Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Ringdrotten]

Congratulations, Petty

[Kafria]

Congrats petty and the SNP, the magic 65 reached by the time I got in from school! and more seats to be sorted if I can count after a four day week! Funny people dimissing the av referendum and saying that people are interested in jobs, nhs etc. Isn't this reason exactly why the SNP are doing so well at the mo, because they've shown commitment on these issues (the ones that supposedly they couldn't handle and why they'd never be in power!) It is a logical next step, surely, having seen that the country can stand on it's own two feet, to go it alone and go for indepedance? Why do people still not see this?

My local council not in, so don't know how we've done, but in true blue rural north yorkshire the only question is will they have overall control or will we have enough others to limit overall control?

[Gandalf's Beard]

Not bad UK. Looks like the Lib Dems are being punished for making a deal with the Tories.

The following is an exchange I had on another forum (The Leaky Cauldron) on a thread similar to this one after I essentially said that the whole alleged Osama assassination sounded like rubbish. I was called a "Deather" for my trouble by Twilightsfire who considers himself to be a Liberal. I haven't been here as I've been following the rapidly evolving story. And I haven't slept or eaten in the last 48 hrs trying to keep up as this period has seen the most drastic alterations to the original story. I am reposting it here as it is my most complete record of the events and my reactions to them. I had to reformat the post, so I hope it makes sense.

Petty, you are very nearly on the mark regarding this whole turn of events.

Twilightsfire, on 04 May 2011 - 05:24 PM, said:

Gandalf, on 04 May 2011 - 12:45 PM, said:
Hi Twilight,

I don't believe that Osama is still alive at all. I believe he died years ago. I'm not on the same side as Right Wing "Deathers" in the least.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/03/113643/bin-ladens-daughter-saw-us-troops.html
His daughter saw him killed
Kind of horrifying for a child to see that, I have to say.

My Response:

From the article linked above by Twilight:
The official, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the daughter, whom he described as being 12 or 13 years old, was one of eight or nine children in the house when a team of U.S. Navy SEALs stormed the complex by helicopter.

"We have no independent confirmation of Osama bin Laden being there or dying there except what we got from the daughter," said the official, a member of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

An unnamed ISI "official"??? Who has no independent confirmation of Osama's existence or death...only that of an alleged 12 yr old daughter???!!!!

You have pretty low standards of evidence.

Twilightsfire, on 04 May 2011 - 05:24 PM, said:

Gandalf, on 04 May 2011 - 12:45 PM, said:
My hypothesis is that this is a brilliant ploy to capitalize on the lies of the Cheney administration and turn it around right back on the Republicans; which could not be disputed by the former members of the Cheney administration without compromising their own fibs, and opening a can of worms leading right back to their narrative regarding 9/11.

Difficult to tell a hypothesis from a spoof. And I read of similar things from the extreme right.

http://img508.images...75/65626448.jpg (pic look familiar?)

My Response:
No, the picture doesn't look familiar. I don't recognize any of the avatars. Not to mention that it is only a jpeg of a few random posts by some random dudes without any indication of what kind of forum the posts were on.

In any case, the question is valid even if the posters might be otherwise dunces (and bad spellers). I didn't know asking valid questions qualified someone as a Right Winger or a Left Winger. You might want to look up the definitions of hypothesis and spoof. I am not aware that one is a synonym for the other.

Twilightsfire, on 04 May 2011 - 05:24 PM, said:

Gandalf, on 04 May 2011 - 12:45 PM, said:
Not to mention that now bin Laden is claimed to have been unarmed, he could have just as esily been captured and brought to trial. Why wasn't he?

You're joking right?
How can a person like this be taken prisoner? Where would he get a fair trial? What country could hold him without any reprisals? Or for that matter, what country would want to hold him..period. Not in the US, where just about anyone and everyone would want to to take a shot at him, including the president. And almost every muslim nation wouldn't want this "live grenade/ticking time bomb" in their borders, and the few that would, would be a target in some way shape or form.

My Response:
Ummm...now who is sounding like a "Right Winger"? Let's take each question or point one at a time:


1) If the person is unarmed, quite easily I reckon.

2) Have you heard of the International Criminal Court? It's in The Hague which is in the Netherlands. It's where people get tried for breaking international laws; like invading (and occupying) Sovereign Nations, carrying out assassinations on foreign soil, committing war crimes such as torture, mass murder, kidnapping and imprisoning foreign (or even domestic) alleged criminals and sending them to other nations which have...er...looser restrictions on torture (aka Rendition), bombing targets in foreign Nations without a formal declaration of war, violating the Geneva Conventions etc etc...

It's where Cheney, Dubya, Rumsfeld, and now Obama, should all be held for trial. And since when have "Liberals" ever argued against fair trials? I suppose when it's an allegedly "Liberal" President who openly promises to (and actually does) violate international (and domestic) laws against holding and/or executing people without a fair trial.

3) Since when did "fear of reprisals" dictate which country would hold prisoners and put them on trial? The US does it all the time, and quite often in the last decade or so.

4) The US is currently holding an undisclosed number of alleged terrorists that many Right Wingers (and apparently--if you are any indication--some "Lefties" ) would like to take a shot at.

5) Many Islamic Nations, or Secular Middle Eastern and North African Nations with majority Muslim populations, already have quite a few "ticking time bombs" in their borders, some in prison, and some who receive funding from those very same nations. And for that matter, the US is no different in that regard. And many countries (including the US) are already "targets" of Terrorism.

And it's worth a mention that numerous countries (far too many to list here without getting a warning from the Mods for flooding or spamming this thread) around the world have been targets of US sponsored Terrorism for roughly 200 years. But maybe that was glossed over in your US History classes. It usually is.

Every single point in your above paragraph are the same excuses Conservatives and Right Wingers employ all the time.

Twilightsfire, on 04 May 2011 - 05:24 PM, said:

Gandalf, on 04 May 2011 - 12:45 PM, said:
The Obama administration has now decided NOT to release photos of what they claim is a particularly gruesome corpse. Is this because the photos wouldn't actually be able to meet any standard of evidence that the corpse was actually Osama's (after all, it is alleged that bin Laden was shot in the head, possibly rendering him unidentifiable)? Or is it because they had no corpse to photograph?

What difference would it make to you. Like the birthers and Obama's birth certificate, you wouldn't believe it anyway.

My Response:
I'm a pragmatist. I believe in Empirical Evidence. There is a wealth of Empirical Evidence--independently confirmed by third parties--proving that the US is Obama's Place of Birth which can be examined by anyone if they so choose. There is no such Empirical Evidence--independently confirmed--in the case of bin Laden's alleged assassination. In fact, the Obama administration seems to be making every effort to NOT provide such evidence.

Twilightsfire, on 04 May 2011 - 05:24 PM, said:
Releasing photos likely won't do anything constructive,

My Response:
You are correct. Photos can be doctored or staged very easily nowadays. A corpse would be much better evidence. Unfortunately the Obama administration claims to have dumped the evidence...which logically leads to at least three options:

1) They dumped the corpse because it wasn't Osama.
2) They never had a corpse to dump.
3) They wanted to create an air of uncertainty for their own undisclosed reasons.

There may be more options. But given the Obama administration's continuation of the Cheney administration's policies of murdering Muslims and violating International Laws, I can 100% guarantee that being "sensitive" to Muslim feelings or Islamic traditions is not one of those options.

Twilightsfire, on 04 May 2011 - 05:24 PM, said:
and they definitely shouldn't do it just to try and assuage conspiracy theorists like yourself who will just create some other requirement anyway (it's the nature of motivated reasoning)

My Response:
No, they should do it to provide some evidence. But Photos alone are circumstantial and circumspect without Physical Forensic Evidence to support them. Should we have a lesser standard of Evidence than a Court of Law? You apparently seem to think so.

I joke myself about me being a "Conspiracy Theorist" because I know whatever I say, or whatever unanswered questions I ask, there will always be people that want to disregard evidence that contradicts their own presumed narratives--most often narratives provided to them by authority figures and are blindly accepted as "Truth."

In reality (rather than someone's fevered imagination or joke) I am not a "Conspiracy Theorist." I go wherever the empirical evidence (and circumstantial evidence if it is supported by physical evidence) leads me (which occasionally leads to Conspiracy Facts).

And sometimes the very lack of evidence in itself is suspect, as in the case against Osama bin Laden actually masterminding the attacks on 9/11 (again, the FBI never put Osama bin Laden on their Wanted list for those attacks, because they did not have any credible evidence to follow. Nor did the Cheney administration provide any evidence when the Taliban offered to give the US custody of bin Laden if evidence of his complicity could be provided). And the lack of evidence in the case of the alleged assassination of bin Laden is also suspect.

As I sit at my laptop typing, I can see an alternate new narrative being created by the Obama administration on the TV screen showing this morning's NY Times headline: Account Tells of One-Sided Battle in Bin Laden Raid, followed by the assertion that 3 of 4 men killed were unarmed. Possibly this new scenario is being put forth to explain the lack of evidence for the original story of a "heavy fire-fight."

If this new scenario is true, then it creates new headaches for Obama, because now he will have to explain why 3 men plus the alleged figure of bin Laden were murdered when they could have been captured and put on trial. A "One-Sided Battle" can also be described as Mass Murder, much like the "Shock and Awe" attack on the citizens of Baghdad. I don't blindly support any President, Republican OR Democrat, when they commit Mass Murder and violate International Law. In fact, it makes me very angry that Progressives and other Lefties will conceivably be associated with a war-mongering "Democratic" President.

Numerous Pundits, both "left" and "right" have been saying for days that "Pakistan has some explaining to do." Thus deflecting any calls for the US Government to explain their Illegal Actions, not to mention explaining the decades of Intimate Relations between Pakistan's and the US's Military and Intelligence Services. There can be no doubt at all that the US Security State has been knowingly complicit with Pakistan's Security State..


Frankly, I find it disgusting and offensive that allegedly Liberal pundits (some of whom I usually admire) would give the Obama administration cover with this tactic. (I expect this sort of stuff from the Right Wing pundits, so no shock there).

Another tidbit of information is coming in early this morning: Senator Dianne Feinstein has reported that no Senators have yet been shown any photos of bin Laden's corpse. One might think that at least the Head of the Senate Armed Service Committee would have been shown any photographic evidence by now.


EDIT: Latest info on the Senate Photo Fiasco just in. Apparently fake Osama Death Photos were shown to several Republican Senators who were fooled by them. They were forced to backtrack after Senator Feinstein--Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee--categorically stated that NO real photos have been seen by ANY Senator.

[url]http://firstread.msn...in-laden-photos[/url


EDIT: More breaking news: CNN posts pictures bought by Reuters from Pakistani Security Official that confirm some details of the raid. Still not seeing bullet holes in walls of the compound, but wreckage and chopper parts shown, also 3 murdered guys. I honestly don't know how much is real or not. The ISI has a close relationship with the CIA. It looks pretty real to me, but so do episodes of CSI:

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2...x.html?iref=NS1[url]

Question 1): If one chopper is destroyed as some of the photos appear to confirm, how is it that no Navy Seals were harmed according to US officials?

Question 2) Why is the helicopter wreckage attributed to "Mechanical Failure"? Are US Helicopters so poorly made they just fall apart?

EDIT: More "evolving" narrative: Now the destroyed helicopter is attributed to damage due to bad landing.

In both versions the Blackhawk is alleged to have been intentionally destroyed after the damage is severe enough to ground it (to keep it's technology from being "reverse engineered" by potential enemies).. This aspect wasn't particularly clear to me in the previous version because the original reports of the chopper destruction varied substantially.


Question: If this version of events is true, why did the Chopper Pilot suck at landing? Is it plausible that the operation wasn't as much a surprise as had been hoped and was actually damaged by enemy fire? If so, then why not simply come right out and say so?

Also "New" Exclusive ABC footage of bloody room and damage in the Compound alleged to be Osama's. The first 3 or 4 seconds of this continuous clip that show the bloody room looked EXACTLY like the 3 or 4 second clip of "Exclusive ABC footage" aired on May 2nd which was reported to be an image taken from the Training Replica of the Compound.

Questions: Is the original ABC report regarding the images in question actually taken from the Real Raid? Or is the new report in regards to the images in question actually taken from the Training Replica raid?

Is it plausible that the bloody room images could coincidentally be exactly alike in all their bloody detail, right down to the camera angle used, same bedding etc?

EDIT: Latest BBC report confirms many of my concerns:

"New reports of the raid appear to contradict earlier information about the raid.

White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan had originally suggested that Bin Laden was among those who was armed within the compound.

Early accounts of Sunday night's raid had suggested a lengthy exchange of fire throughout the 40-minute operation.

But US officials now say that only one person fired on the US special forces.

He is believed to have been Bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, who was killed at the start of the raid.

Critics have raised concerns about the legality of the operation after the US revised its account to acknowledge Bin Laden was unarmed when shot dead."

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-13304809

This post has been edited by Gandalf's Beard: Yesterday, 10:13 PM

[Pettytyrant101]

The whole thing is a bit bizarre GB. the Pres and co must have known what happened and that other reports of it would come out as press got to the scene- so why make up a cover story full of obvious lies in the first place- seems pretty incompetent really.
First its a 40minute fire fight, then a short fire fight, then just one guy, then turns out that was right at the start and the only other shots fired after that were to execute Bin laden.
So far I see no reaosn to believe it is not him they went after. It is way too big a risk to say they have him if they dont- if he popped up somewhere else proving he was still alive Obama would be over. No, the bigger question is, is he is actually dead? They could easily have taken him alive, and the dumping the corpse at sea story is simple enough- you can get DNA proof from a live man easy enough after all, and keep Bin Laden for 'questioning' where noone knows he is.

Kafria are the Yorkshire results in?- i may have missed them if so. AV got well and truly squashed I see. A rubbish offer really the Libs should never have compromised on it but pushed for proper PR.





Good speech brings a tear to this crabbit eye that for once is not in irony.

[Kafria]

Saw the speech this afternoon.. was very good, but the press already putting the boot in about ' why doesn't he have a referendum now?'

Locally we are still no overall control as we were, little change when looking at seats 2 or 3 either way shifted. Rural yorshire is true blue with urban yorkshire splashing red! would make a regional assembly interesting as I suspect labour would get in, but on a regions level much more of the area would be coloured blue!

On the local front in england, the lib dems had a bad night, but equally there are far fewer noc councils than there were and a lot of other party candiates lost seats (down 200 overall)

AV result, I have to ask what else did the yes camp expect when there is no real campaign? hoped it might be a bit closer though!

GB - I have to ask (and apologies to others for who this is old ground) but what do you mean be the lies of the Cheney administration?, 9/11 and all the programming / analysis / dissection of is something I have kept a distance from, simply being horrified by the human tragedy of it all, so I am not sure what you are getting at. Simple pointers of key points would help me. Thanks!

[Pettytyrant101]

"but what do you mean be the lies of the Cheney administration?"- Kafria

Best have a pot of tea ready and take the phone of the hook for the answer!

[Gandalf's Beard]

Kafria--I just lost a post due to a computer glitch which contained a lot of undisputed history that led up to 9/11 and the subsequent invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. So this will have to be shorter than I intended.

In brief, the bin Laden's and the Saudi Royal family have had close relationships with the Bushes and Dick Cheney for decades. Bush Sr was at one point director of the CIA and under Ronald Reagan and then his own administration still essentially ran the CIA. The CIA and the Saudis funded, armed, and trained the Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan through the 1980s. The term "Al Qaeda" literally translated means "The Database." It was actually just a CIA computer file containing a list of the Mujahideen, who were, for all intents and purposes, assets of the CIA.

Under Clinton Al Qaeda was purported to be a terrorist group under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, and responsible for a number of bombings. In 2000 a group called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) submitted a document they had produced to Clinton called Rebuilding America's Defenses which explicitly called for a "New Pearl Harbor" as a means to galvanize the US public into supporting a new invasion of Iraq and a series of Military Adventures to control the flow of Oil in the Middle East. PNAC had numerous members, but the most significant ones included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush (as a representative of the Bush family).

PDF of the PNAC document Rebuilding of America's defenses;
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

List of signatories and members of PNAC:
http://www.publiceye.org/pnac_chart/pnac.html

In the summer of 2001, after Dick Cheney and the Bushes stole the election, the CIA met with Osama bin Laden while he was in an American hospital in Dubai receiving Dialysis treatment for late stage kidney failure without arresting him. This more than implies that Osama was still considered a CIA asset at this time.

None of the above history is actually in dispute, though it doesn't receive a lot of public attention. What happened next is,of course, considered highly controversial.

On September 11th 2001 the WTC and the Pentagon were attacked causing the loss of over 3000 lives. The PNACers, now in control of the White House, immediately and publicly called the attacks "A New Pearl Harbor." Osama bin laden and "Al Qaeda" were immediately blamed, and Saddam Hussein was also strongly inferred to be behind the attacks. It is important to note that the FBI never put Osama bin Laden on their Most Wanted list because they didn't have any credible evidence linking him to the attacks. And when the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to the US if evidence was provided, they were rebuffed by the White House.

Using the "New Pearl Harbor" as the excuse they had been looking for, Afghanistan was invaded and occupied. But Iraq was the prize that the White House wanted the most (Afghanistan wasn't needed for oil, but rather for a pipeline to bring the oil from the Caspian Sea). Again, there was no credible evidence linking Saddam to the attacks on 9/11. So a series of lies regarding WMDs were generated as a pretext for an invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now there was a time in the 1980s when Saddam did have WMDs. But these WMDs had been provided by the US GOVT under the Reagan administration. Donald Rumsfeld was the point-man for this transfer of WMDs and can be seen shaking Saddam's hand in footage and photos from this period.

As to the 9/11 attacks themselves there are some gaping holes in the White House's Official Conspiracy Theory, not the least of which was the fact that at least 6 of the 19 alleged Hijackers were found alive and well in their home countries, and interviewed by a number of news agencies including the BBC.

The other gaping hole is the bogus explanation for the collapse of 3 buildings at the WTC. The evidence for which is contained in the footage of the collapses themselves. The footage clearly shows the buildings collapsing at near Free Fall speeds into their own footprint, which would violate the laws of physics if the White House's Conspiracy Theory were true. On the other hand, the collapses are perfectly in keeping with the laws of physics associated with controlled demolition. And given that a Security Firm, in which a member of the Bush Family was on the Board of Directors, had been "installing security systems" at the WTC in the weeks prior to 9/11; it is more than plausible that the "installation teams" were actually Intelligence Operatives planting the necessary explosives for a controlled demolition.

There are numerous leaks, whistle-blowers, and witnesses including FBI agents, WTC workers, and one of the Department Heads at NIST, the scientific agency charged with "investigating" the causes of the collapses. Another Bush family member (if I recall correctly, a cousin) produced the Scientific American's report on the collapses.

Another factor is the involvement of the Pakistani Intelligence Services (ISI) in the 9/11 attacks. The head of the ISI was meeting with the CIA in the week prior to the attack. The ISI and the CIA have also had a cozy relationship for decades.

The White House had to keep changing the story of how the attacks occurred, and the timeline of events, and explanations of why none of the planes were intercepted by the Air Force within minutes of going off course and radio silence. But each new story they came up with lacked credibility.

This same pattern of changing story-lines is integral to the alleged assassination of Osama bin Laden. A number of National Security officials, and the infamous Oliver North himself, in the intervening years between the attacks on 9/11 and the assassination of bin Laden, have come forth and stated on the record that Osama had died a number of years ago from kidney failure. The complicity of the ISI and the involvement of the CIA (which directed the Special Ops SEAL team) in the alleged assassination of Osama bin Laden, is thus no surprise at all.

The circle has been closed and the War on Terror continues as a pretext for the US's Military Involvement in the Oil Rich countries of the Middle East and North Africa.


Well, this post is longer than I thought it would be, but that is because I didn't fill in more of the back-story that began when the CIA set up the Mujahideen which I lost in my original post.

One objection I hear all the time, is that surely the Intelligence Community, the Bush Family, and Dick Cheney wouldn't murder 3000 of their own civilians. But the answer to that one is obvious. They have no compunction at sending US Servicemen to die in their wars, or the mass murder of Muslims; why would they have any more compunction at murdering US civilians who they could care less about?

Another clue is the long history of the CIA, and the Bush family, dating back to WW II. Prescott Bush is well known as being "Hitler's Banker." And the CIA was built from merging the OSS with Rheinhardt Gehlen's Intelligence Arm of the Nazi SS.

What is unclear to me, is how deep into this S*** is Barack Obama himself. I wouldn't have thought he could actually be a knowing participant until the alleged assassination of bin Laden. But given that VP Joseph Biden is a signatory to one of the documents produced by PNAC, I guess I shouldn't be so shocked and surprised. It still seems unlikely to me that Obama is completely in the loop, but I am much less certain now than I was before.

[Pettytyrant101]

Well you and I agree on most broad points on this one GB- we disagree over exactly what happened on 9/11 and have discussed it at length before, but the motivations, connections etc leading up to it and actions taken subsequently, we do agree upon.

Its a big question about Obama. How much does he know and how much is he protecting 'America and her interests' by having to go along with this stuff? And what about Hilary, she has been in the White House before she must know how things worked regards the CIA, Saudi, and oil?

Its murkier than a murky pool in a murky cave under a murky mountain beneath a murky sky on a murky planet in a murky universe and no mistake!

[Gandalf's Beard]

Well you and I agree on most broad points on this one GB- we disagree over exactly what happened on 9/11 and have discussed it at length before, but the motivations, connections etc leading up to it and actions taken subsequently, we do agree upon.

Its a big question about Obama. How much does he know and how much is he protecting 'America and her interests' by having to go along with this stuff? And what about Hilary, she has been in the White House before she must know how things worked regards the CIA, Saudi, and oil?

Its murkier than a murky pool in a murky cave under a murky mountain beneath a murky sky on a murky planet in a murky universe and no mistake!

I have long considered that the Democrats have been frightened into going along with the National Security State's Foreign Policies by the Assassinations of 2 Kennedy brothers and attempted assassination of a third Kennedy brother. And secondly, the smearing and destabilizing of the last Democrat with any integrity. Jimmy Carter. I seriously doubt that many Democratic politicians are fully informed by the Right Wing Nat Sec State. But I am certainly beginning to wonder about Obama and Hilary myself.

[Pettytyrant101]

The new political map of Scotland- yellow is SNP, red Labour, blue Conservative and orange Lib Dem.
As you can see the Libs got wiped out on the mainland only holding on to two island seats.
The Labour heartland of Glasgow and the West Coast of Scotland has been torn up leaving them very little and the Tories are confined to the borders (what is it with farmers and Tories?).
All my life the political map of Scotland has looked like a patchwork quilt- this is stunning and slightly surreal to look at for me! This why Salmond referred to his parties original name in his speech- the National Party of Scotland- Island and Highland, east and west, for the first time ever in Scotland since probably King MacAlpine (800ad approx -the joining of the Pictish north with the Dalriad of the south and west) the political face of Scotland is damn near united (not that I expect it will last but even so its quite something).

[img][/img]

GB- sometimes I wonder if the US civil Service and its equivelant of the Foreign Office are not unlike the UK versions as portrayed in Yes, Prime Minister- independant of even the PM (or President in Obama's case).

[Ringdrotten]

In my opinion, the way the towers collapsed is proof enough that something is fishy about the government's explanation. No way a tower, let alone two or three, would ever fall that way unless it was a controlled demolition.

[Pettytyrant101]

There is quite a lot fishy with the Towers I admit. Even in how material from the site was removed and destroyed and what was, and was not, left for investagators.
I am less inclined than GB to believe the US government carried the attack out themselves- not because I don't think they were corrupt enough, or lacked motive- but because its always better to get someone else to do these things for you, and if they believe it was their idea, and their genius making it happen, all the better.
So I think the attack was allowed, too many safe guards that should have prevented it or raised the alarm earlier failed on the day, which is suspicous. The obvious benefits to be gained from a successful war in Iraq in oil interests and arms deals provides the motivation. The countries targeted, Iraq and Afghanistan were linked by oil interests, Iraq's is obvious, in Afghanistan it was a pipe line to the Caspian Sea, the Taliban had torn up a contract to allow US control over it. And a publically disclosed desire for "another Pearl Harbour" by the Administartion upon whose watch it occured seals the deal.
The old saying on finding the source of a conspiracy holds true- follow the money- and all the money leads back to members of the Bush administration and their families and friends and the Saudis, the country from the whom the attacks originated (although that seems to have been lost amidst the Afghan/Iraq lies).

I see footage of Bin Laden watching news reports of himself on TV have been released. Leaving aside the moral question of basking in a mans demise and demeaning him in death, they are still claiming he was a mastermind behind everything.
Odd seeing as all I can see is a slightly sad old man abandoned long ago by his supporters -who continue to use his name to their own advantage- flicking through tv channels like an ageing rock star hoping to see if people are still talking about him and remember him.
And from the reports of those who were in the house it doesn't sound much like it was a hub of evil with 24hr scheming and plotting.

No doubt Bin Laden is responsible for some terrible acts in his life- and some of those acts he commited against civilians fighting the Russians and was hailed a hero for, and at other times he killed civilians in his own cause and called a terrorist for it- but whatever his crimes, in whatever the circumstances he deserved to be tried in a Court of Law for them fairly, not gunned down as something less than human and not worthy of the human rights extended to the rest of us. It does not make the West look powerful or rightwous. It makes the West look immoral and bloodthirsty. No better than those we claim are the worst.

[Ringdrotten]

I agree. The fact that so many of those who condemn terrorists for taking pleasure in killing people, are themselves celebrating a man's death, is so incredibly hypocritical. He may or may not deserve it, but the whole thing is still very ironic.

[Pettytyrant101]

[img][/img]

[Eldorion]

[Pettytyrant101]

Interesting question and response (from a Scottish perspective at least) at PMQ's (Prime Minister's Questions) in the Commons today.
A Tory backbencher asked if an independant Scotland would take with it a share of the national debt but cease to be subsided by the rest of the UK. The implication being a rerun of the usual Unionist argument that Scotland gets more than its fair share of UK money and is only successful because of being subsided from English generosity.This is an old scare tactic of the Tories- Independence would lead to debt and ruin.
However David's Camerons answer was very telling;

'Mr Cameron says he wants politicians of all parties to make "an optimistic and uplifting case" to the people of Scotland to encourage them to stay part of the United Kingdom. He says he doesn't think threatening them with the claim that small countries cant make it on their own will help.'- from the BBC news site.

This to me is an admission that in fact Scotland financially would be fine and that an independance campaign is going to put these figures out in the open where the Unionists cannot just claim the opposite , as they have in the past-and which the Tory backbencher who asked the question seemed to expect would be the tactic again.
The danger in this is that England seems to have happily bought the idea that England pays for Scotland and we get more out of the deal per person than England does- an Independence debate will put this to rest leaving English politicians to explain to their electorate why they have been telling them the opposite all these years.

Cameron's proposed tactic of defending the Union on patriotic terms is a gamble but a smart one I think- Labour just ran in Scotland on a scare campaign about the SNP and they got wiped out. If the Scots people catch the Westminister government out trying to cover up or outright lying to favour the Unionist cause it would probably guarantee a yes vote for Independance, so the No campaign is going to have to play this one canny*.

As a footnote to the Scotttish elections the SNP majority has now seen the resignation of the Scottish Labour, Lib-Dem, and Conservative Leaders- a clean sweep!

*canny- very cunning, in a wise or clever but not a devious or underhanded manner.

[Gandalf's Beard]

This is just a quick response to the notion expressed by Petty that I am blaming "The Government" for actively planning and carrying out the attacks on 9/11. I think there is a bit confusion regarding my position on the subject.

I do NOT believe "The Government" as a whole, or the ostensibly "democratic" institutions of Government, carried out 9/11. What I am claiming is that the US National Security Apparatus, the enforcement arm of the most Right Wing elements of the Plutocracy, is responsible.

This does not mean that I believe everyone in the various agencies and departments knowingly participated. Most people who work in those agencies were just doing their jobs and wouldn't have a clue what the Architects had planned. The rank and file just do what they are told, and are only given just enough information on a need-to-know basis to do their jobs. In fact most of the patriotic underlings probably believed that they were actually engaging in counter-terrorism.

This no doubt extends to the Officers and Infantry of the various armed services. It is a little publicized fact that inter-department (Army, Navy, Air-Force) war games training scenarios were being conducted the very day of 9/11 (with the knowledge and participation of the then mayor Rudy Giuliani. And in fact, the very scenario that was playing out in those War Games on 9/11 was a training scenario that actually was a test to see how well the military could respond to a terrorist attack, which actually posited strikes on the WTC including hijacked planes hitting targets such as the WTC, the Pentagon, and the White House. Pandemonium and Confusion broke out as the various units weren't clear if what was happening was real or simply part of their training exercises

The exact same circumstances occurred during the 7/7 attacks on London. Counter-terrorist Training Exercises were being carried out with the scenario that attacks would be targeting Public Transportation, including the Underground and the Bus system. Once again, with the participation of Rudy Giuliani. What are the odds of that? I would say the odds were astronomical that Rudy Giuliani would be in New York on 9/11 and in London on 7/7, both times as a participant in the War Games. Giuliani appeared on National (US) TV later that day and stated that he was with a counter-terrorism unit training in a section of the Underground. He himself marveled at the incredible "coincidence."

And again, it is important to note that many of the units training for such an event were confused as to what was real or part of their training exercises.

All this is a long-winded description of how govt officials and departments are manipulated without having any operational knowledge of the False Flag/Provocateur Operations being carried out by elite Covert Ops personnel (special units of the CIA and Military Intelligence, often including "ex-military / intelligence" personnel acting as Private Contractors--aka Mercenaries) under orders from the Right Wing elements of The Ruling Class.

In the end, only a small number of individuals would have full operational knowledge of the Covert Ops (aka Black Ops) being carried out. And all of those in that position are in positions of power over the Military / Industrial complex to direct the operations.

So it is VERY important to distinguish between The National Security State and The Government, though of course there is a lot of overlap, particularly when Ultra Right Wingers hold the Executive branch of Government (i.e. the Presidency).

[odo banks]

No matter how you look at it, GB, if you're right about this a lot of Americans had to be in the know, and they knowingly murdered their own citizens, and in peace time. I hope they did not kill any of their own relatives! And I hope they don't have bad dreams about over what they did, for presumably they did what they thought was right (or Right), it's just, well, killing your own must still leave a sour taste! ... I'm curious to know, who do you think drove the planes? Muslims or Christians?

[Gandalf's Beard]

No matter how you look at it, GB, if you're right about this a lot of Americans had to be in the know, and they knowingly murdered their own citizens, and in peace time. I hope they did not kill any of their own relatives! And I hope they don't have bad dreams about over what they did, for presumably they did what they thought was right (or Right), it's just, well, killing your own must still leave a sour taste! ... I'm curious to know, who do you think drove the planes? Muslims or Christians?

Sometimes I really don't get this line of thinking Odo! You would have to completely ignore thousands of years of Historical Precedent to believe that people in a position of power wouldn't murder "their own citizens" or "their own relatives." It has happened time and time again. Royal families were always knocking each other off or murdering "their own citizens" to solidify their own hold on Power or to create a Pretext for wars of acquisition. And there have always been Brutal Underlings, without a conscience, to help them.

Humans are savage; particularly those humans that seek great wealth and power at any cost. Now we're just savages with Hi Tech Weapons of Mass Destruction, and better clothes. Of course some of the Wealthy and Powerful have a bit of a conscience. Obviously they aren't the ones we have to worry about (as much).

It's the ones that don't have a conscience that need watching. The Right Wing in the US have about as much conscience as Genghis Khan or Adolf Hitler. And they sleep very well at night, secure in the belief that Might makes Right, and that they deserve to be the ones holding the Reigns of Power.

As to who flew the planes; the pilots could have been atheists for all I know. If you are talking about the alleged hijackers, you have to ask yourself if there were ANY actual hijackers as at least 6 of the 19 alleged hijackers are KNOWN to be still alive and well after the attacks, and they were very puzzled to discover that they had apparently died.

I don't know the full story; how the planes were taken off course is a matter of speculation. I just know, based on the available evidence, that the Official Conspiracy Theory is completely bogus, and that the laws of physics (as evidenced by all the footage) can only support Controlled Demolition. It is entirely possible that Suicidal Muslims were recruited (by "terrorists" with close ties to the CIA, the Pakistani ISI, and the Saudi Royals) to actually pull off the hijackings (though highly unlikely that they were skilled enough to have flown the planes themselves).

But it is not possible that they brought down the 3 WTC buildings (unless one claims that a bunch of Muslim Terrorists pulled off the Controlled Demolition, which is even less likely than the Official Conspiracy Theory). It is also very possible, given modern technology, that the planes were "hijacked" by remote control, which doesn't preclude the possibility of actual Muslim Hijackers as well.

In regards to which Religious Nut-jobs US citizens should be more concerned about, it's Christians. Right Wing Christian Terrorism in the US has a much longer, more consistent, and better evidenced, history than Islamic Terrorism.

[odo banks]

Maybe we'll just have to wait for some of those directly involved to break and come out and reveal their evil secret. Until then I think we'll just have to agree to strongly disagree on this as I find most of your evidence unsubstantiated at best and implausible at worst!

[Gandalf's Beard]

Maybe we'll just have to wait for some of those directly involved to break and come out and reveal their evil secret. Until then I think we'll just have to agree to strongly disagree on this as I find most of your evidence unsubstantiated at best and implausible at worst!

Right....because the laws of physics have yet to be substantiated.

GB

[Eldorion]

Maybe we'll just have to wait for some of those directly involved to break and come out and reveal their evil secret. Until then I think we'll just have to agree to strongly disagree on this as I find most of your evidence unsubstantiated at best and implausible at worst!

Quoted For Truth.

[Gandalf's Beard]

Maybe we'll just have to wait for some of those directly involved to break and come out and reveal their evil secret. Until then I think we'll just have to agree to strongly disagree on this as I find most of your evidence unsubstantiated at best and implausible at worst!

Quoted For Truth.

Quoted for lack of Critical Thinking Skills.

GB

PS: (You know I mean this with love Eldo )

[The Archet Bugle]

GANDALF BEARD POSTS SMILEY FACE!


HOORAY!


First reported HERE! Your "accurate" journal.


An elephant sometimes forgets but nearly always remembers later.

[Pettytyrant101]

I see tomorrows front page of the sun has the headline "Osama shot in his underpants"- if its true then not only was he unarmed, but the only other reasonable excuse, the fear he had a suicide vest on, would seem to be gone as well. So delibrate execution it has to be then.