9-11, false flags, etc.

[Captain.Sassy]

I wrote a big post on this and then I got logged out and now my big post is lost.

This is the second or third time this has happened to me. I must be a slow learner.

Anyways, the gist of my first post was this:

There have been instances of the US and other governments, or elements thereof, deliberately misleading their own people in order to get support for a war. I just read an article on the Bay of Tonkin incident which argued that recently declassified NSA documents show that McNamara and Johnson misled congress about the incident to get support for going to war (though I've also heard this was a case of faulty intelligence, not deliberate misinformation). I also read the Northwood papers today. Now these were rejected by Kennedy, but were nonetheless brought forward by people pretty high up in the administration. I was shocked to read that these kinds of plans (e.g. staging terrorists attacks in Miami and blaming them on Castro) were even being seriously considered.

My worry is this- If I were around in 1968 and someone told me that Bay of Tonkin II was a trumped up pretext for the war in Vietnam, would I have thought they were a crazy conspiracy crazy? Or would I have been able to piece together for myself that the LBJ administration story was incorrect?

Or what about those fringe secret service agents in Italy, staging bombings and blaming the Reds?

I agree that there's no evidence to suggest the 9-11 attacks were a 'false flag' attack. Maybe a more parallel recent incident might be the Bush administration's misrepresentation of evidence that Iraq had WMDs. And I suppose plenty of people were crying 'foul' over that one when Colin Powell went up before the UN...

In any case, it's still a bit troubling to me.

[TruthersLie]

There have been instances of the US and other governments, or elements thereof, deliberately misleading their own people in order to get support for a war.

This is normal and has happened since the dawn of time. Nothing sinister there, just governments doing what they do to get what they want.


I just read an article on the Bay of Tonkin incident which argued that recently declassified NSA documents show that McNamara and Johnson misled congress about the incident to get support for going to war (though I've also heard this was a case of faulty intelligence, not deliberate misinformation).

1. It is the GULF of tonkin, not the bay of tonkin.
2. Johnson wanted an excuse to go into vietnam, and it gave him the opportuity to do so.
again, see my reply above.


I also read the Northwood papers today. Now these were rejected by Kennedy, but were nonetheless brought forward by people pretty high up in the administration. I was shocked to read that these kinds of plans (e.g. staging terrorists attacks in Miami and blaming them on Castro) were even being seriously considered.


Do you have any idea how many of these types of "plans" are passed around the military? Tens of thousands. It is a way to keep your operational people busy by having them come up with all of these different strategies and counters. These are position papers. I'm sure there are papers that have been put together about using rats as bombs, having chimps for prision guards, and using robots to attack the enemy.

If you paid close attention to the Northwoods papers you would see they called for FAKE attacks, and FAKE deaths of civilians. Nowhere in them do they call for harming American citizens.


My worry is this- If I were around in 1968 and someone told me that Bay of Tonkin II was a trumped up pretext for the war in Vietnam, would I have thought they were a crazy conspiracy crazy? Or would I have been able to piece together for myself that the LBJ administration story was incorrect?


Many historians in the 1980s had put together that the gulf of tonkin was designed (or played up) to get the US into Vietnam. But at the time, it was chaotic and hard to decipher what was going on.

Or what about those fringe secret service agents in Italy, staging bombings and blaming the Reds?


ah... gailardo (or what ever it is called...) yawn.

I agree that there's no evidence to suggest the 9-11 attacks were a 'false flag' attack. Maybe a more parallel recent incident might be the Bush administration's misrepresentation of evidence that Iraq had WMDs. And I suppose plenty of people were crying 'foul' over that one when Colin Powell went up before the UN...


Yup. No evidence of any type of LIHOP/MIHOP on 9/11. Plenty of evidence of FUBAR and then using the event to justify invading iraq to finish what daddy started.

[triforcharity]

I wrote a big post on this and then I got logged out and now my big post is lost.

This is the second or third time this has happened to me. I must be a slow learner.

Anyways, the gist of my first post was this:

There have been instances of the US and other governments, or elements thereof, deliberately misleading their own people in order to get support for a war. I just read an article on the Bay of Tonkin incident which argued that recently declassified NSA documents show that McNamara and Johnson misled congress about the incident to get support for going to war (though I've also heard this was a case of faulty intelligence, not deliberate misinformation). I also read the Northwood papers today. Now these were rejected by Kennedy, but were nonetheless brought forward by people pretty high up in the administration. I was shocked to read that these kinds of plans (e.g. staging terrorists attacks in Miami and blaming them on Castro) were even being seriously considered.

My worry is this- If I were around in 1968 and someone told me that Bay of Tonkin II was a trumped up pretext for the war in Vietnam, would I have thought they were a crazy conspiracy crazy? Or would I have been able to piece together for myself that the LBJ administration story was incorrect?

Or what about those fringe secret service agents in Italy, staging bombings and blaming the Reds?

I agree that there's no evidence to suggest the 9-11 attacks were a 'false flag' attack. Maybe a more parallel recent incident might be the Bush administration's misrepresentation of evidence that Iraq had WMDs. And I suppose plenty of people were crying 'foul' over that one when Colin Powell went up before the UN...

In any case, it's still a bit troubling to me.

Your main issue is highlighted. They were presented, and shot down immeadiatly, and the people that brought them foreward were dismissed from their positions.

[Alt+F4]

I wrote a big post on this and then I got logged out and now my big post is lost.

This is the second or third time this has happened to me. I must be a slow learner.

When I want to write a long post I type it first in Word then cut and paste to here, that way I'm sure I don't lose one of my great "inspirations" :)

[fourtoe]

Do you have any idea how many of these types of "plans" are passed around the military? Tens of thousands. It is a way to keep your operational people busy by having them come up with all of these different strategies and counters. These are position papers. I'm sure there are papers that have been put together about using rats as bombs, having chimps for prision guards, and using robots to attack the enemy.

I know about this phenomenon, but I never heard the term position papers before. Is there more to the definition of position papers other than what you said in the sentence prior to the one I bolded?


If you paid close attention to the Northwoods papers you would see they called for FAKE attacks, and FAKE deaths of civilians. Nowhere in them do they call for harming American citizens.

I didn't know they were faking all the deaths. I must have heard Op Northwoods brought up 1000 times and I never heard someone point this out before. I'm sooo checking out 911myths about it now.

[johnny karate]

The possibility of 9/11 being some kind of "false flag" attack based solely on the fact that other such incidents might have occurred in the past makes about as much sense as treating a homicide as a combination poisoning, shooting, and drowning because that's how Rasputin was killed.

Go where the facts take you, not where the sinister implications of conspiracy theories do.

[Captain.Sassy]

This is normal and has happened since the dawn of time. Nothing sinister there, just governments doing what they do to get what they want.

Hm I guess maybe you and I have different definitions of the word 'sinister'.

1. It is the GULF of tonkin, not the bay of tonkin

Aw man...
It does bug me when people do stuff like that. Yeesh. My bad.

[Captain.Sassy]

I didn't know they were faking all the deaths. I must have heard Op Northwoods brought up 1000 times and I never heard someone point this out before. I'm sooo checking out 911myths about it now.


Here, check this instead:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

There is some ambiguity about the fate of the Cuban boat people (insensitive? Navally disposessed?), but other than that buddy is right about the 'no deaths' theme of the paper.

[fourtoe]

Here, check this instead:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

There is some ambiguity about the fate of the Cuban boat people (insensitive? Navally disposessed?), but other than that buddy is right about the 'no deaths' theme of the paper.

Sweet, thanks for the link!

[Dave Rogers]

There have been instances of the US and other governments, or elements thereof, deliberately misleading their own people in order to get support for a war. I just read an article on the Bay of Tonkin incident which argued that recently declassified NSA documents show that McNamara and Johnson misled congress about the incident to get support for going to war (though I've also heard this was a case of faulty intelligence, not deliberate misinformation). I also read the Northwood papers today. Now these were rejected by Kennedy, but were nonetheless brought forward by people pretty high up in the administration. I was shocked to read that these kinds of plans (e.g. staging terrorists attacks in Miami and blaming them on Castro) were even being seriously considered.

There's a big difference - actually, an enormous, elephant-in-the-room sized difference - between elements of the government deliberately misleading their own people in order to get support for a war, and deliberately manufacturing an incident in order to get support for a war. The former is just business as usual; governments present information in the light that they feel is most likely to garner support for their policies. And it seems to me that the second Golf of Tonkin incident was, at worst, the former; McNamara and Johnson may have been aware that no enemy forces were present and may have chosen not to pass on that information, but this appears to have been entirely after the fact. And there's just as big a difference between deliberately manufacturing a fake incident, like the most CT-oriented possible interpretation of Tonkin (and, for that matter, Northwoods, if we were sticking to reasonable interpretations) would describe, and deliberately carrying out a real attack on one's own citizens with real loss of life.

That seems to me a little-noted weakness of the historical precedent argument for 9/11; even if the supposed incidents claimed by truthers took place entirely as the truthers claim, only the Maine incident is even in the same category as the 9/11 MIHOP theories. Gulf of Tonkin? No deaths. Pearl Harbor? A real attack by a real enemy. Northwoods? No deaths. Lusitania? A real attack by a real enemy. And so it goes on.

I agree that there's no evidence to suggest the 9-11 attacks were a 'false flag' attack. Maybe a more parallel recent incident might be the Bush administration's misrepresentation of evidence that Iraq had WMDs. And I suppose plenty of people were crying 'foul' over that one when Colin Powell went up before the UN...

Another example of business as usual. The Bush administration wanted a war with Iraq. They knew for certain Iraq had possessed WMD in the past. They didn't worry too much about doubting their own sources, when those sources supported their preferred line of action. It doesn't seem to likely to me that they manufactured the evidence themselves.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

Hm I guess maybe you and I have different definitions of the word 'sinister'.


Aw man...
It does bug me when people do stuff like that. Yeesh. My bad.

I wasn't trying to be a prig.

I don't count governments spinning the information they release about incidents to their best advantage as "sinsiter." Do I have a problem with it? Sure I do. It puts my friends in harms way and has cost the lives of thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen in the pat 60 years.

But that is the way the world operates. Governments spin information. They take what they want and then try to pass off the rest if they can get away with it. It happens.

The lusitania is a perfect example.... the xyz telegram...

gulf of tonkin... well there is some debate as to what "exactly" happened there, but it let Johnson take the US into vietnam (which is what he wanted)

Do false flag attacks happen? Sure they do.

Could 9/11 have been one? Nope... a much more likely event would have been mothra doing it.
why? because governments (and military branches) can't keep secrets. Manhattan project had leaks which gave atomic secrets to the russians. Nuclear launch codes have been compromised in the past, and even the Mafia squeal (and we know what happens to them).

I have friends who are in the rangers, one in the seals, and they brag about the things they do... Yet not one person has EVER talked to their priest, a shrink, their doctor and told them they helped murder 3,000 people. A conspiracy large enough to pull off a false flag operation on 9/11 would be in the thousands of people. and not one has ever spoken about it. not possible.

Now did GWB USE 9/11? Oh yea. And it was dispicable and revolting...

[TruthersLie]

I know about this phenomenon, but I never heard the term position papers before. Is there more to the definition of position papers other than what you said in the sentence prior to the one I bolded?


I have knowledge, but it is in very general terms. It is exceptionally late, and I am very tired. So if this doesn't make sense, I blame it on lack of sleep.

Inside each branch of the military there are several branches.. intelligence, logistics, personel, transportation etc...

The branch that deals with planning and intelligence is filled with officer who are all trying to get noticed and promoted. One of the ways you get noticed is by writing what I call "position papers." There may be a specific military term. But basically they all are about trying ot outsmart each other. A hypothetical attack, a hypothetical defense, a "wouldn't this be interesting if we tried this" kind of situation. When a plan gets noticed, it helps your career (unless it is like Northwoods, which killed Lymans (sp) career. The military planners write hundreds of these, thousands of them.... northwoods was one that was rejected.


I didn't know they were faking all the deaths. I must have heard Op Northwoods brought up 1000 times and I never heard someone point this out before. I'm sooo checking out 911myths about it now.

Yes. In all of the northwoods stuff, the thing that is completely glossed over by twoofs is that they are not talking about KILLING anyone. (even the boat refugees... AFAIK). They even talk about faking an airliner being shotdown. But the airliner takes off with real people, real passengers. It then lands and lets off the passengers and is filled with dummies and shot down.

Even in the Northwoods papers, it clearly shows the governments UNWILLINGNESS to murder innocent AMERICAN civilians.

[Captain.Sassy]

But that is the way the world operates. Governments spin information. They take what they want and then try to pass off the rest if they can get away with it. It happens.

True enough. I think there's a big difference between spinning something and (though they never carried it out) faking a Cuban sponsored terror campaign...

But mebbe i'm a naif.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

In any case, it's still a bit troubling to me.


Here's the thing, though: precedent can be a nice way of figuring out what action or actions one should take in a given situation, but it's absolutely useless for trying to figure out how something happened or "who done it". It's not an investigative tool; it's a decision-making tool.

Anyone who wants to point the finger at the U.S. government for 9/11 simply because "they've lied to the people in the past" also needs to recognize that Al-Qaeda, and Islamic extremists in general, have killed innocent civilians in the past.

[Mr.D]

Here's the thing, though: precedent can be a nice way of figuring out what action or actions one should take in a given situation, but it's absolutely useless for trying to figure out how something happened or "who done it". It's not an investigative tool; it's a decision-making tool.

Well, to be fair, you're going to suspect the always-in-trouble-teen next door as the person who vandalized your porch last night far more than the kindly old couple living across the street.

That being said, pointing at Operation Northwoods as inside-job evidence is kinda like suspecting your new next door neighbor because the kid who USED to live next door once talked about (but never did) TP'ing the house across the street.


ETA: I'm not disagreeing, just saying that prior action can be a decide-who-to-investigate-first tool.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

ETA: I'm not disagreeing, just saying that prior action can be a decide-who-to-investigate-first tool.


Good point.

[Dave Rogers]

Even in the Northwoods papers, it clearly shows the governments UNWILLINGNESS to murder innocent AMERICAN civilians.

I love the way truthers do an about-face when this is pointed out.

Truther: Look at Operation Northwoods, it proves that the USA was prepared to openly discuss killing its own citizens!

Debunker: But if you actually read Northwoods, it doesn't suggest actually killing anyone.

Truther: Well, of course it doesn't, it just hints at it, because no government would dare actually talk about that sort of thing!

I've seen that sort of argument a few times on this forum.

Dave

[thought_fugitive]

Great points, especially TL and Cl1m & Mr. D in your exchange.

I do have a lingering question about the whole issue... it seems understood here that government officials have no qualms with misrepresenting issues with the intention of advancing different goals. That being the case, if something like Northwoods was ever executed hypothetically, where:

1. the government fabricated an incident that had no intrinsic effect, but was widely interpreted as an attack on American soldiers by foreign militants, and
2. the government used that widespread interpretation (while aware of the truth) as justification for military action against aforementioned foreigners

is that on the same moral level as the less-than-favorable tactics of politicians previously expressed in the thread? Or should it cross the line since it involves manufactured falsehoods as opposed to deliberate distortions?

This seems like it could still fall into a consequentalist argument like the ends were ultimately favorable to America and/or the world but the general public is too short-sighted or ill-informed to favor intervention at the strategically best moment.

[thought_fugitive]

Well, I suppose it's been answered already and I practically answered myself that a deceptive act like the type of false flag outlined in Northwoods would certainly be worse than anything involving legitimate intelligence. However, I guess a better phrasing of what I'm curious about would be:
1. if there are cases where politicians misrepresent issues in favor of their political goals that are generally agreed to be immoral
2. if so, at what point would this level of immorality be akin to lying for the same purpose?

[Brattus]

Could 9/11 have been one? Nope... a much more likely event would have been mothra doing it.
why? because governments (and military branches) can't keep secrets. Manhattan project had leaks which gave atomic secrets to the russians. Nuclear launch codes have been compromised in the past, and even the Mafia squeal (and we know what happens to them).

I have friends who are in the rangers, one in the seals, and they brag about the things they do... Yet not one person has EVER talked to their priest, a shrink, their doctor and told them they helped murder 3,000 people. A conspiracy large enough to pull off a false flag operation on 9/11 would be in the thousands of people. and not one has ever spoken about it. not possible.

Here is the thing I never could understand about the 9/11 twoof movement.
The government will covertly wire super nano thermite to the twin towers murdering 1000s of its own citizens. But, the same government will not simply drag some missile shells to Iraq and pile them up in the dessert and bring in the media and say see we told you they had WMDs.

If the government is willing to do the first then doing the second would be a no brainier.

[thought_fugitive]

Here is the thing I never could understand about the 9/11 twoof movement.
The government will covertly wire super nano thermite to the twin towers murdering 1000s of its own citizens. But, the same government will not simply drag some missile shells to Iraq and pile them up in the dessert and bring in the media and say see we told you they had WMDs.

If the government is willing to do the first then doing the second would be a no brainier.

Not only that, but a government (or shadow Freemason Zionist elite) that would indiscriminately murder 3,000 civilians while simultaneously going through the hassle of paying off another n-thousand-odd people to plan the thing and keep it all under wraps all these years...

...unless, that very Freemason Zionist power elite saw to it that every co-conspirator or potential whistle-blower was killed in that day's attacks.

Every one except:

kqPg-mc1CIQ

DAMNIT! THAT BENJAMIN FULFORD GOT US AGAIN!!!

Oh yeah, as for my dessert I'll take a hot fudge sundae with Pu-239 jimmies!

I need sleep :eye-poppi

[TruthersLie]

Here is the thing I never could understand about the 9/11 twoof movement.
The government will covertly wire super nano thermite to the twin towers murdering 1000s of its own citizens. But, the same government will not simply drag some missile shells to Iraq and pile them up in the dessert and bring in the media and say see we told you they had WMDs.

If the government is willing to do the first then doing the second would be a no brainier.

this is one of my favorite bits of disconnect.

They use the rube goldberg conspiracy machine... making it huge and way out of proportions.

I can come up with 5 consipracies which would kill many more people in a much more horrific way with MANY fewer moving parts in about 45 minutes of thought. I am not military trained nor a trained terrorist. What can the PROS do?

The second part, with the chemistry that I do know, I can create WMDS in my bathroom (anthrax, mustard gas, and alot of chemical weapons including ricin.) Yet, they couldn't set up fake WMD/real WMD's to cement the war in iraq?

damn the A team mixed with Rain man...

[paulheinze]

Here is the thing I never could understand about the 9/11 twoof movement.
The government will covertly wire super nano thermite to the twin towers murdering 1000s of its own citizens. But, the same government will not simply drag some missile shells to Iraq and pile them up in the dessert and bring in the media and say see we told you they had WMDs.

If the government is willing to do the first then doing the second would be a no brainier.

Making up WMDs was not necessary anymore. They got what they wanted. What would they have gained?
The whole WMD stuff was ridiculous from the first second.
Anybody who believed this stuff, should question his rational abilities.

[paulheinze]

this is one of my favorite bits of disconnect.


I can come up with 5 consipracies which would kill many more people in a much more horrific way with MANY fewer moving parts in about 45 minutes of thought. I am not military trained nor a trained terrorist. What can the PROS do?

The second part, with the chemistry that I do know, I can create WMDS in my bathroom (anthrax, mustard gas, and alot of chemical weapons including ricin.) Yet, they couldn't set up fake WMD/real WMD's to cement the war in iraq?



I hope you will not get a visit by the FBI or HLS. Do they waterboard US citizens, too?

[Dave Rogers]

Making up WMDs was not necessary anymore. They got what they wanted. What would they have gained?

So let's see: they crashed four airliners, killed three thousand people and destroyed two of the most iconic landmarks of New York City. What would they have gained from demolishing WTC7? And yet, for some reason, they were prepared to go the extra mile to destroy a building most of the world had never heard of. And yet^2, when they invaded Iraq, when they stood to gain the approval and gratitude of the free world for nullifying a major threat to the West by knocking out Saddam Hussein's WMD program, they couldn't even go the extra yard to plant some fakes in an area they had locked down tight under military control. And as a result nobody trusts the USA anywhere near as much as they used to, and the Bush administration is history rather than being carried on by his chosen successor, whoever that might have been.

Anybody who believed this stuff, should question his rational abilities.

Quite.

Dave

[paulheinze]

And yet^2, when they invaded Iraq, when they stood to gain the approval and gratitude of the free world for nullifying a major threat to the West by knocking out Saddam Hussein's WMD program, they couldn't even go the extra yard to plant some fakes in an area they had locked down tight under military control. And as a result nobody trusts the USA anywhere near as much as they used to, and the Bush administration is history rather than being carried on by his chosen successor, whoever that might have been.

Why would they care? They got what they wanted (the oil rights, a satelite state). Since when have the US cared about the trust of countries of denyiable military ability? Tell me one incident, when the US refrained from a executing a war or similar Low Intensity Conflict measures just because of the concern of a foreign country?

[Dave Rogers]

Why would they care? They got what they wanted (the oil rights, a satelite state). Since when have the US cared about the trust of countries of denyiable military ability? Tell me one incident, when the US refrained from a executing a war or similar Low Intensity Conflict measures just because of the concern of a foreign country?

And what about the support of their own people, that precious commodity that, in the minds of the conspiracists, 9/11 was entirely organised to obtain? They killed 3,000 people and flattened the heart of Manhattan to get the support of the people, then threw it away because they couldn't leave a few suspicious crates lying around in the desert. Why are these hypothetical conspirators always so stupid?

Dave

[johnny karate]

Making up WMDs was not necessary anymore. They got what they wanted.

Not unless what they wanted was a dramatic loss of popular support for their war and themselves.

What would they have gained?

Victory in the 2008 elections? Not being one of the most reviled administrations in history? A political party not in shambles?

Here's a better question: With the way events played out, what did they gain?

The whole WMD stuff was ridiculous from the first second.Anybody who believed this stuff, should question his rational abilities.

At the time, it was enough to convince the American public and Congress to go to war. Say what you will about the rational capacity of either, but I've yet to see an inside job scenario that isn't orders of magnitude stupider and more convoluted than the comparitively simple notion that Iraq had WMDs.

[johnny karate]

They got what they wanted (the oil rights, a satelite state).

Source?

[paulheinze]

They killed 3,000 people and flattened the heart of Manhattan to get the support of the people, then threw it away because they couldn't leave a few suspicious crates lying around in the desert. Why are these hypothetical conspirators always so stupid?

I still do not see your point. It was always obvious that they were lying about Iraq. Only people who wanted to believe in their government did so.

War propaganda was always used to get support for war. Think about the babies thrown out of the incubators in the first Iraq war. They rely on the mainstream media which readily assist in broadcasting their lies.

In some years if necessary many people will believe again almost everything they decide to use as propaganda.

I ask you, if many of the US citizens still believed the WMD stuff after the lies of the 1. Gulf war why should they care about delivering proofs after the war. It is not necessary. So why should they do it?

[paulheinze]

Source?
oil rights
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html
satelite state
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/how-george-bush-turned-ir_b_27928.html

[dtugg]

You do realize, twoofer, that the Republicans lost control of Congress and perhaps the Presidency largely because of Iraq, correct? Do you think that they wanted this to happen? If they were so evil as to kill three thousand Americans in order to get support for a war, why not take the relatively simply step of planting the WMDs to make their actions seem justified?

[paulheinze]

At the time, it was enough to convince the American public and Congress to go to war. Say what you will about the rational capacity of either, but I've yet to see an inside job scenario that isn't orders of magnitude stupider and more convoluted than the comparitively simple notion that Iraq had WMDs.

A country devastated after a major war and continous bombing for a decade, with little financial income is working on expensive WMD programs under continous monitoring of the WMD-inspectors? Very convincing. The lie was always obvious. You should elect different people into the congress. I would not trust them.
I mean they even constructed a connection between bin laden and saddam.

[paulheinze]

You do realize, twoofer, that the Republicans lost control of Congress and perhaps the Presidency largely because of Iraq, correct? Do you think that they wanted this to happen? If they were so evil to kill three thousand Americans in order to get support for a war, why not take the relatively simply step of planting the WMDs to make their actions seem justified?

They lost the Congress because they could not end the hostilities in Iraq, not because of the WMD lies. How does the fact that the democrats got the majority affect the gains made by the Iraq war? Did the democrats propose an initiative to leave the control of the oil to the Iraqis instead of privatizing it to the benefit of Western oil companies?

[Dave Rogers]

I ask you, if many of the US citizens still believed the WMD stuff after the lies of the 1. Gulf war why should they care about delivering proofs after the war. It is not necessary. So why should they do it?

Two points.

Firstly, there's a good reason why they should have wanted to do it. The Republican party has sunk very low, largely as a result of the loss of public trust when its confident predictions of finding WMD in Iraq were unsubstantiated. If the entire point of 9/11 was to get support for foreign wars, then it was utterly idiotic to throw that support away for want of a simple and undetectable bit of evidence planting. That's why it was necessary.

Secondly, as I've already pointed out, the hypothetical fake attack on 9/11, if it was fake, was far more complicated than it needed to be, and included elements that were completely irrelevant to its aims which nevertheless required vast additional risks and resources.

You're arguing that it's implausibile that the the executors of an insanely vast and overcomplicated conspiracy would carry out a minor and risk-free additional operation with massive long-term rewards. Your argument is insane.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

oil rights
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html
satelite state
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/how-george-bush-turned-ir_b_27928.html

your first link is to a CBC (canadian) article, which bases its entire report on an article from the BRITISH newspaper the "Independent".

here is a link to the ORIGINAL ARTICLE,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/blood-and-oil-how-the-west-will-profit-from-iraqs-most-precious-commodity-431119.html

Secondly, this is a 2007 article. It said they were TRYING to push this law through.

Well did they? Do you have confirmation this is now law?

TAM:)

[dtugg]

satelite state
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/how-george-bush-turned-ir_b_27928.html

Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a satellite state of Iran?

[Dave Rogers]

satelite state
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/how-george-bush-turned-ir_b_27928.html

:dl:

Did you even read as far as the middle of the title?

How George Bush Turned Iraq Into a Satellite State of Iran: The Numbers Tell the Story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/how-george-bush-turned-ir_b_27928.html)

He shoots! He Scores! But in the wrong goal!

Dave

[dtugg]

They lost the Congress because they could not end the hostilities in Iraq, not because of the WMD lies.

Nope.

How does the fact that the democrats got the majority affect the gains made by the Iraq war? Did the democrats propose an initiative to leave the control of the oil to the Iraqis instead of privatizing it to the benefit of Western oil companies?

The point twoofer, is that politicians like to stay in power. Because of Iraq, the Republicans lost power.

Oh, and the oil is in control of the Iraqis. Not that this was something the Democrats did.

[BigAl]

A country devastated after a major war and continous bombing for a decade, with little financial income is working on expensive WMD programs under continous monitoring of the WMD-inspectors? Very convincing. The lie was always obvious. You should elect different people into the congress. I would not trust them.
I mean they even constructed a connection between bin laden and saddam.

Prior to 1991 Saddam had several WMD programs and was making real progress and nobody outside Iraq knew it. We found it as a result of prevailing in the 1991 war. The 1991 war, then the tomahawk attacks and finally the inspection regime made it all go away by 2003.

[paulheinze]

your first link is to a CBC (canadian) article, which bases its entire report on an article from the BRITISH newspaper the "Independent".

here is a link to the ORIGINAL ARTICLE,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/blood-and-oil-how-the-west-will-profit-from-iraqs-most-precious-commodity-431119.html

Secondly, this is a 2007 article. It said they were TRYING to push this law through.

Well did they? Do you have confirmation this is now law?

TAM:)

The privatization law has not been pushed through yet.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22030

Also, the so-called TSC contracts which are signed or to be signed with the IOCs, will give the control of 80 percent of Iraq's oil producing fields for 20 years to the foreign companies through their control of the "field operating divisions" -- the FODs

Satelite State. Wrong link
this is better:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21926

So, 2012 will witness a fully independent Iraq, right? Wrong. "Many studying Iraq believe the US will end up negotiating with Baghdad to establish a couple of permanent military bases," writes Matt Schofield. "Those could be essential to leaving behind a stable government, a military loyal to the nation and capable of defending it, and a country that has the backing of the people."
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21375

In Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, the Bush administration built the largest embassy of any nation anywhere on Earth, a sprawling complex of buildings to accommodate up to 5,000 American diplomats and officials. That shows what long-term objectives the Bush administration had for Iraq and the Middle East. Besides, it was again the illegal action of the occupying military power in which the people of Iraq had no say.

[Dave Rogers]

The privatization law has not been pushed through yet.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22030



Interesting. So let's suppose some WMD had been found in Iraq, and the Bush administration had appeared to be vindicated. Do you think there would be a better or a worse chance that this law would be pushed through, and a better or a worse chance that the Republican administration would be in a position to benefit from it?

Your grip of cost/benefit analysis appears rather tenuous.

Dave

[dtugg]

There are permanate US military bases in the UK, Germany, Japan, and South Korea, just to name a few. Are they satellite states of the US?

[johnny karate]

oil rights
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html

You might want to update your links, or at least go beyond the first one offered by Google when you do your searches.

The law referred to in that story has yet to go into effect due to a breakdown in negotiations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)).

And not only that, but Iraq just signed the first post-invasion oil field development contract with... China (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/world/middleeast/06iraqoil.html?em).

So, elements within the Bush administration conspired to invade Iraq with the public outrage over an attack by Saudi terrrorists to grant oil rights to a Chinese company?

Oh, the tangled webs we weave...

satelite state
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/how-george-bush-turned-ir_b_27928.html

I see no reason to add to the mockery you've already received for your profound Googlefail.

[paulheinze]

Interesting. So let's suppose some WMD had been found in Iraq, and the Bush administration had appeared to be vindicated. Do you think there would be a better or a worse chance that this law would be pushed through, and a better or a worse chance that the Republican administration would be in a position to benefit from it?

Your grip of cost/benefit analysis appears rather tenuous.

Dave
The privatization of Iraqi oil and a alleged WMD program have little to do with each other. I do not see the connection. Do you mean it would be easier to get the Iraqis to giving their oil away. The Bush admin underestimated the resistance rising up after capturing Saddam and the rise of Iranian influence. This has nothing to do with some WMD fakery which would have only convinced the US public but not the Iraqis.

[funk de fino]

The privatization law has not been pushed
through yet.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22030

I find it strange that a matter of months ago an Iraqi government minister was on TV in the UK saying that they control 100% of their oil fields.

That they then license the fields to IOC or use international service companies is nothing strange. It happens all over the world. American companies are required to get this oil out. Its an industry thing.

Stop it with the oil stuff, you are clueless on this.

[paulheinze]

There are permanate US military bases in the UK, Germany, Japan, and South Korea, just to name a few. Are they satellite states of the US?

Essentially they were and are Satellite states. Hard to imagine that each of these countries would execute a military operation without the approval of the US. And all of these countries participate or support US wars virtually all the time.
Germany was strongly opposed to the Iraq war but allowed the US to use its bases in order to attack Iraq. Does not sound like a truly independent state, does it?

[Dave Rogers]

The privatization of Iraqi oil and a alleged WMD program have little to do with each other. I do not see the connection. Do you mean it would be easier to get the Iraqis to giving their oil away. The Bush admin underestimated the resistance rising up after capturing Saddam and the rise of Iranian influence. This has nothing to do with some WMD fakery which would have only convinced the US public but not the Iraqis.

If your aim in being here is to show off your skills at post hoc reasoning, please rest assured that we're all impressed. You're doing a very good job of basing your case on the assumption that things could not have turned out other than they have. The fact remains that you are arguing that the conspirators didn't do something very easy that could be expected, at the time, to have clear and definite benefits if only in terms of their public image with the electorate, and yet did do something very difficult that could not be expected at the time (and has not been shown since) to have any benefit at all.

Your argument that finding WMD would have made things no better for the Bush administration is, at best, mildly amusing. Nobody here is going to buy it for an instant, but feel free to keep up your dance.

Dave

[funk de fino]

Essentially they were and are Satellite states. Hard to imagine that each of these countries would execute a military operation without the approval of the US. And all of these countries participate or support US wars virtually all the time.
Germany was strongly opposed to the Iraq war but allowed the US to use its bases in order to attack Iraq. Does not sound like a truly independent state, does it?

Balderdash. Europe, in the main, turned their arse towards Bush and Iraq.

Remind me again of the strong backing and approval the US gave for the Falklands war.

[johnny karate]

The privatization law has not been pushed through yet.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22030

Once again, you use outdated links. Here's an update on that story. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html)

The on-going negotiations point to one incontrovertible fact: Iraq has the right of refusal.

So what's the point of manufacturing a terrorist attack to garner popular support for an invasion in order acquire oil if we're forced to negotiate with the country with the oil?


Satelite State. Wrong link
this is better:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21926

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21375

Mere semantics. Just because we have a military presence in a country doesn't necessarily mean it's a satellite state.

And what's the point of creating a satellite state in an oil-rich country if they won't even let us get our hands on the oil?

[paulheinze]

I find it strange that a matter of months ago an Iraqi government minister was on TV in the UK saying that they control 100% of their oil fields.

That they then license the fields to IOC or use international service companies is nothing strange. It happens all over the world. American companies are required to get this oil out. Its an industry thing.

Stop it with the oil stuff, you are clueless on this.

The Iraqi oil was nationalized 1972. The Iraqis managed to get their oil out by themselves. Privatization of resources is the means how the third world countries are expropriated. Read about the Washington consensus.

The main reason for attacking Iraq was that Saddam Hussein did not succumb to the demands of the IMF and the World Bank. He used the resources to develop the country. He did not give it away to Western companies. Human rights violations were never a concern for Western policy.

[johnny karate]

The main reason for attacking Iraq was that Saddam Hussein did not succumb to the demands of the IMF and the World Bank. He used the resources to develop the country. He did not give it away to Western companies.

Neither is the current Iraqi government.

So if the main reason to invade Iraq was to remove a government unyielding to Western demands for oil, only to have it replaced by a government unyielding to Western demands for oil, why did we invade Iraq again?

[funk de fino]

The Iraqi oil was nationalized 1972. The Iraqis managed to get their oil out by themselves. Privatization of resources is the means how the third world countries are expropriated. Read about the Washington consensus.

The main reason for attacking Iraq was that Saddam Hussein did not succumb to the demands of the IMF and the World Bank. He used the resources to develop the country. He did not give it away to Western companies. Human rights violations were never a concern for Western policy.

Listen mate, I work in the oil industry. The Iraqis did not pass the law and they control who they license their oil to. OK?

It is not privatisation it is licensing. Those oil companies and service companies are needed to get the oil out. iraq cannot do it themselves. It hapoens all over the world where american companies arepresent in the oil industry. China, Venezuela, Russia, Libya etc etc. Do you not think that if they could do it themselves they would?

The UK had a lot of nationalised industries back then. So what?

The main reason they attacked him was that he was an insane dictator who killed thousands of his own people and he thumbed his nose at the international cumminity. He did not develop the country in the later years as the sanctions crippled him.

[Captain.Sassy]

Here is the thing I never could understand about the 9/11 twoof movement.
The government will covertly wire super nano thermite to the twin towers murdering 1000s of its own citizens. But, the same government will not simply drag some missile shells to Iraq and pile them up in the dessert and bring in the media and say see we told you they had WMDs.

If the government is willing to do the first then doing the second would be a no brainier.


I raised this exact same point on another forum.

Let's be friends.

ETA: another hilarious mystery

Also, the NWO can see its way to flying planes into the twin towers, but for the Pentagon they use a missile. Why not just use a plane for the Pentagon too?

[Captain.Sassy]

The main reason they attacked him was that he was an insane dictator who killed thousands of his own people and he thumbed his nose at the international cumminity. He did not develop the country in the later years as the sanctions crippled him.

Sure and they supported Panama's secession from Columbia because freedom democracy liberty.

[funk de fino]

Sure and they supported Panama's secession from Columbia because freedom democracy liberty.

OT.

Did he not lkill those Iraqi citizens then?

[Captain.Sassy]

He did.

But I don't think that's the principal reason they invaded.

Sure, there was the ideological element in the Bush administration, but I do think that the US tends to follow a more realist approach to grand strategy than 'let's be good'.

[funk de fino]

He did.

But I don't think that's the principal reason they invaded.

Sure, there was the ideological element in the Bush administration, but I do think that the US tends to follow a more realist approach to grand strategy than 'let's be good'.

There is no doubt the neocon agenda and Bush doctrine type politics did not help. He was going to get done in anyway. At some point. the US and the UK, in my opinion, picked the wrong point.

[TruthersLie]

Making up WMDs was not necessary anymore. They got what they wanted. What would they have gained?
The whole WMD stuff was ridiculous from the first second.
Anybody who believed this stuff, should question his rational abilities.

Oh twoof.

You all are the ones who state that the Mainstream media was in on it (the 9/11 inside jobby job). If they were in on it, they would have found WMDS's and then it would have made an american empire in iraq a definate.

It really would help if you twoofs could at least produce a comprehensive list of WHAT you think happened and with proof...

[TruthersLie]

I hope you will not get a visit by the FBI or HLS. Do they waterboard US citizens, too?

Oh poor twoofie.

conflating issues again?

please provide me a list of any american citizens who have "lost their rights?"

I'd love to have my local FBI office come on by... we could talk about how much better any "inside job" "false flag event" would be if they used real military know how...

instead we get the A team mixed with Rain man... so while they paint super duper invisible hush a boom nanothermite on columns unseen, they mutter to themselves "judge whopner is on at 3, Whopner, whopner"

[TruthersLie]

They got what they wanted (the oil rights, a satelite state).

It would really help if you paid attention. who has those oil rights twoof? Not the US. Not a single US company. Did they do 9/11 to get oil rights for russian companies? wow tht conspiracy is huge
a satelite state? Did you see the reporter throwing shoes at bush? satelight state that dislikes the US. Yup... and we can't forget the fantastic satelight state that afghanistan has become.... oh doh!


Since when have the US cared about the trust of countries of denyiable military ability? Tell me one incident, when the US refrained from a executing a war or similar Low Intensity Conflict measures just because of the concern of a foreign country?
conflating issues again twoofie... that and your piss poor reading comprehension will really hold you back. If you PM me, I'll help you get signed up for a reading for comprehension class... it will help out. Honest.

[Captain.Sassy]

please provide me a list of any american citizens who have "lost their rights?"




I think it's hard to argue that there hasn't been a curtailment of civil liberties in the US in recent years.

I also think that in certain circumstances you can differentiate between oil as a commodity and oil as a strategic resource. Now whether the second definition is as relevant for great and super-power calculations as it once was is debatable. The point, however, is that having a military presence around oil fields might still be beneficial from a strategic point of view, even if those oil fields are being drilled by someone else's companies.

In terms of precisely *why* the US went to war in Iraq, I think there were probably a number of economic and strategic considerations, as well as some ideological factors, and there are without a doubt other factors that are not privy to the general public and about which we can only make educated guesses. There were also some US miscalculations.

[BigAl]

I think it's hard to argue that there hasn't been a curtailment of civil liberties in the US in recent years.


But you can't identify any.

[Captain.Sassy]

The no fly list.

[TruthersLie]

The no fly list.

Flying isn't a right. It is a privlidge.

I was actually on that no fly list... it was very annoying.

Oh civil liberties have been put back at least a decade... but to conflate the issue like Paul likes to do is bs.

[BigAl]

The no fly list.

An acquaintance of mine (his name, actually) is on the no-fly list. There is an official way to deal with it. He doesn't have problems flying.

You lose.

[Captain.Sassy]

Flying isn't a right. It is a privlidge.

True enough. In the context of US citizens' treatment by their government, I did say 'civil liberties' and not 'human rights'.

I agree with you about Mr. Heinze, but am wary of throwing out the baby for the twoofwater.

[Captain.Sassy]

An acquaintance of mine (his name, actually) is on the no-fly list. There is an official way to deal with it. He dooesn't have problems flying.

You lose.

Yeah I lose because a governnment agency deciding to impose travel restrictions on some of its citizens without first notifying them and giving them the opportunity to contest the claim is in no way a curtailment of their freedom.

[Caustic Logic]

There are permanate US military bases in the UK, Germany, Japan, and South Korea, just to name a few. Are they satellite states of the US?

Definitions will vary but I'd answer yes to that. To some degree anyway. A better example might be our base on Cuban soil. That's an oddball case though.

[Brattus]

So let's see: they crashed four airliners, killed three thousand people and destroyed two of the most iconic landmarks of New York City. What would they have gained from demolishing WTC7? And yet, for some reason, they were prepared to go the extra mile to destroy a building most of the world had never heard of. And yet^2, when they invaded Iraq, when they stood to gain the approval and gratitude of the free world for nullifying a major threat to the West by knocking out Saddam Hussein's WMD program, they couldn't even go the extra yard to plant some fakes in an area they had locked down tight under military control. And as a result nobody trusts the USA anywhere near as much as they used to, and the Bush administration is history rather than being carried on by his chosen successor, whoever that might have been.



Quite.

Dave

Thanks Dave! Far better written than I could of done!

[Mr.D]

But you can't identify any.

http://papersplease.org/gilmore/index.html

I would argue that being able to read the text of the laws that you are bound to is a right.

</OT>


ETA: And why go through the whole WMD/noWMD mess at all and just make the hijackers Iraqi in the first place?

[BigAl]

http://papersplease.org/gilmore/index.html

I would argue that being able to read the text of the laws that you are bound to is a right.

</OT>



I didn't say there were none. I just wanted to make this idiot squirm.

[Justin39640]

Definitions will vary but I'd answer yes to that. To some degree anyway. A better example might be our base on Cuban soil. That's an oddball case though.

we keep sending the rent
its not our fault they dont cash the checks (well one they did after the revolution bwahahahhaha)

apparently fidel had them all stuffed in a drawer in his desk

[Brattus]

ETA: And why go through the whole WMD/noWMD mess at all and just make the hijackers Iraqi in the first place?

Very true Mr.D Very true!

[Captain.Sassy]

I didn't say there were none. I just wanted to make this idiot squirm.

Oh brother, give me a break.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/07/25/no_fly/print.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/21164res20051026.html

You might disagree but I don't think it's fair to call me an idiot cause I cited the 'no fly list' as an example of the curtailment of civil liberties.

[Klimax]

Balderdash. Europe, in the main, turned their arse towards Bush and Iraq.

Remind me again of the strong backing and approval the US gave for the Falklands war.

Just minor correction: Few EU countries went there. Like Czech Republic send one of the best chemical and bilogical unit. (They were there for the second time,first time it was during First Persian gulf war and US army was very impressed by our unit their knowledge and work.)
And then military hospital and more units for some bases.

[funk de fino]

The US invaded Iraq to give control of the oil fields to?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5geWULDXXrwfpI5mB-PPqBd4L8KKg

British energy giant BP and China's CNPC International Ltd were the only companies to win a bid in the first auction, while a slew of other foreign firms snubbed the other contracts offered by Baghdad, unhappy with financial terms.

The Iraqis are not in control of their oil eh?

[triforcharity]

Making up WMDs was not necessary anymore. They got what they wanted. What would they have gained?
The whole WMD stuff was ridiculous from the first second.
Anybody who believed this stuff, should question his rational abilities.

Paul,

Here is my opinion. If they had actualy FOUND WMDs in Iraq, I think that it would have garnered the support for the war in Iraq by the Americaan people. As it sits now, I believe that most people do NOT support it, BECASE they didn't find anything.

In my OPINION, I suspect that there COULD have been WMDs in Iraq, but maybe were disposed of sommehow?? how long woulf it take to get them, take them to the middle of the desert, dig a big freakin' hole, and burry those things?? Couldn't bee too hard right?? Again, just my opinion, and I have no facts to back it up. Just speculation.

[triforcharity]

The no fly list.


*snort* Ok, so we should just let anyone fly on US carriers even if we believe that they are connected to AQ, or other Islamic terrorist groups???

RIGHT........ This is the DUMBEST argument EVER!! And I mean EVER.

Holy ****.

Oh, and I was also on the no-fly-list. PITA is was. Why you ask?? Because I have aquantinces that are from the UAE, and have visited me on holiday. And, suprise, suprise, I was removed from it, received an apology, and allowed to fly again. Aand I agreed with it 100%. If we want to keep our country safe from the kind of attacks that occured on 9/11, I think it is ABSOLUTELY a good idea. Had we had a no fly list BEFORE 9/11, it would just be another day.

How cool is that!?!?!? But, I agreed with it. The FBI investigated, and found that they had no ties to any terrorist orginization.

[funk de fino]

Paul,

Here is my opinion. If they had actualy FOUND WMDs in Iraq, I think that it would have garnered the support for the war in Iraq by the Americaan people. As it sits now, I believe that most people do NOT support it, BECASE they didn't find anything.

In my OPINION, I suspect that there COULD have been WMDs in Iraq, but maybe were disposed of sommehow?? how long woulf it take to get them, take them to the middle of the desert, dig a big freakin' hole, and burry those things?? Couldn't bee too hard right?? Again, just my opinion, and I have no facts to back it up. Just speculation.


Also, if they never had them previously or did not have form for using them on Kurds, then you could have said it was a stretch to believe the info. Their previous form, quite rightly, gave them less leeway. They also continued to poke the dog with the stick long after they should have.

[Captain.Sassy]

*snort* Ok, so we should just let anyone fly on US carriers even if we believe that they are connected to AQ, or other Islamic terrorist groups???


1) This isn't an argument that freedom of movement hasn't been restricted for some US citizens without due process. This is an argument that the benefits of this restriction outweigh the costs.

2) Good grief man.
http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?press_id=1457

And, not no-fly but IMO related:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245_pf.html

[WildCat]

The no fly list.
When do you think the "no fly list" was implemented?

[Captain.Sassy]

When do you think the "no fly list" was implemented?

I don't do 'gotcha' questions.

jk.

It's been around for a while but it's grown dramatically recently.

[johnny karate]

Thread bump for paulheinze.

Your claims in this thread have been countered and you've left several posts without responses.

Why have you run away?

[TruthersLie]

Bump for PaulHeinze.

So how does the US invading Iraq and then letting the Iraq's sign oil deals with China and Russia exactly help the US again?

or are you going to run from this thread like you do from all the others?

[Captain.Sassy]

How do I sage something on here?

Anyways...


In a 2002 piece advocating for US military action in Iraq to secure US interests, the right wing heritage foundation outlines US interests in Iraq as follows:

- Protect the American homeland, people, and institutions against attack, which will require the U.S. military to destroy Iraq's terrorist infrastructure and weapons of mass destruction programs;
- Prevent the rise of Iraq as a dominant and hostile power in the Persian Gulf region, while not allowing its elimination to become an opportunity for domination by a hostile Iran;
- Protect Iraq's energy infrastructure against internal sabotage or foreign attack to return Iraq to global energy markets and ensure that U.S. and world energy markets have access to its resources.

http://www.heritage.org/research/iraq/bg1589.cfm

The first point, obviously, was a mistake based on the belief that Iraq had WMD and was collaborating with international terrorist networks to use these against the US. The second objective, arguably, has been achieved, though Iranian influence in Iraq is strong (recent election results notwithstanding). The third point is important to this discussion, as it argues that the US oil interest in Iraq need not necessarily be that US companies are drilling for the oil, but that the oil is on the world energy market. The US is a huge oil importer, and more oil on the global market is generally beneficial for the US.

US companies drilling for the oil would be better for US GNP I imagine, but that doesn’t mean that US global interests are directly harmed by having oil companies with headquarters in other countries drilling for the oil. Also, the oil contract mentioned was signed by cooperatively by BP and CNPC anyways, and Britain made a significant contribution to the invasion. (I’m not saying this is why BP won the contract, but I am saying that you can’t say invading forces’ oil companies haven’t benefited.)

Strategically, again, I think there’s a benefit to having your forces positioned near strategic resources if things get ‘hot’. The same can be said for having close military ties with these countries. (If things don’t quite get ‘hot’, but tensions rise, I can imagine that there would be some benefit to having national oil companies drilling for oil abroad as opposed to foreign oil companies. Consider, for example, if the US were to outlaw its oil companies selling oil to China at a time of elevated tensions. If Chinese oil companies are the ones with contracts in places like Central Asia, then China can circumvent this US exercise of ‘squishy’ power. But let’s leave that aside for now.)

In terms of balancing against Iran, I think there’s a case to be made that this was a US interest that has been in some respects met. Bush and Maliki signed a declaration of principles in 2008. I’m not sure if this is a formal alliance or not, i.e. whether the US would be bound by this document to come to Iraq’s aid, but it definitely reads like something that would put Iraq within the US sphere of influence.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/36325.html

Anyways, I write all of that to say this:

I think it may be oversimplifying things somewhat to say that a joint Chinese-British oil investment in Iraq shows that the US had no realist objectives in the invasion.

[funk de fino]

How do I sage something on here?

Anyways...


In a 2002 piece advocating for US military action in Iraq to secure US interests, the right wing heritage foundation outlines US interests in Iraq as follows:

- Protect the American homeland, people, and institutions against attack, which will require the U.S. military to destroy Iraq's terrorist infrastructure and weapons of mass destruction programs;
- Prevent the rise of Iraq as a dominant and hostile power in the Persian Gulf region, while not allowing its elimination to become an opportunity for domination by a hostile Iran;
- Protect Iraq's energy infrastructure against internal sabotage or foreign attack to return Iraq to global energy markets and ensure that U.S. and world energy markets have access to its resources.

http://www.heritage.org/research/iraq/bg1589.cfm

The first point, obviously, was a mistake based on the belief that Iraq had WMD and was collaborating with international terrorist networks to use these against the US. The second objective, arguably, has been achieved, though Iranian influence in Iraq is strong (recent election results notwithstanding). The third point is important to this discussion, as it argues that the US oil interest in Iraq need not necessarily be that US companies are drilling for the oil, but that the oil is on the world energy market. The US is a huge oil importer, and more oil on the global market is generally beneficial for the US.

US companies drilling for the oil would be better for US GNP I imagine, but that doesn’t mean that US global interests are directly harmed by having oil companies with headquarters in other countries drilling for the oil. Also, the oil contract mentioned was signed by cooperatively by BP and CNPC anyways, and Britain made a significant contribution to the invasion. (I’m not saying this is why BP won the contract, but I am saying that you can’t say invading forces’ oil companies haven’t benefited.)

Strategically, again, I think there’s a benefit to having your forces positioned near strategic resources if things get ‘hot’. The same can be said for having close military ties with these countries. (If things don’t quite get ‘hot’, but tensions rise, I can imagine that there would be some benefit to having national oil companies drilling for oil abroad as opposed to foreign oil companies. Consider, for example, if the US were to outlaw its oil companies selling oil to China at a time of elevated tensions. If Chinese oil companies are the ones with contracts in places like Central Asia, then China can circumvent this US exercise of ‘squishy’ power. But let’s leave that aside for now.)

In terms of balancing against Iran, I think there’s a case to be made that this was a US interest that has been in some respects met. Bush and Maliki signed a declaration of principles in 2008. I’m not sure if this is a formal alliance or not, i.e. whether the US would be bound by this document to come to Iraq’s aid, but it definitely reads like something that would put Iraq within the US sphere of influence.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/36325.html

Anyways, I write all of that to say this:

I think it may be oversimplifying things somewhat to say that a joint Chinese-British oil investment in Iraq shows that the US had no realist objectives in the invasion.

Forget the oil. Its a red herring.

People say the US went into Iraq to steal their oil. Iraq control 100% of their oil. They have signed deals with British and Chinese companies but they have not given away anything. The Iraqis cannot run the oil industry themselves it does not work like that. You need the British, American, french and chinese companies.

People say KBR benefitted from no bid contracts and lined their pockets. KBR was dumped by Halliburton due to bad press and also poor profits. 4.6% prior to tax in some cases.

For me it was more about Bush tidying up some loose threads and listening to the voices in is head.

[Klimax]

Forget the oil. Its a red herring.

People say the US went into Iraq to steal their oil. Iraq control 100% of their oil. They have signed deals with British and Chinese companies but they have not given away anything. The Iraqis cannot run the oil industry themselves it does not work like that. You need the British, American, french and chinese companies.

People say KBR benefitted from no bid contracts and lined their pockets. KBR was dumped by Halliburton due to bad press and also poor profits. 4.6% prior to tax in some cases.

For me it was more about Bush tidying up some loose threads and listening to the voices in is head.

Conclusion: Britain and China did 911 !!!11!1!1!1!1!1 (It is hard to simulate mistyping ! -> 1 on czech keyboard... :D )

[johnny karate]

I don't think anyone's denying that the U.S. has an interest in Iraqi oil. Of course it does. But to allege that the U.S. hatched a convoluted plot to stage a terrorist attack and invade Iraq to get their hands on that oil is wankery of the highest order

[TruthersLie]

JK.

Especially when it would have been much easier to do if the hijackers had been... I don't know.... IRAQI's!!!?? Maybe?

of course if it was just about oil and a "puppet state" having hijackers who were Iraqi's AND finding WMD's would have sealed the deal there.

Instead take Saudis, Emirati's and Lebanese and have them be the hijackers... cuz everyone knows that when attacked by them, it really is the iraqi's (and mothra)... that is what I think of.

[Captain.Sassy]

Lebanese hijackers, you say?

"Shawarma jihad! Infidels will suffer. Kethup is for kaffirs."

[johnny karate]

JK.

Especially when it would have been much easier to do if the hijackers had been... I don't know.... IRAQI's!!!?? Maybe?

of course if it was just about oil and a "puppet state" having hijackers who were Iraqi's AND finding WMD's would have sealed the deal there.

Instead take Saudis, Emirati's and Lebanese and have them be the hijackers... cuz everyone knows that when attacked by them, it really is the iraqi's (and mothra)... that is what I think of.

Yep. It's the classic "Working backwards from a conclusion" Truther thought process.

[TruthersLie]

I think this sums up the twoofs pretty well

bYzIbOYaSy8

I LOVE points #1, and #6.

[funk de fino]

I don't think anyone's denying that the U.S. has an interest in Iraqi oil. Of course it does. But to allege that the U.S. hatched a convoluted plot to stage a terrorist attack and invade Iraq to get their hands on that oil is wankery of the highest order


Much more succinct than my post. Bravo.

[paulheinze]

Paul,

Here is my opinion. If they had actualy FOUND WMDs in Iraq, I think that it would have garnered the support for the war in Iraq by the Americaan people. As it sits now, I believe that most people do NOT support it, BECASE they didn't find anything.

WMDs were not found. It was proved that the Bush admin lied.
Did any administration decide to pull out of Iraq, abandon their military bases and pay damages?
What would be the difference as to US presence in Iraq if WMDs had been found?

I would say there would be no difference at all.

As to the oil rights, from the same article cited above

A long-awaited hydrocarbons law, intended to open up the Iraqi oil and gas sector and establish a framework for sharing revenues, remains some way off and jockeying ahead of the January polls has hampered movement, Biden said.
It seems the US did not proceed as fast as wished, but they are still pushing on opening up. Compared to the situation before the war (nationalized oil industry) definitely a step forward for western oil companies even if some of the pie is shared with the Chinese.

from ft.com

Bigger volumes will be at play once oil majors, such as BP and Royal Dutch Shell, are allowed back in to boost declining reserves. That their return - after nearly 40 years - appears closer now than it has done any time since the end of the US invasion - comes down to the same thing as the agreement that has boosted the fortunes of DNO: the oil price.

[JAStewart]

The governments which the conspiracy theorists choose to give the ability to pull off the biggest conspiracy in the world can't place WMD's in Iraq for themselves to find? C'mon...

Everyone knows the I-War was about oil. The difference is that they could've justified staying in there if they found WMD's for security purposes, rather than for 'peacekeeping' purposes.

[stateofgrace]

WMDs were not found. It was proved that the Bush admin lied.
Did any administration decide to pull out of Iraq, abandon their military bases and pay damages?
What would be the difference as to US presence in Iraq if WMDs had been found?

But why didn't they try to cover up the lie ?

[TruthersLie]

WMDs were not found. It was proved that the Bush admin lied.
there you go again letting your political view point cloud your judgement. The intelligence from AROUND THE WORLD said Iraq had WMD's. Didn't they? Yes they did.

Did Iraq violate the peace agreements from the first persian gulf war? over 130 times.

yet if GWB pulled off 9/11, why not use iraqi's as hijackers? Why not plant wmds? you still haven't answered that have you?


Did any administration decide to pull out of Iraq, abandon their military bases and pay damages?

which administration? You really do need to start actually writing for comprehension. Subject, verb, object. It makes it easier to understand.


What would be the difference as to US presence in Iraq if WMDs had been
found?

Other than GWB would have been riding high after the invasion, would have easily secured 2006 election, and if played right showed the US public how much pussies the democrats were... it might have even swung the 2008 election to McCain. And of course it would give full rights to full military bases in Iraq for like the next 50 years... (oh wait that didn't happen did it?)

it also would have necessitated the US being involved in the oil shipments to make sure it was going to the right places..

again and again why use the rube goldberg conspiracy machine, when it could have been done MUCH easier, with smaller chances of detection and pointed RIGHT AT IRAQ? Huh?

[paulheinze]

But why didn't they try to cover up the lie ?
I do not know. It was very unlikely to find WMDs. Iraq complied to the inspectors virtually all the time. I do not know how difficult it is to plant credible evidence. :confused:
Not relevant. What would have changed? Iraq's position would not have changed. The US position would not have changed. Of course the public opinion would have been dfferent. But some "al qaeda" videos were enough 2004 to compensate it. Maybe it was just cheaper.;)

A different thought, you suggest planting of evidence by the Bush admin when you deny it all the time in the 9/11 context?

[stateofgrace]

I do not know. It was very unlikely to find WMDs. Iraq complied to the inspectors virtually all the time. I do not know how difficult it is to plant credible evidence. :confused:
Not relevant. What would have changed? Iraq's position would not have changed. The US position would not have changed. Of course the public opinion would have been dfferent. But some "al qaeda" videos were enough 2004 to compensate it. Maybe it was just cheaper.;)

A different thought, you suggest planting of evidence by the Bush admin when you deny it all the time in the 9/11 context?
You don't know?

So let me get this straight murdering 3000 of your own was simple compared to actually planting WMD, inside a country that you occupy, right?

This is the problem, Paul, once you tell a lie you have to keep telling lies to support your original lie. Since 911 was clearly a lie, in your eyes, then why not continue the lie and simply plant WMDs?

Why stop? Why stop lying ?

[paulheinze]

You don't know?

So let me get this straight murdering 3000 of your own was simple compared to actually planting WMD, inside a country that you occupy, right?

This is the problem, Paul, once you tell a lie you have to keep telling lies to support your original lie. Since 911 was clearly a lie, in your eyes, then why not continue the lie and simply plant WMDs?

Why stop? Why stop lying ?

I would say it was not necessary to lie. I explained it above. What would have been the difference. Nobody presented a convincing argument why continuing to lie would have made a difference. As I saw Bush was reelected anyway.
So many questions. But the firm believers are on your side. I am on the side of the people who doubt the official story.

[stateofgrace]

I would say it was not necessary to lie. I explained it above. What would have been the difference. Nobody presented a convincing argument why continuing to lie would have made a difference. As I saw Bush was reelected anyway.
So many questions. But the firm believers are on your side. I am on the side of the people who doubt the official story.

No you have not explained above at all. You have simply been parrot phrasing things that back up your predetermined conclusion. This silly terminology you spew about “official stories” and “your side” is actually laughable.

I have asked you a very simple question. I will break it down into to its rawest form for you. A Government who is so evil kills 3000 of it's own as an excuse to invade foreign countries. Yet the same evil government is incapable of planting WMD inside one of the countries it invades and occupies to support its dastardly plans.

Why is that?

[Sam.I.Am]

I do not know. It was very unlikely to find WMDs. Iraq complied to the inspectors virtually all the time. I do not know how difficult it is to plant credible evidence. :confused:
Not relevant. What would have changed? Iraq's position would not have changed. The US position would not have changed. Of course the public opinion would have been dfferent. But some "al qaeda" videos were enough 2004 to compensate it. Maybe it was just cheaper.;)

A different thought, you suggest planting of evidence by the Bush admin when you deny it all the time in the 9/11 context?

Virtually all of the time? Are you serious? Saddam threw them out of the country a few times. He denied them access so many times that they left in disgust at least once. You virtually have no idea of the history of the weapons inspectors and Iraq.

[johnny karate]

I would say it was not necessary to lie. I explained it above. What would have been the difference. Nobody presented a convincing argument why continuing to lie would have made a difference. As I saw Bush was reelected anyway.
So many questions. But the firm believers are on your side. I am on the side of the people who doubt the official story.

Just because you ignore an argument doesn't mean it hasn't been made. Several people have explained to you the obvious benefits for the Bush administration to have found WMDs, including maintaining popular support for the war, and for themselves. Instead, they failed spectacularly at both.

You've already fallen flat on your face trying to prove the U.S. invaded Iraq for the oil, and you seem to be applying that same winning strategy to the WMD argument.

[A W Smith]

I do not know. It was very unlikely to find WMDs. Iraq complied to the inspectors virtually all the time. I do not know how difficult it is to plant credible evidence. :confused:
Not relevant. What would have changed? Iraq's position would not have changed. The US position would not have changed. Of course the public opinion would have been dfferent. But some "al qaeda" videos were enough 2004 to compensate it. Maybe it was just cheaper.;)

A different thought, you suggest planting of evidence by the Bush admin when you deny it all the time in the 9/11 context?

this would have changed. do you have TruthersLie on ignore? Or are you being deliberately ignorant?"

there you go again letting your political view point cloud your judgement. The intelligence from AROUND THE WORLD said Iraq had WMD's. Didn't they? Yes they did.

Did Iraq violate the peace agreements from the first persian gulf war? over 130 times.

yet if GWB pulled off 9/11, why not use iraqi's as hijackers? Why not plant wmds? you still haven't answered that have you?


which administration? You really do need to start actually writing for comprehension. Subject, verb, object. It makes it easier to understand.



Other than GWB would have been riding high after the invasion, would have easily secured 2006 election, and if played right showed the US public how much pussies the democrats were... it might have even swung the 2008 election to McCain. And of course it would give full rights to full military bases in Iraq for like the next 50 years... (oh wait that didn't happen did it?)

it also would have necessitated the US being involved in the oil shipments to make sure it was going to the right places..

again and again why use the rube goldberg conspiracy machine, when it could have been done MUCH easier, with smaller chances of detection and pointed RIGHT AT IRAQ? Huh?

[paulheinze]

TruthersLie is on ignore.

Maybe the US publiic would have believed their fabrication or likely some of you would have. The rest of the world did not believe them in the first place and would not have believed them anyway. One reason might be that an independent investigation of international experts could not have been prevented. Their fake would have been revealed, which would have undermined their credibility further. It might have affected their 9/11 fairy tale, too.

[A W Smith]

TruthersLie is on ignore.
so its both then

[dtugg]

TruthersLie is on ignore.

Maybe the US publiic would have believed their fabrication or likely some of you would have. The rest of the world did not believe them in the first place and would not have believed them anyway. One reason might be that an independent investigation of international experts could not have been prevented. Their fabrication would have been revealed, which would have undermined their credibility further.

I see. Bush can murder 3000 American citizens in most complex and convoluted conspiracy of all time and get away with it. But get away with framing a genocidal dictator of having weapons he was known to have before? Never. I am sure this makes sense in twooferland.

[paulheinze]

Virtually all of the time? Are you serious? Saddam threw them out of the country a few times. He denied them access so many times that they left in disgust at least once. You virtually have no idea of the history of the weapons inspectors and Iraq.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11354

Haven't inspections proven futile because of Iraq's noncompliance?

US allies, the United Nations and even the CIA contend that UN inspections have fundamentally succeeded in facilitating the disarmament of Iraq ("Analysts Discount Attack by Iraq," www.washingtonpost.com) .

· Iraq refused to continue with inspections when it was discovered that the US was using inspectors as spies. Iraq also refused to cooperate when inspectors demanded unrestricted access to any site in Iraq. The US similarly refuses to admit UN weapons inspectors to all US laboratories.

· Today's mass media often repeat the US claim that inspectors were thrown out of Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1998. Actually, they were withdrawn by request of President Clinton on the eve of his Desert Fox bombing campaign (www.madre.org/art_iraq_factsheet98.html#iraq ).

· The US has undercut Iraq's incentive to cooperate with inspectors by declaring that sanctions (originally imposed to compel disarmament) will remain in place even after Iraq complies with inspections.

[paulheinze]

I see. Bush can murder 3000 American citizens in most complex and convoluted conspiracy of all time and get away with it. But get away with framing a genocidal dictator of having weapons he was know to have before? Never. I am sure this makes sense in twooferland.

In the case of 9/11 the bodies investigating the event were under the authority of the Bush administration. In the WMD case the investigation would have been carried out by the UNSCOM. It twould have been difficult to keep the fake evidence from being revealed.

Anyway the WMD question has nothing to do with 9/11. You cannot derive that they would not have been able orchestrate the attacks on 9/11.

But it is an interesting question anyway.

[dtugg]

In the case of 9/11 the bodies investigating the event were under the authority of the Bush administration. In the WMD case the investigation would have been carried out by the UNSCOM. It twould have been difficult to keep the fake evidence from being revealed.

What exactly would have prevented Bush from telling the UN to **** off and let the military or CIA handle any investigation?

[paulheinze]

What exactly would have prevented Bush from telling the UN to **** off and let the military or CIA handle any investigation?

Everybody would have known why he would demand this.:D
Nobody would have believed the results of the investigation.

[dtugg]

Everybody would have known why he would demand this.:D

Because the UN is incompetant and allowed him to keep the weapons in the first place?

(Just saying what they might have said).

[paulheinze]

Because the UN is incompetant and allowed him to keep the weapons in the first place?

(Just saying what they might have said).

The CIA themselves stated that the Iraq has virtually no WMDs anymore (see above).
On the contrary if they fake evidence and this is revealed what would have been the effect on the truth movement. It would have damaged any credibility of the 9/11 investigation. We would see it in Loose Change ("We see Bush fakes evidence, therefore the official investigations are fake too...."):-)

[DGM]

Everybody would have known why he would demand this.:D
Nobody would have believed the results of the investigation.
So everyone involved in the 9/11 investigation is "in on it" to some extent? They would have to be considering none of them have come forward to "blow the whistle".

[dtugg]

The CIA themselves stated that the Iraq has virtually no WMDs anymore (see above).

There is no source.


On the contrary if they fake evidence and this is revealed what would have been the effect on the truth movement. It would have damaged any credibility of the 9/11 investigation. We would see it in Loose Change ("We see Bush fakes evidence, therefore the official investigations are fake too...."):-)

Twoofer morons already say that Bush faked all kinds of evidence. What's a little bit more?

[paulheinze]

There is no source.



Twoofer morons already say that Bush faked all kinds of evidence. What's a little bit more?

LC was a joke.
Here is a link
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1008-05.htm
he CIA report also concedes that the agency has no evidence that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons, although it lamely attempts to put the worst spin on that embarrassing fact: "Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them."
....
"UNSCOM inspection activities and coalition military strikes destroyed most of [Iraq's] prohibited ballistic missiles and some Gulf War-era chemical and biological munitions," the CIA report says, but "Iraq still has a small force of extended-range Scud-variant missiles, chemical precursors, biological seed stock, and thousands of munitions suitable for chemical and biological agents."
Think about precursors, seed stock? It means no useable weapon. The agents would have to be built first. It means no WMD present.

[dtugg]

I see. Are nuclear weapons the only kinds of WMDs?

[paulheinze]

I see. Are nuclear weapons the only kinds of WMDs?
I edited my post. He had no useable B and C weapons.

[Sam.I.Am]

Instead of the front page that you linked to I went into the free part of their archive (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/results.html?st=basic&uid=&MAC=50a23aa1f3f5c6104e90e36051420d61&QryTxt=iraq%2C+weapons+inspectors&x=0&y=0&sortby=RELEVANCE).

There are plenty of articles describing how Iraq wasn't complying with the inspectors and what cooperation that was given was towards the process but not the substance.

[Mr.D]

Did any administration decide to pull out of Iraq, abandon their military bases and pay damages?


Utterly ridiculous.

You really think that once the invasion happened that the US could have pulled out and said "Oops, our bad. Go about your business?" A headless unstable Iraq would likely have been the start of a Pan-Arab war.

Whatever you think about the reasons for the invasion, once Saddam was deposed, the US was stuck there.*

But really, this belongs in Politics, not Conspiracy Theories





*Note: Don't call me a Bushie. I'm one of those who thinks Bush Jr. is easily the worst modern president; but my biggest issue with him is not the Iraq invasion per se, but the complete and total incompetence that followed.

[Justin39640]

I do not know. It was very unlikely to find WMDs. Iraq complied to the inspectors virtually all the time. I do not know how difficult it is to plant credible evidence. :confused:
Not relevant. What would have changed? Iraq's position would not have changed. The US position would not have changed. Of course the public opinion would have been dfferent. But some "al qaeda" videos were enough 2004 to compensate it. Maybe it was just cheaper.;)

A different thought, you suggest planting of evidence by the Bush admin when you deny it all the time in the 9/11 context?

wait
are you saying that the beheading and murders of US coalition and iraqi citizens were an inside job orchestrated by the bush admin?

OMG

just stop already

[TruthersLie]

I do not know. It was very unlikely to find WMDs. Iraq complied to the inspectors virtually all the time. I do not know how difficult it is to plant credible evidence. :confused:
Not relevant. What would have changed? Iraq's position would not have changed. The US position would not have changed. Of course the public opinion would have been dfferent. But some "al qaeda" videos were enough 2004 to compensate it. Maybe it was just cheaper.;)

A different thought, you suggest planting of evidence by the Bush admin when you deny it all the time in the 9/11 context?

You obviously don't know twoof. Again, I can make ricin, cyanide and mustard gas in relative ease.

Setting up a large WMD manufacturing location would be easy. Much easier than a super duper rube goldberg conspiracy of up to 10,000 folks to murder 3,000 citizens.

[TruthersLie]

I would say it was not necessary to lie. I explained it above. What would have been the difference. Nobody presented a convincing argument why continuing to lie would have made a difference. As I saw Bush was reelected anyway.
So many questions. But the firm believers are on your side. I am on the side of the people who doubt the official story.

What official story?
Can you point me to the book they released? Which government department is in charge of this "official story?"

[TruthersLie]

TruthersLie is on ignore.

Maybe the US publiic would have believed their fabrication or likely some of you would have. The rest of the world did not believe them in the first place and would not have believed them anyway. One reason might be that an independent investigation of international experts could not have been prevented. Their fake would have been revealed, which would have undermined their credibility further. It might have affected their 9/11 fairy tale, too.

The rest of the world did not believe them? Oh poor twoof. PROVE IT.

UK intelligence, french intelligence, israeli intelligence and numerous other agencies ALL said that Saddam was working on WMD's. Bad intelligence does not equal LIES. Of course the same is said for ignorance and arrogance does not equal LIHOP.

[TruthersLie]

Everybody would have known why he would demand this.:D
Nobody would have believed the results of the investigation.

I love the circurlar reasoning. It is rather fun. And it still shows that Paully here doesn't know dick. The inability to have good reading comprehension, or the inability to do 5 minutes of REAL research. I love his investagoogling skills... they are rather lacking.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

A different thought, you suggest planting of evidence by the Bush admin when you deny it all the time in the 9/11 context?


It's suggested in the context of your own fantasy. You believe an amount of evidence for the generally accepted account about 9/11 was fabricated in some manner. It seems odd to many of us that the evil cabal you've constructed in your head wouldn't also do the same for their WMD claims about Iraq.

[twinstead]

It's suggested in the context of your own fantasy. You believe an amount of evidence for the generally accepted account about 9/11 was fabricated in some manner. It seems odd to many of us that the evil cabal you've constructed in your head wouldn't also do the same for their WMD claims about Iraq.

Maybe all the scientists, first responders, lab workers, and police/firefighters they paid off signed a contract that they wouldn't have to manufacture evidence for 10 years after 9/11. So, they couldn't plant evidence in Iraq; it was against the rules.

Huh? Ever thought of that big debunker man????!!!??1111!

[SpitfireIX]

Maybe all the scientists, first responders, lab workers, and police/firefighters they paid off signed a contract that they wouldn't have to manufacture evidence for 10 years after 9/11. So, they couldn't plant evidence in Iraq; it was against the rules.

Huh? Ever thought of that big debunker man????!!!??1111!


:dl: :dl: :dl:

[Dave Rogers]

But the firm believers are on your side. I am on the side of the people who doubt the official story.

Rubbish. I doubt the official story. I doubt it so much that I've looked into all the evidence that's claimed to show it's incorrect. Having looked at that evidence, I find that the best conclusion to be drawn is that nineteen terrorists crashed airliners deliberately on 9/11, and that all the other events followed from those acts. If I didn't doubt the official story, why would I have bothered to have looked into it?

You are siding, not with those who doubt the official story, but with those who refuse to believe it, despite the evidence. There is no doubt in the truth movement, just a certainty akin to religious faith that seeks to alter the evidence to fit its beliefs rather than its beliefs to fit the evidence. As, in fact, you've demonstrated on this forum.

Dave