I wanted to get your guys take on this. I'm not a "truther" and I won't be making any truth claims here, only stating my suspicions. I think it is very likely that the US wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen, and purposely didn't shoot down the planes so there could be maximum damage. If this is true, to me that is just as bad as pulling off the attacks themselves in a false flag, so to me it doesn't make a difference whether it was a false flag. It would be just as bad either way (same result), so I would argue that the question of whether America attacked itself isn't even really one that matters.
What it comes down to for me is this. Those in charge could have shot down the planes and chose not to. The damage and lives lost could have been ten times less or something like that if the US took action. Why didn't they? Stupidity? I just can't bring myself to buy that explanation. These people are not complete idiots. I'm supposed to believe that they were dumb enough to just sit on their hands and let both twin towers and the Pentagon get hit? The greatest military power in the world just let it happen?
The US wouldn't let so many of their own die? Is 3000 people really a lot? I would argue that 3000 is a very small number when looking at the big picture. The US kills hundreds of thousands of people around the world, so sacrificing 3000 of their own for their cause/war is next to nothing. A drop in the bucket.
Most threads with those questioning the official story of 9/11 are filled with posts like "evidence or GTFO", but hopefully this doesn't turn out like that. Truthers deserve that for making farfetched claims they can't back up with evidence. I don't have an absolute belief about the things I'm talking about in this thread. Only strong suspicions.
There was a previous attempt on the WTC, and of course we all know about the US having the intelligence before 9/11 that Bin Laden was determined to attack. They had to have come to the conclusion that the WTC was going to be a likely target, no? So here's my question to you guys: Knowing this, and knowing that they just sat on their hands as planes crashed into several of their buildings, why is it more logical to take the position that the US didn't want the attacks to happen rather than having/leaning towards the opposite position? You can not prove that they did or did not want it to happen, so why is the position that they absolutely didn't want it to happen seen as the logical position to take? This I do not understand.
Be careful now, the last thread like this we had caused more than a little bit of anger, usually descends into flame wars
We went through this for about 50 pages previously. To put it simply, all conspiratorial thoughts aside, there is not enough evidence to prove any conspiracy and no smoking gun as well. So continue if you want. I am an ex-firefighter and weighed in with my knowledge, another individual not currently posting is also an ex firefighter and another individual was stationed there in a security capacity prior to when it happened. So go ahead, but I won't contribute further.
Quote from: GrinningYMIR on November 19, 2014, 10:32:32 AM
Be careful now, the last thread like this we had caused more than a little bit of anger, usually descends into flame wars
Yeah, but isn't that usually because someone makes a farfetched claim, then they are called out on it and told to provide evidence, then the person making the claim tells the others that they are idiots for not seeing how obvious it is, even though they can't provide evidence, then the others tell him that he's an idiot for believing things not backed by evidence, and so on...?
That's not what this is. I'm not claiming that I know what really happened and that everyone else is an idiot for not seeing it my way.
Quote from: stromboli on November 19, 2014, 10:43:54 AM
We went through this for about 50 pages previously. To put it simply, all conspiratorial thoughts aside, there is not enough evidence to prove any conspiracy and no smoking gun as well. So continue if you want. I am an ex-firefighter and weighed in with my knowledge, another individual not currently posting is also an ex firefighter and another individual was stationed there in a security capacity prior to when it happened. So go ahead, but I won't contribute further.
This thread is different. The point of this thread is not to "prove a conspiracy". Like I said, I don't make any truth claims and am not trying to prove anything here. I don't even have an absolute belief here that I'm trying to argue.
Firefighters have nothing to do with shooting down planes, so I don't see what that has to do with this thread in particular. I haven't made any claims about explosives in the buildings or anything like that, nor do I believe any of that.
I'm simply asking a question about logic. Why is it more logical to have a belief that the US didn't want it to happen? There is no evidence at all to back up this belief. None. There is no evidence one way or the other, so I refrain from believing one way or the other. Are my suspicions unreasonable? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends who you ask. If you saw someone getting their head kicked in on the street and a bunch of cops were standing around watching it happen, would it be unreasonable to think that maybe they didn't mind/care that it was happening?
I have my own suspicions about 911, but even if I had strong evidence it probably wouldn't matter because governments are really good at discrediting things especially when people don't want to believe them.
I remember suspecting my first conspiracy...
Sent from your mom
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 19, 2014, 10:28:47 AM
I think it is very likely that the US wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen, and purposely didn't shoot down the planes so there could be maximum damage.
Why would they need "maximum damage". Wouldn't one WTC Tower collapsing be sufficient for their plan? Wouldn't allowing part of the attack to happen but then intercepting the other planes have accomplished whatever they wanted while also making themselves look competent and heroic?
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 19, 2014, 10:28:47 AM
Those in charge could have shot down the planes and chose not to.
Looks like a factual claim to me.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 19, 2014, 10:28:47 AM
They had to have come to the conclusion that the WTC was going to be a likely target, no?
Did they also have to come to the conclusion that the attack would use airplanes as weapons? Why shouldn't they have concluded that it was going to be another car bomb like not only the previous WTC attack but also the attacks on US embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 19, 2014, 10:28:47 AMthey just sat on their hands as planes crashed into several of their buildings
Sat on their hands?
The gist of your "strong suspicion" is, correct me if I'm wrong, 1)The government knew that the 9/11 attacks were coming, their perpetrators, target(s) and--perhaps--method. 2) The government took no action to stop said attacks, wanting "maximum damage" (for some reason you've not yet suggested; at the risk of putting words into your mouth, presumably an excuse for war) 3) No person of consequence has ever admitted being part of this themselves or called out any person for be part of it.
It is that last part I'd like you to think about. How many people must have known that attacks were coming. The president, his inner circle, intelligence agents for the CIA, FBI, NSA, ect. None of these people thought, "fuck this, I'm saving 3000 lives". Not a single person--either an original member of the conspiracy of a new comer or investigator or reporter stumbling over evidence of it--couldn't sleep one night and decided to purge his conscience or make a name for herself reporting one it. Not a single person thought, "making these accusations public would cost the damn Republicans the election and/or force that murdering scum Bush out of office".
Even if true such as suggested our government could never admit it because ALL credibility would be shot for many years to come both domestically and abroad..
Quote from: Poison Tree on November 19, 2014, 11:45:42 AM
Why would they need "maximum damage". Wouldn't one WTC Tower collapsing be sufficient for their plan? Wouldn't allowing part of the attack to happen but then intercepting the other planes have accomplished whatever they wanted while also making themselves look competent and heroic?
Who knows. I'm not claiming to be able to read minds or know what they were thinking, but like I said, the maximum damage was still an extremely small loss of life in the big picture (sorry, I know that sounds insensitive, but in previous wars the Americans have lost hundreds of thousands, so 3000 is a small sacrifice when you look at it from that perspective), and the image of both towers going down you have to admit, is a great one to shove down the people's throats year after year to get them teary eyed and hating the enemy. It's an extremely powerful image, and got me too in the past. I previously supported drone strikes and the torture Bush was sanctioning. My best guess is that maybe they didn't only let one plane strike because they wanted to be able to make the argument, "Hey, we've REALLY been hurt. They not only hit one tower, but both, AND the Pentagon. This is a huge threat that needs to be defeated", which then makes less people question their endless wars in the Middle East.
QuoteLooks like a factual claim to me.
The Americans had the ability to shoot down planes. That is a fact. They did not shoot them down. Fact. They knew the planes were hijacked before the attacks. All facts.
QuoteDid they also have to come to the conclusion that the attack would use airplanes as weapons? Why shouldn't they have concluded that it was going to be another car bomb like not only the previous WTC attack but also the attacks on US embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi.
I don't know. My only claim is that they knew an attack was likely coming, they knew of the planes hijackings before the attacks on the towers happened, and they didn't do anything about it.
QuoteSat on their hands?
The gist of your "strong suspicion" is, correct me if I'm wrong, 1)The government knew that the 9/11 attacks were coming, their perpetrators, target(s) and--perhaps--method. 2) The government took no action to stop said attacks, wanting "maximum damage" (for some reason you've not yet suggested; at the risk of putting words into your mouth, presumably an excuse for war) 3) No person of consequence has ever admitted being part of this themselves or called out any person for be part of it.
It is that last part I'd like you to think about. How many people must have known that attacks were coming. The president, his inner circle, intelligence agents for the CIA, FBI, NSA, ect. None of these people thought, "fuck this, I'm saving 3000 lives". Not a single person--either an original member of the conspiracy of a new comer or investigator or reporter stumbling over evidence of it--couldn't sleep one night and decided to purge his conscience or make a name for herself reporting one it. Not a single person thought, "making these accusations public would cost the damn Republicans the election and/or force that murdering scum Bush out of office".
I don't think too many people had to know that they were letting the attack happen on purpose. Only the President and his close circle I think would need to know. Why would anyone other than them need to know, if the attack wasn't pulled off by the US, but instead Al Qaeda did it and Bush simply let it happen? All those in power would need to do is sit back and enjoy the show, while simply making sure the order is not given to shoot down the planes, and just give some BS excuse for why the order was not given for fighter jets to engage.
Let's suppose we did shoot those planes down. What kind of shit storm would that have created? US shoots down its own planes because they were hijacked? Why didn't the government wait to see what the hijackers' demands were? Oh, you knew they were going to crash then into the WTC? Yeah, right.
What you are doing is exactly the same as arguing for religion based on faith. You don't have evidence and all your statements are supposition and suspicions.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 19, 2014, 10:28:47 AM
I wanted to get your guys take on this. I'm not a "truther" and I won't be making any truth claims here, only stating my suspicions. I think it is very likely that the US wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen, and purposely didn't shoot down the planes so there could be maximum damage. If this is true, to me that is just as bad as pulling off the attacks themselves in a false flag, so to me it doesn't make a difference whether it was a false flag. It would be just as bad either way (same result), so I would argue that the question of whether America attacked itself isn't even really one that matters.
What it comes down to for me is this. Those in charge could have shot down the planes and chose not to. The damage and lives lost could have been ten times less or something like that if the US took action. Why didn't they? Stupidity? I just can't bring myself to buy that explanation. These people are not complete idiots. I'm supposed to believe that they were dumb enough to just sit on their hands and let both twin towers and the Pentagon get hit? The greatest military power in the world just let it happen?
The US wouldn't let so many of their own die? Is 3000 people really a lot? I would argue that 3000 is a very small number when looking at the big picture. The US kills hundreds of thousands of people around the world, so sacrificing 3000 of their own for their cause/war is next to nothing. A drop in the bucket.
Most threads with those questioning the official story of 9/11 are filled with posts like "evidence or GTFO", but hopefully this doesn't turn out like that. Truthers deserve that for making farfetched claims they can't back up with evidence. I don't have an absolute belief about the things I'm talking about in this thread. Only strong suspicions.
There was a previous attempt on the WTC, and of course we all know about the US having the intelligence before 9/11 that Bin Laden was determined to attack. They had to have come to the conclusion that the WTC was going to be a likely target, no? So here's my question to you guys: Knowing this, and knowing that they just sat on their hands as planes crashed into several of their buildings, why is it more logical to take the position that the US didn't want the attacks to happen rather than having/leaning towards the opposite position? You can not prove that they did or did not want it to happen, so why is the position that they absolutely didn't want it to happen seen as the logical position to take? This I do not understand.
Did it ever occur to you that the people that were defending america that day were just fallible human beings that could only act on the information that was presented to them at the time? By the time anyone realised that anything was seriously wrong, it was way to late to put any kind of effective plan into operation.
Quote from: stromboli on November 19, 2014, 01:30:05 PM
What you are doing is exactly the same as arguing for religion based on faith. You don't have evidence and all your statements are supposition and suspicions.
How so? Those who firmly believe that the US didn't want it to happen are the ones that have a belief without evidence. I don't believe one way or the other, so how can there be faith like you say, when I don't even have a belief to have faith in?
Here is the definition of faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing.
2. belief that is not based on proof.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 19, 2014, 12:43:16 PM
The Americans had the ability to shoot down planes. That is a fact. They did not shoot them down. Fact. They knew the planes were hijacked before the attacks. All facts.
All facts, but not the relevant facts. I don't think anyone has questioned America's ability to shoot down planes in the abstract. Hell, I have the ability to shoot down planes, at least hypothetically. The question is about the ability to shoot down the hijacked planes between the time that the hijackings became known and the planes hit.
NORAD did order fighters into the air, but only had 6 minutes between being alerted that Flight 11 had been hijacked and flight 11 hitting the first tower. Although there was 20 minutes between the first and second tower being hit, there was only 8 minutes between the New York Air Traffic Control Center's operations manager being alerted that Flight 175 had been hijacked and Flight 175 hitting the second tower.
Unless you are now willing to suggest that air traffic controllers, NORAD, air national guard pilots, ect, also were knowledgeable about an imminent terrorist attack, its target and method--which would obviously expand the number of people in on the conspiracy well beyond Bush's close circle--why should they have been in a position to shoot down these two planes in the time allotted? It is not as if it had been standard policy to have AA capabilities ready to go at major landmarks all across America. It is not as if hijacked planes had a history of being used as a weapon. It is not as if readying fighters and intercepting a commercial flight in a crowded sky is a simple or quick matter. It is not as if Bush were simply sitting on the phone ready to give the order to shoot down commercial flights. It is not as if he immediately know what planes were hijacked and how they'd be used.
All the steps necessary to shoot down these planes--realize they are hijacked, realize they are to be used as weapons, get presidential authority to shoot down these planes, communicate each step, have armed fighters airborne, identify and intercept target and shoot it down--all take time; time that wasn't abundant on that day.
Quote from: Jason78 on November 19, 2014, 01:38:13 PM
Did it ever occur to you that the people that were defending america that day were just fallible human beings that could only act on the information that was presented to them at the time? By the time anyone realised that anything was seriously wrong, it was way to late to put any kind of effective plan into operation.
Yes, that occurred to me, and could be the truth. I don't know, like I said before. I'm constantly questioning my views and I know I could be wrong about a lot of things.
Either of us could be wrong. How can we tell? We can't. People have no problem calling Bush murderous scum for what he's done overseas, but when it comes to the possibility that he might not have cared that a small number of Americans were killed on 9/11, this is unthinkable. It's compared to religion and such. People have no problem talking about how the government only cares about the rich, doesn't care about people having good healthcare, and are killers overseas, so letting the country get hit on top of that (a small price for long term gain) is not that unthinkable, and has no place being compared to Jesus rising from the dead. The US letting 9/11 happen is a very real possibility.
Quote from: Poison Tree on November 19, 2014, 02:18:50 PM
What gain exactly?
Endless war in the Middle East like we are seeing right now. I'm not saying it's smart. Obviously they think it is or they would not be engaging in endless war.
Quote from: Poison Tree on November 19, 2014, 01:56:12 PM
All facts, but not the relevant facts. I don't think anyone has questioned America's ability to shoot down planes in the abstract. Hell, I have the ability to shoot down planes, at least hypothetically. The question is about the ability to shoot down the hijacked planes between the time that the hijackings became known and the planes hit.
NORAD did order fighters into the air, but only had 6 minutes between being alerted that Flight 11 had been hijacked and flight 11 hitting the first tower. Although there was 20 minutes between the first and second tower being hit, there was only 8 minutes between the New York Air Traffic Control Center's operations manager being alerted that Flight 175 had been hijacked and Flight 175 hitting the second tower.
Unless you are now willing to suggest that air traffic controllers, NORAD, air national guard pilots, ect, also were knowledgeable about an imminent terrorist attack, its target and method--which would obviously expand the number of people in on the conspiracy well beyond Bush's close circle--why should they have been in a position to shoot down these two planes in the time allotted? It is not as if it had been standard policy to have AA capabilities ready to go at major landmarks all across America. It is not as if hijacked planes had a history of being used as a weapon. It is not as if readying fighters and intercepting a commercial flight in a crowded sky is a simple or quick matter. It is not as if Bush were simply sitting on the phone ready to give the order to shoot down commercial flights. It is not as if he immediately know what planes were hijacked and how they'd be used.
All the steps necessary to shoot down these planes--realize they are hijacked, realize they are to be used as weapons, get presidential authority to shoot down these planes, communicate each step, have armed fighters airborne, identify and intercept target and shoot it down--all take time; time that wasn't abundant on that day.
Thank you for this post. This is the kind of response I wanted when making this thread. Good points and maybe that does explain things. I will think about this for a while.
I really think they should have been prepared for an attack though. I've heard from people formerly in the Government that the idea of planes crashing into the WTC was an idea thrown around. Hell, tv shows and movies prior to 9/11 had plots of terrorists crashing planes into the WTC. Is the US government not even as bright as Hollywood? There was no plan put in place for something like this? I don't know. I'm trying to be as logical and reasonable as I can here, but something is telling me, no, I don't buy it.
We knew the Republicans wanted to go to war with Iraq before 9/11 happened. Stuff like this bothers me and I can't seem to shake it.
Could also be the risk of shooting down planes over major metropolitan city was just to high not knowing the destinations. As for the 2nd plane, same thing. Hitting a tower>bad. Shooting down airliner over NY>WORSE..
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 19, 2014, 02:41:02 PM
I've heard from people formerly in the Government that the idea of planes crashing into the WTC was an idea thrown around.
True, but there is a serious difference between an idea being thrown around and it being seen as probable enough to take action against. Even if they did think it probable enough to take action, they couldn't have just put AA around WTC and call it good enough.
How many terrorist attack worth sights to you think there are in America? I don't know, but I'd guess into the hundreds--at least if you consider 50 state capital buildings as worth of attack. Throw in a bunch of tall buildings --WTC, Sears, Empire, Chrysler, ect--military bases, chemical plants, nuclear plants (which are usually built rather solidly and, supposedly, could survive a 9/11 style attack). I bet a lot of governors/congressmen would fight to have more locations in there state protected then really would deserve it.
It would be enormously expensive to have put ground based AA or constant fighter patrols over all of these locations, even without considering--as APA pointed out--the possible collateral damage from crashing plane debris. And this is obviously ignoring more conventional methods of attack like car bombs, suicide bombs, gun men, ect.
To go from a vague concern about terrorist attacks using various weapons/methods to concluding that the WTC should have had AA protection on 9/11 is a major leap.
The gubnit moved the towers into the paths of the planes.. :eek:
The circumstances leading up to 911 after the Twin Tower had already been bombed are a little fishy to me, and it sure made it a lot easier to keep people afraid so they would support more war, and take more of our freedoms away, which has happened. Has there been even one single terrorist attack stopped at airports since? Let's see, terrorist comes to airport with a bomb vest with C4 and they find out he has it on------BOOM! :eek: :biggrin2:
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 19, 2014, 10:53:00 AM
Yeah, but isn't that usually because someone makes a farfetched claim,
Excuse me but:
QuoteI think it is very likely that the US wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen, and purposely didn't shoot down the planes so there could be maximum damage.
You just made a farfetched claim.
Islam is peace.
Those hijackers were not real Muslims.
Bush done it.
The Qur'an forbids killing innocent people.
The Jews done it.
It had nothing to do with Islam.
Now that the plot is vacant, we want a nice big mosque there.
Sorry, I meant a community center. Well, maybe a small prayer room, Everybody is welcome.
No infidels or dogs allowed. Hope you understand.
Islam is peace.
It had nothing to do with Islam.
My sister-in-law's brother was a first responder, he was there for the duration after the attacks. He got cancer and died last year. He had a teenaged son and a wife and he leaves a family who is devastated by his death.
Conspiracy theories about the government being in cahoots with the terrorists that brought the planes down are a slap in the face and a dishonor to anyone who died or who lost someone they love as a result.
Think about that as you are pontificating about consipiracies.
Quote from: Minimalist on November 20, 2014, 12:19:29 AM
Excuse me but:
You just made a farfetched claim.
Well, I didn't claim I believe that is what happened. I didn't even claim that I think that happened. I said it's a suspicion. I don't accept claims without evidence, or I try not to at least. See my screen name.
Quote from: pr126 on November 20, 2014, 06:28:01 AM
Islam is peace.
Those hijackers were not real Muslims.
Bush done it.
The Qur'an forbids killing innocent people.
The Jews done it.
It had nothing to do with Islam.
Now that the plot is vacant, we want a nice big mosque there.
Sorry, I meant a community center. Well, maybe a small prayer room, Everybody is welcome.
No infidels or dogs allowed. Hope you understand.
Islam is peace.
It had nothing to do with Islam.
Don't know where this came from. Muslims are the best warriors on the Earth. The bravest. The most brutal. The most willing to die. The promise of a martyrs afterlife has a lot to do with building up their courage in battle.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 20, 2014, 07:39:05 AM
My sister-in-law's brother was a first responder, he was there for the duration after the attacks. He got cancer and died last year. He had a teenaged son and a wife and he leaves a family who is devastated by his death.
Conspiracy theories about the government being in cahoots with the terrorists that brought the planes down are a slap in the face and a dishonor to anyone who died or who lost someone they love as a result.
Think about that as you are pontificating about consipiracies.
Sorry, but those deaths are no more important than the thousands of people that die every day. I guess we shouldn't discuss death on this board at all, since someone is bound to get upset. Plenty of 9/11 families question the official story themselves.
And I don't think I've been pontificating about anything. Like I said, I'm having a problem logically accepting something, so I'm wanting you guys to help me see what may very well be an error in my logic. As you know, free will does not exist, so I can't just force myself to accept something I'm really unsure of at the moment. Don't you think it's better for me to ask for your guys help on this, rather than staying quiet and continuing to have what may be unreasonable suspicions? Like I said, I even supported torture a few years ago, so I'm very open to changing my way of thinking.
"People died. How dare you question the government? It's a slap in the face" isn't really helping here, I'm sorry to say.
This topic reminds me of the OJ trial, where he got off because everyone thought it was impossible for him to do such a horrible act as butchering people alive. Our government would never do something so despicable as letting a terrorist attack happen just because Bush and his cohorts who invaded another country based on a lie getting the best this country has to offer killed and maimed that is still going on. The war makes millionaires selling arms and ammunition, equipment, fuel for equipment and planes, private companies like Halliburton. What better way to keep a war going than by fear of the terrorists.
And King Bush before this happened said his job would be a lot easier if he were a dictator who ruled with an iron fist after reading about advice from Machiavelli. I wouldn't put anything past our government after what they have done in the past. Do I believe this is what happened? No! But it is not beyond reason to think it may have with an idiot as a president, who took advice from a cold blooded psychopath that thinks water boarding is not torture. There are people in high office in the military special forces, and politics that had first hand experience and access to secret documents and meetings that think it was allowed to happened, but that the results weren't expected to actually happen and be stopped before it did.
But like the Republicans say: "We are the job makers."
Quote from: Solitary on November 20, 2014, 09:14:57 AM
I wouldn't put anything past our government after what they have done in the past.
I feel the same way. I'm not American though. Canadian, but I pretty much feel like we are one in the same as our PM is the US's lapdog, and we are becoming more and more like the US. We are about to lose our rights up here with our own patriot act, and only two of our soldiers had to die for it lol. Two soldiers died in attacks and this is our 9/11. It's unbelievable, and the people just go along with it and don't care.
Obama goes on tv after one guy who chose to go to a foreign country at war and take a risk gets beheaded and calls the beheader the face of pure evil, while he rains down bombs on little children, and is best friends with those in Saudi Arabia who behead plenty of people themselves. You can't take anything the government says seriously. Right after 9/11, they went on tv and said never in their wildest dreams could they have imagined an attack like this happening. It's BS lies like this and the lies that got the Iraq war started that make people so suspicious. Just tell me the God damn truth. Say, "Yes, we saw this type of an attack as a possibility, but it was only one of hundreds of possibilities". How am I supposed to trust anything the government tells me when over and over they insult our intelligence like this? Tell me you want to go to Iraq again to protect the oil and opium, and whatever other reasons there are. Be straight with me. At least ISIS is straight with the world and tells us exactly what they are about.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 20, 2014, 08:41:54 AMWell, I didn't claim I believe that is what happened. I didn't even claim that I think that happened. I said it's a suspicion. I don't accept claims without evidence, or I try not to at least. See my screen name.
I think it is very likely that the US wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen, and purposely didn't shoot down the planes so there could be maximum damage. That is stated a bit more forcefully than a mere suspicion. Don't get me wrong. I think Dubya was the biggest fucking asshole to ever sit in the White House but a conspiracy that massive is beyond him. To quote Bill Maher: "The government can't plan conspiracies....the government can't deliver the mail."
Did they subsequently take advantage of 9-11? They sure did. But that's not the same thing.
''Quote from FaithisFilth...
Don't know where this came from. Muslims are the best warriors on the Earth. The bravest. The most brutal. The most willing to die. The promise of a martyrs afterlife has a lot to do with building up their courage in battle.
Praising Islam
''Quote from FaithisFilth...
At least ISIS is straight with the world and tells us exactly what they are about.
Admiration for ISIS,
How low can you go ?
There's a maxim: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. The US government is in many ways designed to be at odds with itself, with departments with different agendas and procedures, each with a "turf" that it jealously guards. Even its core three branches (Judiciary, Executive, Legislative) are designed to be at odds with each other. The FAA and TSA, which are in charge of civilian air traffic, were not going to take one for the team and let civilian confidence in air safety be compromised without a fight. The City of New York was not going to let its most symbolic and important business center and tourist attraction be damaged without a fight, as they would have to foot the bill and suffer the loss of same. The Air Force was not going to simply swallow the damage to their reputation if they didn't get the authorization to shoot down those planes if there was a possibility that they could. Remember that while the military may be part of the Executive branch, and the POTUS is "in charge," its budget is decided by Congress.
It would take a very competent group of individuals to pull this off the way you imagine, to purposefully allow 9/11 to happen that way when the damage could have been mitigated. Bush & Co. are not that group.
Quote from: Green Bottle on November 20, 2014, 11:14:09 AM
''Quote from FaithisFilth...
Don't know where this came from. Muslims are the best warriors on the Earth. The bravest. The most brutal. The most willing to die. The promise of a martyrs afterlife has a lot to do with building up their courage in battle.
Praising Islam
''Quote from FaithisFilth...
At least ISIS is straight with the world and tells us exactly what they are about.
Admiration for ISIS,
How low can you go ?
Yes, I admire ISIS because I want the West to tell the truth as well. You got it.
Who is braver than them? I'm certainly not going to sit around calling them cowards while we, with our far superior technology, fly over them dropping bombs on children. They are tougher people, not needing the comforts we have in the West, willing to wait us out, willing to fight back and never quit because Allah has promised them victory, and they are going to be doing it for hundreds of years to come. They have balls. I am willing to give them that, and I will not buy into the propaganda that the Americans are the best at everything and the bravest. That doesn't mean I have to like it when they start cutting off people's heads.
Quote from: Minimalist on November 20, 2014, 11:03:38 AM
I think it is very likely that the US wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen, and purposely didn't shoot down the planes so there could be maximum damage.
That is stated a bit more forcefully than a mere suspicion. Don't get me wrong. I think Dubya was the biggest fucking asshole to ever sit in the White House but a conspiracy that massive is beyond him. To quote Bill Maher: "The government can't plan conspiracies....the government can't deliver the mail."
Did they subsequently take advantage of 9-11? They sure did. But that's not the same thing.
It is debatable that one plane was not shot down. As to what Bill Maher , who I respect said, it is just his opinion, and considering what Bush and his cohorts have accomplished before 911 and after, it is kind if silly for him to say that. Bill Maher also got in trouble for saying he thought the terrorist were braver than killing people from afar like we do.
Yeah. There really is zero argument to be made for them not being tough. A great deal of them are raised up to love the idea of death. Even the mothers over there are tough as nails, and many of them cry tears of joy when they get word that their children have been martyred for the cause.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 20, 2014, 08:50:42 AM
"People died. How dare you question the government? It's a slap in the face" isn't really helping here, I'm sorry to say.
don't put words in my mouth.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 20, 2014, 08:41:54 AM
Don't know where this came from. Muslims are the best warriors on the Earth. The bravest. The most brutal. The most willing to die. The promise of a martyrs afterlife has a lot to do with building up their courage in battle.
It's not courage if one is not afraid of death. It's not bravery for those that embrace doom.
FaithIsFilth wrote:QuoteMuslims are the best warriors on the Earth. The bravest. The most brutal. The most willing to die. The promise of a martyrs afterlife has a lot to do with building up their courage in battle.Quote
So with this reasoning the 19 hijackers, various suicide bombers, indiscriminate murderers of random people in the name of Allah to be admired?
Doubleplus ungood.
Quote from: Green Bottle on November 20, 2014, 11:14:09 AM
''Quote from FaithisFilth...
Don't know where this came from. Muslims are the best warriors on the Earth. The bravest. The most brutal. The most willing to die.
I'm not particularly impressed by "acts of bravery" that involve kidnapping unarmed journalists and mowing down peaceful villagers in the public square, all the while wearing masks. This is brutal, but not brave. When they go up against Western ground forces their bravery will be tested, but for now, I'd call them assholes, rather than brave warriors.
Quote from: pr126 on November 21, 2014, 02:46:00 AM
FaithIsFilth wrote:
QuoteMuslims are the best warriors on the Earth. The bravest. The most brutal. The most willing to die. The promise of a martyrs afterlife has a lot to do with building up their courage in battle.Quote
So with this reasoning the 19 hijackers, various suicide bombers, indiscriminate murderers of random people in the name of Allah to be admired?
Doubleplus ungood.
Good warrior does not mean good person. Genghis Khan was a great warrior, no? The better the warrior the worse the person. The greatest warriors throughout history were brutal and relentless, and the Muslims got that down. They are a very formidable opponent in these dumb wars we wage against them. Their brutality helps them keep their people in check. Step out of line and you lose a hand or get shot in the head (although I'm sure plenty of the Sunnis living there invite ISIS and Islamic Law with open arms, as they see them as better than the previous government that was treating them like shit because they are Sunnis and not Shiites). That doesn't mean I admire the Muslim fighters acts. I sure wouldn't want my government to shoot me in the head for stepping out of line or having the wrong beliefs.
Quote from: SGOS on November 21, 2014, 04:53:19 AM
I'm not particularly impressed by "acts of bravery" that involve kidnapping unarmed journalists and mowing down peaceful villagers in the public square, all the while wearing masks. This is brutal, but not brave. When they go up against Western ground forces their bravery will be tested, but for now, I'd call them assholes, rather than brave warriors.
Journalists that thought it through and decided they would take the chance to go to a foreign country at war and put their neck on the line. You know they don't want the kuffar there and they might chop off your head because other Westerners are bombing their children, but you decide to go anyways.
The Americans decided to start bombing Iraq again, and Syria while they knew there were hostages. Obama doesn't give a damn about those hostages. If he didn't start the bombing up again, those hostages would still have their heads right now. Obama cared about those hostages just as much as he cares about the children he bombs. Those hostages were nothing but collateral damage to Obama, in his new wars. If we in the West saw children around us being bombed, maybe that would turn us into monsters too and stuff like cutting off heads wouldn't be that big of a deal anymore.
Obviously not everything Muslim fighters do is brave. Given that they are extremely outnumbered, have no air force or navy, but went ahead and took over large parts of Iraq and Syria anyways, they are pretty damn brave. That's a hell of a challenge to take on with such a small army.
Quote from: kilodelta on November 20, 2014, 09:55:31 PM
It's not courage if one is not afraid of death. It's not bravery for those that embrace doom.
Funny, because the definition of fearless is: without fear; bold or brave; intrepid. So yeah, if you're not afraid of death, that's the definition of bravery.
If no fear of death in the face of battle is the definition of bravery then it also defines stupidity perfectly as well. The goal in battle is for your opponent to die, not yourself.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 21, 2014, 10:24:25 AM
If no fear of death in the face of battle is the definition of bravery then it also defines stupidity perfectly as well. The goal in battle is for your opponent to die, not yourself.
But thre is the promised eternal celestial brothel waiting!
See Quran 9:111
Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 21, 2014, 09:36:15 AM
The Americans decided to start bombing Iraq again, and Syria while they knew there were hostages. Obama doesn't give a damn about those hostages.
"Doesn't give a damn" sounds like an unnecessarily harsh criticism to me. As you have already pointed out, journalists who place themselves in harms way understand the risks. When they take such risks, they cannot expect the United States to put it's foreign policy on hold.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 21, 2014, 09:36:15 AM
If he didn't start the bombing up again, those hostages would still have their heads right now.
It's not clear to me that this is a true statement. I don't know that the jihadists would choose to leave Westerners alone under any circumstances. If anything, it seems they are going out of their way to goad the West into further conflict, which I'm guessing will be the outcome of all this.
Quote from: pr126 on November 21, 2014, 10:56:37 AM
But thre is the promised eternal celestial brothel waiting!
See Quran 9:111
Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.
Oh yeah..not stupid at all then.. :rolleyes: