get you on board.' I remember reading it then and thinking, O.K., now I know what we're going to be doing for the next year." (Bryan Burrough, Eugenia Peretz, David Rose, & David Wise, The Path to War, VANITY FAIR, May 1, 2004, at 228.)[/quote:8768e]

[quote:8768e]In March 2003, Tony Blair reportedly said, "[l]eft to himself, Bush would have gone to war in January. No, not January, but back in September." (ROBIN COOK, THE POINT OF DEPARTURE, Simon & Schuster, 2003).[/quote:8768e]

[quote:8768e]Bush had decided to "justify" the war "by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."
This statement is borne out by the entire "marketing campaign," which fixated on these twin justifications [url=http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/section3a.pdf:8768e](see Section III(A)(4) of Conyers' Report).[/url:8768e] For example, the Bush Administration formed the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) in August 2002 to persuade the public of Saddam's supposed threat and to market the war. The Administration waited to introduce the WHIG's product to the public until September 2002, because, as White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told The New York Times in an unusually candid interview, "[y]ou don't introduce new products in August." (Elisabeth Bumiller, Bush Aides Set Strategy to Sell Policy on Iraq, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 7, 2002, at A1.)[/quote:8768e]

[quote:8768e]Already "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
The statement that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" is confirmed by the multi-layered effort by the Administration to pressure officials within the Administration to find links between Saddam and September 11 and to manipulate intelligence officials and agencies into overstating WMD threats [url=http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/section3b.pdf:8768e](see Section III(B) of Conyers' Report).[/url:8768e] [/quote:8768e]

[quote:8768e]Many at the top of the administration "had no patience" with "the UN route."
This statement is consistent with the realities of the Bush Administration's intentions at the time. For example, Vice President Cheney's stated opinion was that there was no need to seek any approval from the UN to invade. He has stated: "A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with UN resolutions. On the contrary, there is great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow 'back in the box.'" (Mark Danner, The Secret Way to War, N.Y. REV. OF BOOKS, June 9, 2005, [url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034:8768e]available here.[/url:8768e]) [/quote:8768e]

[quote:8768e]"There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath of military action."
Unfortunately, this statement has been verified by events following the war (see [url=http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/section2.pdf:8768e]Sections II[/url:8768e] and III(A)(3), (4) of Conyers' Report). Among other things, in an ironic assessment of the events to follow, Vice President Dick Cheney made an appearance on Meet the Press and stated that the war was not going to be long, costly or bloody because "we will be greeted as liberators." (Meet the Press: Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, NBC television broadcast, Mar. 16, 2003, [url=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/s:8768e]available here.[/url:8768e]) [/quote:8768e]

[quote:8768e]The US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime.
The statement that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to pressure Iraq has been subsequently confirmed by numerous accounts ([url=http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/section3a.pdf:8768e]see Section III(A) of Conyers' Report[/url:8768e]). As reported in the Sunday London Times, in May 2002, with a conditional agreement in place with Britain for war, the US and UK began to conduct a bombing campaign in Iraq described by British and US officials as "spikes of activity" designed to put pressure on the Iraqi regime. In his autobiography "American Soldier," retired U.S. General Tommy Franks, who led the 2003 invasion of Iraq, invoked the "spikes" phrase as far back as 2001: "I'm thinking in terms of spikes, Mr. Secretary," he wrote, referencing a conversation with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in December 2001, "spurts of activity followed by periods of inactivity. We want the Iraqis to become accustomed to military expansion, and then apparent contraction." (GEN. TOMMY FRANKS, AMERICAN SOLDIER 366, Regan Books, 2004.)

The bombing campaign was initiated a full ten months before the Bush Administration determined that all diplomatic means had been exhausted and six months before Congressional authorization for the use of force. A total of 21,736 sorties were flown over southern Iraq between June 2002 and the beginning of the war. According to a document found by Larisa Alexandrovna of RawStory.com, Lieutenant-General T Michael Moseley said that the "spikes of activity" were part of a covert air war. According to Moseley, the attacks, "laid the foundation" for the war. (John Byrne, U.S. changed Iraq policy to begin air strikes months before war, Rawstory.com, [url=http://rawstory.com/news/2005/U.S._changed_Iraq_policy_to_begin_airstrikes_month s_before_0630.html:8768e]available here.[/url:8768e])[/quote:8768e]

[quote:8768e]The British believed "[w]e should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
The initiative of the British to go back to the UN to force an "ultimatum" has also been proven true ([url=http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/section3a.pdf:8768e]see Section III(A)(5) of Conyers' Report[/url:8768e]). The U.S. and Britain asked for UN authorization to demand the reintroduction of weapons inspectors, which they received on November 8, 2002.[/quote:8768e]

[c312]

I still don't think it explicitly implicates anything. It is like a strategic plan to get people to support and vote for the Iraq war, it's like a plan before the war. It doesn't seem to say anything about making stuff up, although it may seem like it does at times, but only if read in a different tone. It sounds like they have made a decision, and then they laid out how to put it into action and get people to understand and go with it too.

The only thing that is of note to me is the "fixing" details around the war, that sounds bad, but it doesn't explicitly say anything was being manipulated, it could mean that they were simply gathering information to present in an argument to support the war.

[ninty]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downl ... tion3b.pdf

[c312]

definately not reading 63 pages...

[ninty]

The information is staring you right in the face. Read the purple boxes and the bolded parts. I find it hard to believe that people can still say this means nothing when the information is right there.

People are afraid. People are afraid to look at the truth. People don't want to know that their government has lied to them and that hundreds of thousands have died in vein. No, people would rather be oblivious to the world around them and watch TV for 10 hours a day and eating potato chips.

People think that what happened in the past can never happen again. Nero Hitler, Pearl Harbor, USS Liberty. Time and time again governments manipulate people to rally around a cause to further geopolitical goals. But it's can't happen now. We're smarter. We're more informed. I say bullshit to that. People don't care enough to break free of the mainstream and actually ask some questions. Most of us rather live in our fairy tale life and forget about everything else.

If you choose to look past the many facts out there, fine. But I cannot.

This has nothing to do with left right either. I hold many right wing values, and many left wing values. It goes far beyond the left right spectrum. Until people realize this, your country will continue to be divided, and the real issues at hand will never be resolved. You know...together we stand, divided we fall.

[Short Hand]

Ninty.. you know as well as I do that for anyone such as c132, TGB, levingstein, AcidEyez, Colemon etc to admit they "could" even be wrong is next to impossible. To them being wrong about politics and what they beleive in is just NOT an option.

[c312]

I beleive terrorists are responsible for 9/11. I beleive Iraq had WMDs that they either improperly disposed of or hid (even Bill Clinton said so before the war), I beleive that Saddam was murdering thousands upon thousands of Iraqis for no reason. I beleive the Iraqis are better off now than they were before. I do not beleive that George Bush is a liar. I beleive George Bush is a good man at heart. I do not beleive that the government is playing games that it is hiding from the public.

Why?

Because all the evidence and reason that are involved in me beleiving those things make more logical sense to me than the stuff you have found on the internet and posted here. They make more sense than the half assed arguments people make from the circumstantial evidence I have been presented with. Just because a source that goes against the government is on the internet and not on TV doesn't mean it is an example of the government trying to filter contrary ideas.

And Short, stop acting like people who have conservative values are the only people who can do wrong. The mere fact that you made a statement like you did makes you have an attitude of not being able to be wrong.

Now I am done with this thread.

[Tripper]

[quote="Short Hand":ef276]Ninty.. you know as well as I do that for anyone such as c132, TGB, levingstein, AcidEyez, Colemon etc to admit they "could" even be wrong is next to impossible. To them being wrong about politics and what they beleive in is just NOT an option.[/quote:ef276]

Dude. You know this guy stopped posting like a year ago, right?

[Pyro]

Originally Posted by ninty

The United States has killed thousands upon thousands of civilians. I don't see the difference between Saddam killing people and other militaries killing people regardless if it is accidental.

Because if you're the United states Government...everything you do is Good, and can't possibly be evil.