9/11 Myths...

[buZy]

Just wait till those idiots nuke us. Then the all these 9/11 'myths' and games will seem insignificant at best.

[Guest bastaad525]

jmortensen... my debate buddy of times past, how I have missed debating with you, as ours always stay clean and above the belt and we can actually debate while still seeing and pointing out each others good points.

 

You have a VERY good point, one which I agree with and follow whole heartedly, that in ANY case where someone is presenting a questionable take on something that has happened, it IS imperative that you also take the source into consideration. Most people probably don't have the patience or determination to go even that far and just write the info off w/o any investigation. But if someone said something to me that was interesting and plausible, I would at least look more at other things that source has to say, take it all in context, and if the person or source is so obviously whacked, then of course I'm not going to take their info seriously. If they are a reputable source though, than no matter how outlandish their story is, I'm likely to pay attention and dig even deeper into what their saying and try to find more info for myself. I rarely ever just take these kinds of things and just say 'no way that could be possible' unless they are just so obviously BS that there's no point even listening... like if someone told me they once fit a piano up their ***

[crazy280]

Seen the latest defense budget? Cutting all types of acquisition programs to shift more money to replacing what is being torn up and blown up in Iraq. Gonna shake the status quo.

 

I will sure be happy when we start seeing those "profits" rather than just war dead' date=' record oil prices and budget deficits.[/quote']

 

 

Doesn't matter...those companies already made a fortune over there. Take Halliburton (sp?) everyone's favorite greed mongerers. This has been beaten into the ground already, but...they get the no-bid contract, then over charge the hell out of the American people for their services. Just a coinki-dink that Cheney used to run that company. They're still being investigated as far as I know. And what companies do you think are profiting from the oil? Iraqi companies? Ha ha. Just another coinki-dink that Bush used to be in the oil business (and his daddy in the defense business). It's not really a conspiracy or anything; this type of crap happens every day on Wallstreet. Companies always make deals and pull schemes- whatever makes profit. I'm a business major, believe me, none of these guys were listening during the ethics lecture. And I never said "WE" were gonna see ANY profits from the war- that's exactly my point. Only the big guns who put Bush/Cheney into office are filling their pockets- and at the expense of us American taxpayers. Just my 2cents.

[Pop N Wood]

Doesn't matter...those companies already made a fortune over there. Take Halliburton (sp?) everyone's favorite greed mongerers. This has been beaten into the ground already, but...they get the no-bid contract, then over charge the hell out of the American people for their services. Just a coinki-dink that Cheney used to run that company. They're still being investigated as far as I know. And what companies do you think are profiting from the oil? Iraqi companies? Ha ha. Just another coinki-dink that Bush used to be in the oil business (and his daddy in the defense business). It's not really a conspiracy or anything; this type of crap happens every day on Wallstreet. Companies always make deals and pull schemes- whatever makes profit. I'm a business major, believe me, none of these guys were listening during the ethics lecture. And I never said "WE" were gonna see ANY profits from the war- that's exactly my point. Only the big guns who put Bush/Cheney into office are filling their pockets- and at the expense of us American taxpayers. Just my 2cents.

 

 

Why 99.99% of all conspiracy theories are BS by default:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

 

 

One could argue it was over 50% of the American voters who put him in office. But I don't suppose you would accept that. One could also argue that American oil companies had more to gain by Iraq remaining under sanctions, seeing as how they have no oil interests there. But I suppose you would find fault with that argument. One could go further and argue that even oil company employees and defense contractors are fathers and mothers who have no interest in seeing their children or the children of anyone they know sent off to kill or be killed for the prospect of a few dollars. But I imagine you would be skeptical of that also.

 

Ever notice how once you reject the idea that all companies are focused on is the bottom line that business school curriculum becomes total folly? Keep that idea in the back of your mind when you learn to regurgitate the over simplifications your professors will require you to know to get your degree. The real world is much more complicated and some times motives can be attributed to something other than pure greed. But dollars are so much easier to quantify, hence buisness school's infatuation with that theory.

[johnc]

Doesn't matter...those companies already made a fortune over there. Take Halliburton (sp?) everyone's favorite greed mongerers. This has been beaten into the ground already, but...they get the no-bid contract, then over charge the hell out of the American people for their services.

 

If you are so convinced that these companies are making a fortune, why don't you take all of your money and buy stock? If Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and all these other countries are such a gold mine for these companies, why are their stock prices within normal, reasonable multiples based on earnings and expenses? Are Wall Street investors just blind to what you already know? Are they missing out on the Haliburton Golden Goose?

 

Oh wait, that's another part of the conspiracy. The illicit profits are being secretly funnelled by the Word Bank and the evil Jewish bankers to all the Skull and Bones members.

[Guest bastaad525]

Oh wait' date=' that's another part of the conspiracy. The illicit profits are being secretly funnelled by the Word Bank and the evil Jewish bankers to all the Skull and Bones members.[/quote']

 

 

 

 

the funny part is, in the case of this war, the 'truth' ended up being just as much BS as the fiction (did we go there to find WMD's or was it to 'free' Iraq all along... ummm okaaaay). Again, I personally don't really buy into any of the common 'conspiracy theories' that are out there related to 9/11 and the Iraq war, but I sure as hell don't buy the governments official line of the why's and how's either, especially since they have changed their mind on the why's. Really, I don't think any of us REALLY know the truth of why what's going on is going on.

[johnc]

I'll just put this out there to remind people of ALL the reasons Congress and the President went to war in Iraq:

 

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

 

JOINT RESOLUTION

 

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

 

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

 

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

 

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

 

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

 

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

 

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

 

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

 

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

 

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

 

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

 

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

 

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

 

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

 

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

 

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

 

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

 

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

 

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

 

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

 

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

 

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

 

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

 

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

[JMortensen]

And that law was passed by a 392 to 11 vote. You wanna blame somebody for why we're in Iraq, blame your Congressmen. W's plan wasn't much of a mystery, and still it seems that there are hundreds of democrat congressmen who just can't believe that we went to war. Well why the hell did they authorize it if they didn't want to go???

 

It seems pure hypocrisy to say that Bush got us into the war when all but 11 voted for it. The 11 have a gripe. The rest are just victims of their own votes. One of the conspiracy theories that I'm not buying is this "Bush made up all of the WMD evidence" conspiracy.

[crazy280]

JohnC,

While your posts can be really informative and very interesting from time to time, you gotta stop with the 7-mile long ones, you're killing me man

Why don't I invest all of my money? I'm a college student - I don't have any money! And why would I want to profit from the war? I just denounced war profiteers in the previous post. And any money being invested is going into my Z anyway

By the way, the oil industry had its most profitable year EVER last year. Stocks don't ALWAYS indicate a firm's well being.

Now, it's decieving to quote weapons inspections from 1998 as cause for another seige on Iraq. Directly prior to the latest war, Hans Blix (sp?) said in public that the inspections were going well. Then we find no weapons/programs/etc. after we invade. Secondly, many Al Quaida operatives were from Saudi Arabia, a country which also still holds public beheadings as well as other inhumane treatment of citizens. Why was Iraq the prime target, for all of the reasons you listed? Why not Iran, which is guilty of most, if not all, of the same charges (more so for some- they actually DO have a weapons program and ties to Al Quaida)? Iraqi Liberation Act: "Promoting a democracy" in Iraq, this does not necessarily mean through war. Bringing a democracy could have happened without war, at the very least without us invading them. Way "back in the day" America fought for its own democracy (albeit with some help from France- but not by invasion) and Iraq could have too, with time. If there was no time, then wait- oh crap, there's no time to invade Iran, North Korea, etc. lets go to war right now with them too! (j/k)

And please, don't patronise me with that "jewish conspiracy" crap. Like I said, ITS NOT A CONSPIRACY. Its just business as usual. This is how businesses operate in a "modern, global economy". Large corporations have the money and power (via lobbying, candidate endorsements and contributions, etc.) to change and sway policies that could in effect change the market/regulations/laws/tarrifs/you-name-it, to their advantage. Its the latest evolution of free market systems.

 

As for Pop'N'Wood's comments: I don't know if you misinterpreted me when I said "who put Bush in office". I was talking about who paid for his campaign, not some black-box voting conspiracy (that's a whole 'nother topic ). Presidential politics (most politics actually) these days is all about money. You can't really run these days without millions of dollars, and typically he who has more wins (take the re-election of Bush for example) Bush's biggest contributors were companies in the energy business, so one could say they were the ones who put him in office. If Kerry had won, then it would be fair to say that Unions, etc, put him in office.

Anyone who says its not about money is fooling themselves- or incredibly naive. That goes for business, too. It has always been about money, and it always will be. And the employees don't make the decisions- its the board. And they are filthy rich. And the sons and daughters of the filthy rich never have to go to war if they don't want to (ahem, Bush, Cheney; actually most of the administration never fought).

And business school's infatuation with "the bottom line"? I didn't have to go to business school to know that IT IS all about the bottom line.

 

JMortensen- What? I never said Bush made up the WMD evidence. I was disappointed in the vote to go to war, and also for Kerry's lame excuse for his vote. If you must know, I wanted Dean to win the primary (why did he make that lame "yeeeeaah"?). Then, during the main elections I contributed like $50 (wow, big spender! lol) to the DNC and Kerry campaign. But recently I wrote a letter to the DNC and JohnKerry.com telling them that I will not support them anymore, financially and otherwise, until they start to represent me properly (for example, by voting against something like the Iraq war). I'm not the only democrat who needs to see some heavier hitting over there in Washington...

 

Great, now I made a 7-mile long post. Sorry, but I felt I had to defend my prior statements. Anyways, I wasn't trying to change the original topic. **My whole point originally was that the 9/11 conspiracy theories were too far fetched to be believed** but people got hung up on the other part of my post. Maybe anyone who wants to discuss these other topics should just IM me?

[Pop N Wood]

And business school's infatuation with "the bottom line"? I didn't have to go to business school to know that IT IS all about the bottom line.

 

Which seems to be the underlying theme in all your logic. Trust me, that is not a good assumption on which to base your beliefs. Not everyone thinks in such a simple minded fashion.

 

Guess I predicted your responses about right.

[JMortensen]

JMortensen- What? I never said Bush made up the WMD evidence. I was disappointed in the vote to go to war, and also for Kerry's lame excuse for his vote. If you must know, I wanted Dean to win the primary (why did he make that lame "yeeeeaah"?). Then, during the main elections I contributed like $50 (wow, big spender! lol) to the DNC and Kerry campaign. But recently I wrote a letter to the DNC and JohnKerry.com telling them that I will not support them anymore, financially and otherwise, until they start to represent me properly (for example, by voting against something like the Iraq war). I'm not the only democrat who needs to see some heavier hitting over there in Washington...

That was more for Bastaad, who was questioning why we went. I agree with you that Kerry had a pretty moronic response the whole issue. I believe it went something like this: "I would vote for the war again, but I wouldn't have invaded Iraq until I had a plan to win the peace. I would have done EVERYTHING differently in Iraq, including getting Germany and France and Russia in line before going in." That was about the biggest line of BS I've ever heard and I actually yelled at the TV when he said it. I think even Schroeder and Chirac came out and said "We weren't going regardless of who was president" about a week later.

[Heavy Z]

I was going to stay out of this, why'd you have to go and post that resolution? If we are going to discuss the resolution that got us into this mess, than let's not edit stuff out (like the most important part):

 

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the

Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary

and appropriate in order to—

(1) defend the national security of the United States against

the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council

resolutions regarding Iraq.

( PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the

exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force

the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter

as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising

such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of

Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his

determination that—

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic

or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately

protect the national security of the United States against the

continuing threat posed by Iraq or ( is not likely to lead

to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council

resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent

with the United States and other countries continuing to take

the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist

organizations, including those nations, organizations, or

persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist

attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

 

a1: As indicated, Hans Blix had made it clear inspections were going ahead. Saddam's phantom navy wasn't threatening us along the eastern seabord nor was his broken-down air force dropping bombs on US cities.

 

a2: This fell apart when Bush said he would go to the UN for a vote and then didn't.

 

b1: Again, no evidence Saddam was amassing his navy for a D-Day style invasion of New Jersey, nor does he have an air force capable of much else than being shot down at the moment of our choosing. Did we forget about the four trillion we spent on the biggest deterrant of state-sponsored terrorism - the world's most powerful nuclear arsenal?

 

b2: No solid link to 911 was presented to the senate within 48 hrs of the attack. Terrorist ties are minor compared to those of Iran or Saudi Arabia.

 

My point is that rather than debating whether this or that happened, it should be clear that there were questions that weren't fully explored, answered, etc with regard to this resolution by the President. It is his job to do so, as the resolution clearly indicates. I am saying that had Bush actually done what is spelled out above, the inspections would've made it obvious that Iraq was disarmed (as our former head weapons inspector Scott Ritter was saying, he was shouted down by those dead-set on war). We could've saved a lot of American lives and money, and focused on real WMD states that actually have nukes to lob at us (like N. Korea). And if while we were inspecting there was an attack by Iraq against the US, remember we have the ability to wipe the entire country off the map. So honestly, why the rush?

 

Letting the weapons inspectors finish their job would've complicated things. There was a rush to fulfill a plan that had been drafted years prior on flowery speculation. Bush's own cabinet (O'neil and Clark) made it clear this was his intent the week after 911. After Afghanistan, our mindset proved malleable enough to jump aboard a plan to attack a country not directly involved with 911, while the country where 16 of the hijackers were from is left alone. We said the 'war part' would only cost $2 billion. Now we have a war that is costing America $5 billion a month ($1 billion of this going to Halliburton) and the Iraqi economy has been carved up by American companies. Power is out in Iraq regularly, water lines are down still, disease is on the rise, and infant mortality rates are above pre-invasion figures. No Iraqi suicide bombers were ever mentioned prior to the invasion, we had 8 in one day last week.

[Guest bastaad525]

That was more for Bastaad, who was questioning why we went.

 

Not quite... truth is I don't really care why we went. But it does seem to me that there has been some BS'ing going on courtesy of our government. But what else is new? I do believe that in this case as in many times before, the people in charge are not telling us everything we may want to know or that is relavent. This isn't aimed at Republicans specifically... I don't consider Democrats to be any more honest, and I do think that Democrats are likely just as responsible for everything going on right now as anyone. Really... government issues just give me a headache, the way they go round and round and round. I still wonder how we can be so concerned with what goes on overseas all the damn time, spending god-knows-how-much money on 'helping' people all over the damn place, when I can walk down the street any given time of day near my own house and get hit up by at least two people for spare change by guys who live next to a dumpster behind the damn 7-11. Why aren't we helping THEM? And if you're answer is 'we are' well then we aren't helping them ENOUGH. Why aren't we putting more of this countries money into THIS F'ING COUNTRY.

[JMortensen]

Why aren't we putting more of this countries money into THIS F'ING COUNTRY.

Nobody is stopping you. It's not supposed to be the government's job to take our money and give it to those who need it. It's the job of every individual to open his wallet and give it to those who need it.

[Pop N Wood]

Maybe he wants to give more of someone elses money to the people in this country?

[Guest bastaad525]

so it IS the job of this government to take our money and give to other people all over the world or to spend it 'helping' them, but not to give it to people in this country who need it? That's contradictory. Maybe if 30% of my paycheck didn't dissapear to taxes I might have some extra left over to help out my fellow american a bit more.

[rags]

To start, I haven't read all the replies, only the linked doc. There are two things I want to add. The first is that the plane that I witnessed hit the south tower was definetely a passanger plane. The thing was huge as I was about 800' (yes feet) away from it as it flew over my head while I was watching the north tower from West Street. There were no "pods" on the plane and it had a full compliment of windows. The second is that the was a fighter jet over head within 3 minutes of the second plane crashing into the tower. How I know this is I almost sh*t my pants when I heard another jet after witnessing the last one I saw crash into a building. I know the article says there were no military aircraft in the area and that might be true, but they did know something was wrong and were trying to get there. How long can it take to get to NYC from Va or Ma in a fighter jet?

I'm not one for war but I can tell you that I never want to see anything like that in my lfe ever again. I'm glad we are doing something about the terrorist threat in their backyard. It's been 3 1/2 years since 9/11 and everyday I go to work I have to see the signs in the subway about keeping your eyes open and making sure you say something if you see something out of the ordinary. You can tell when the police have heard something as there will be hundreds of them around. It's scary.

Sorry for the rant, but life has drastically changed since 9/11.

 

Joe

[JMortensen]

so it IS the job of this government to take our money and give to other people all over the world or to spend it 'helping' them, but not to give it to people in this country who need it? That's contradictory. Maybe if 30% of my paycheck didn't dissapear to taxes I might have some extra left over to help out my fellow american a bit more.

Spoken like a true libertarian. Welcome to the club!!!

[Guest bastaad525]

heheh is that what I am? I never really figured out what party or category I fit into. Always thought I was just kind of a "Sitandbitchocrat"