 |
 |
 |
 |
#243808 - 04/03/07 12:18 PM
Re: here is the deal
[Re: Rick Donaldson]
|
Tom Young
Member
Registered: 01/14/04
Posts: 354
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Yes, there was a policy in place favoring regime change. By no means was that policy favored by "everyone" and certainly there was a considerable amount of disagreement amongst the parties that did favor regime chang in how to go about exacting such a goal.
Following the Gulf War, President George H. Bush recognized that removing Hussein from power would only heighten instability in the region, not that his PNAC buddies didn't do their best to persuade him to "finish the job". Following that, President Clinton made no small effort to keep the pressure on, efforts that were largely responsible for the eventual failure of the U.N. Inspection program but he too understood the downside of basing a full scale invasion on nothing more than lies and flimsy evidence. While he did have the sense not to invade his complicency can not be denied, and it might easily be argued that his efforts in Serbia (albeit much more successful to date than what we've seen in Iraq) may well have had an alterior motive built around setting up a precedent that could justify an Iraq invasion down the road.
Note: It's more than a little funny to see that the political "right" has finally come around to using President Clinton's own hawkishness as a means to bolster their continuously dwindling arguments.
In the end however, it wasn't until 2000, when the old PNAC cronies saw opportunity in a young, inexperienced Texas Governor and took full advantage of him in order to get their own agenda back on track. Once back in positition, all they needed was an excuse that would help them push forward and a short time later, the mother of all excuses fell right into their laps. Imagine that.
I'm going to let that whole "people like me" bit slide except to point out that while I do have my "OPINIONS", I try as much as I can to base these opinions on well established and well documented facts. Also, I haven't called you a liar. Rather I'd like to think that I'm simply helping out a little by questioning your sources so that you don't have to.
What IS relevant is that there were WMD. He used them on the Kurds, and he used them on the Iranians at one point. So, he HAD them
Of course he did. Afterall, we played a significant role in supplying them. We also played a major role in destroying them during the first Gulf War. All evidence leading up to the current conflict indicated that Iraq had been compliant in destroying the remainder. All evidence in the four plus years since the invasion has confirmed that.
So, the ONLY false "truth" here is yours saying there weren't any. Actually, there were multiple instances of various devices, reported widely in the news, including materials for uranium enrichment found there (specially made tubes for centrifuges for instance)... but, what the hell, you won't believe that even if I showed you the news sources. It's a waste of time.
Not to worry Rick, I've seen this "news" and you're right, it is a waste of time. In spite of what you've read in the "news", these tubes were never found in Iraq. At least not the tubes that got any real play as WMD "evidence". They never made it there. It's true indeed that Iraq placed an order for these aluminum tubes but they were intercepted in Jordan by the Jordanian Secret Police and the CIA before reaching Iraq. It's also true that (like the Niger Uranium story, which was never anything more than a bad cut and paste job) these tubes did play a major role in the so called "bad intelligence" that played so well during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion.
We've all heard the administrations claims (claims that the administration has since disavowed) that the only use for these tubes would be in centrifuges for the purpose of uranium enrichment. They played a definitive role in President Bush's State of the Union Address, and Colin Powell called them into play during that embarassing dog and pony show at the U.N. All the while the administration was heralding these findings as prima-facie evidence of an ongoing Iraqi nuclear weapons program, The U.S. State Departments Bureau of Intelligence and Research was disagreeing. Specialists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore, Oak Ridge and Los Alamos laboratories were disagreeing profusely. The IAEA disagreed. U.N. weapons experts disagreed. Even the CIA finally came around prior to the invasion, a change of heart that played a large role in George Tenet's ultimate resignation.
But to your credit, it's a pretty safe bet that J.R. Nyquist still agrees, though I wouldn't be too sure about Judith Miller at this point.
As an aside, before we go out and exact any more opportunistic regime changes, we might do well to consider the thoughts of W. Michael Reisman, a Yale Professor of International Law. (Apparently President Bush must have skipped that class.)
“let the strongest and best-intentioned government contemplating or being pressed to undertake regime change remember that not everything noble is lawful; not everything noble and lawful is feasible; and not everything noble, lawful and feasible is wise.”
_________________________
"Get your chook, Toivo, and we'll go yank some lakers."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
#243829 - 04/05/07 01:35 PM
Re: here is the deal
[Re: Rick Donaldson]
|
Tom Young
Member
Registered: 01/14/04
Posts: 354
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
Actually, what is a waste of time is dealing with idiots who have planted beliefs firmly in their heads, and then point at words like "neocon" or alleged organizations of "neocons" as the reason behind it all.
I hope to GOD all you fools get your wishes and there IS an Illuminati... because you know why? I'm going to join them to help put your asses away in mental institutions.
LOL
"LOL" indeed.
Name calling, self rightous indignation, allusions to Illuminati/conspiracy cults. These are just the sort of diversionary tactics that all too often are brought into play by those who've found themselves running into difficulty when trying to support an unsupportable position. Some people get to know better around middle school. Some don't. Just as often, when these sort of tactics fail (as they invariably do), they're commonly superceded by apoplectic snarls, shouting in all bold cap's, message deletion, thread locking etc. I wonder if it might be possible to avoid all of that somehow. Only time will tell.
When you completely dismiss the actual news of events as non-factual, then you put yourself on a wrong course for the objective examination of the facts. Adding to the facts, or implying that other-than-factual information is true is no better than lying, and it is becoming pathological with you so-called conspiracy people.
Upon reading this, I was reminded of the following Nietzsche quote:
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Freud wrote of a type of neurosis that he termed "Projection Bias". He described it as a defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings—basically parts of oneself—onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals, inanimate objects - even religious constructs - also occurs). It's related to denial in some ways. Once recognized, it's easily treatable.
But I digress.
Since I'm apparently being painted as some sort of "so-called conspiracy person", I can only assume that must somehow relate to previous suggestions as to the role PNAC has played in shaping the policies of our current administration. I could almost understand the allusion were it not for the fact that PNAC is not some mysterious dark "cabal", although some of those PNAC members that set themselves up in the Pentagon during President Bush's first term often did refer to their "Office of Special Plans" as a cabal, it's a pretty straightforward outfit. There are no grand wizards, no secret handshakes, no robes, no orgy's (at least not that I'm aware of). Just a group of former lobbyists and political hacks that went on to form a little DC think tank back in 97 and in turn found themselves sitting at the highest levels of government a short time later.
It's membership roster includes a lot of very familiar names such as Vice President Richard Cheney along with his former Assistant, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Former Sec. of Defense , former Deputy Sec. of Defense and current World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, former Chairman of the Pentagon Advisory Board Richard Perle, John Bolton, Jeb Bush, William Bennett, to name only just a few. Pretty much a rogue's gallery of recent U.S. foreign and domestic policy.
It was founded by William Kristol, the son of Irving Kristol, himself a key founder of the neoconservative movement along with Leo Strauss. PNAC's basic philosophy embraces that of Strauss's and is well documented on their own website. Essentially, it revolves around creating what they call (in the sort of "newspeak" verbage that they've become known for) a "Pax Americana", the clearly stated goal of which is to transform America into a global empire by military force. A policy that, in essence, mirrors the current administrations National Security Strategy. In short, this IS the "new world order" that everyone's been talking about and it's a policy thats been getting shoved down our throats for the past seven years like so many geese on our way to becoming a plate of Fois Gras..
I'll grant you, that on the surface, this does indeed sound like the sort of whack job conspiracy nonsense that you've been alluding to. If only things were really that simple. Certainly anyone who agrees with the idea that America's destiny is that of a global empire, stretched to it's very limits, exhausting all available resources in a never ending game of "whack a mole" played out against an ever growing number of determined enemies until it finally collapses into a heap of ashes, there's nothing to see here. Just stay tuned to Faux News, keep on shopping at the Mall and don't forget to continue monitoring the threat alerts. On the other hand, anyone who favors the sort of democratic principles that this country was founded on would do well to turn off the tele and do a little basic fact checking on their own.
_________________________
"Get your chook, Toivo, and we'll go yank some lakers."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#243857 - 04/11/07 07:08 AM
Re: here is the deal
[Re: Tom Young]
|
Rick Donaldson
Time Traveler
Senior Investigator
Registered: 05/04/01
Posts: 6973
Loc: Colorado Springs
|
Name calling, self rightous indignation, allusions to Illuminati/conspiracy cults. These are just the sort of diversionary tactics that all too often are brought into play by those who've found themselves running into difficulty when trying to support an unsupportable position. Some people get to know better around middle school. Some don't. Just as often, when these sort of tactics fail (as they invariably do), they're commonly superceded by apoplectic snarls, shouting in all bold cap's, message deletion, thread locking etc. I wonder if it might be possible to avoid all of that somehow. Only time will tell.
Son, there is nothing 'diversary' about my 'tactics'. It's my learned opinion that this stuff is a load of crap, and anyone that BELIEVES it is unwilling to actually DO some research.
Don't sit there and tell me that copying links from other conspiracy sites is research. I'm talking about getting to the bottom of who said what. There used to be a really good thread on that here, where people were touting a "Presidential executive order" about Bush "ordering the US to safely remove Bin Laden's family" out of the country right after 9/11.
I DID do the research. Turned out there was no EO, Bush wasn't involved. Turns out some of the stuff mentioned was being bandided about during CLINTONS administration in fact and one particular file, a supposed "Secret" FBI page that was being pushed as "real" was fake, and happened (allegedly) during Clinton's administration too, but was being attributed to Bush.
It was a lot of innuendo, lies and decit on the part of the people pushing the theory.
So too, is any statements that the US government blew those buildings up. NO MENTION of the terrorists is ever made by people that push this theory. They seem to FORGET that TONS of fuel, airplane and massive amounts of kinetic energy were responsible for those buildings falling down, oh, and don't forget gravity.
The FACT is, this is a ridiculous, nonsensical journey into a rabbit hole for you and the other believers of this crap.
Freud wrote of a type of neurosis that he termed "Projection Bias". He described it as a defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings—basically parts of oneself—onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals, inanimate objects - even religious constructs - also occurs). It's related to denial in some ways. Once recognized, it's easily treatable.
I suggest you stick Freud where the sun doesn't shine, Tom, because the only projection bias occuring here is on the part of those who believe that some how the US government did controlled detonations of those buildings and they are blaming the Bush, the US government and people with a bit of common sense like myself.
While you're at it, Go look in the mirror.
Regardless of your "claims" of who founded what, this stuff is irrelevant to the discussion and always HAS been. The POINT you're trying to make is there is a connection from what I read in several places now.
So.... how does the fact that someone formed a group of whatever kind of conservative, or liberal for that matter have ANYTHING whatsoever at ALL to do with this lie that someone planted explosives in WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7?????????
It has NOTHING to do with it. Furthermore, all these "unconnected" pieces of data serve NOTHING more than to help obfuscate the fact that people who are making the claims of controlled detonation are nothing more than Bush/US Government/America haters who want to see chaos reign.
Good grief.
_________________________
Ad astra per aspera
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#243862 - 04/11/07 04:39 PM
Re: here is the deal
[Re: Rick Donaldson]
|
Tom Young
Member
Registered: 01/14/04
Posts: 354
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
Son, there is nothing 'diversary' about my 'tactics'. It's my learned opinion that this stuff is a load of crap, and anyone that BELIEVES it is unwilling to actually DO some research.
Don't sit there and tell me that copying links from other conspiracy sites is research. I'm talking about getting to the bottom of who said what. There used to be a really good thread on that here, where people were touting a "Presidential executive order" about Bush "ordering the US to safely remove Bin Laden's family" out of the country right after 9/11.
I DID do the research. Turned out there was no EO, Bush wasn't involved. Turns out some of the stuff mentioned was being bandided about during CLINTONS administration in fact and one particular file, a supposed "Secret" FBI page that was being pushed as "real" was fake, and happened (allegedly) during Clinton's administration too, but was being attributed to Bush.
It was a lot of innuendo, lies and decit on the part of the people pushing the theory.
"Son", I'm afraid I don't recall having ever told you that copying links from other conspiracy sites is research. Bin Laden's family? I'm not exactly sure of the relevance here in this thread, but what the heck. It's clearly obvious that shortly after 9/11, members of Bin Laden's family along with other prominent Saudi's were flown out of the country under FBI supervision, some on a private charter that was usually used by the White House.
One doesn't need to link to conspiracy sites to recognize this. The FBI wouldn't have had the power to grant these persons permission to fly out, and the White House, as usual, has kept quiet on the subject. Some may want to make more out of this than others. Personally, I don't find anything too surprising about this sort of special treatment, other than that the FBI might have done a little better job interviewing the passengers, especially in contrast to the way other far less prominent muslims were being picked up off the streets and detained with no legal council during the same period. Conspiracy? Beats the heck out of me. Clinton? I guess I'm just going to have to leave that one for you to ferret out. Good luck!
So too, is any statements that the US government blew those buildings up. NO MENTION of the terrorists is ever made by people that push this theory. They seem to FORGET that TONS of fuel, airplane and massive amounts of kinetic energy were responsible for those buildings falling down, oh, and don't forget gravity.
The FACT is, this is a ridiculous, nonsensical journey into a rabbit hole for you and the other believers of this crap.
Once again, I don't recall ever having made any statements that the US government blew those buildings up. As much as I usually try and avoid ridiculous, nonsensical journey's into rabbit holes, I can't help but notice that you seem to be trying to lead me into one.
Certainly those who wish to speculate as to the degree that some members of the administration may have helped in some ways to facilitate the 9/11 attack have no shortage of material to work with. It goes without saying that our immediate response to the 9/11 attacks wasn't exactly stellar. Small points, such as the standing orders regarding the military's response to hijackings being changed under former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld only weeks before the attack amidst mounting intelligence pointing to the likelyhood of an attack involving hijacked aircraft certainly don't help to quiet any speculation. All the less so when you consider the importance that former Secretary's little club stressed on the idea that a "Pearl Harbor style attack" would be required to galvanize government to increase the funding required to get their party started. That coupled with his near obsession towards playing the Pearl Harbor card at every opportunity following 9/11, the day he stumbled out of the Pentagon claiming to have no idea what that big boom might have been, as if somehow, he just hapened to have been the last to know.
Simple bureaucratic bungling, or Reichstag fire? Given that we're dealing with the most secretive administration in U.S. history, an administration who's very basis appears to revolve around the doctrine of "plausible deniability", we may never know for certain. I'd bet that if we invited the former Secretary, along with a few of his "special" appointments from back at the O.S.P. down to Cuba for a little recreational waterboarding, we might just pick up a few hints however.
Speculation aside, it can not be argued that this bunch took full advantage of the post 9/11 environment in every way they could and for as long as they could get away with it. A select few among them continue trying to get away with it, apparently having crossed the line from disinformation to self delusion..
I suggest you stick Freud where the sun doesn't shine, Tom, because the only projection bias occuring here is on the part of those who believe that some how the US government did controlled detonations of those buildings and they are blaming the Bush, the US government and people with a bit of common sense like myself.
While you're at it, Go look in the mirror.
Well Rick, the problem (at least as I see it) is that the only person in this thread that has been rambling about 9/11 conspiricies, controlled demolitons and the like is you. If you're not projecting, than I can only assume that you've somehow mistaken this thread for some other one.
Regardless of your "claims" of who founded what, this stuff is irrelevant to the discussion and always HAS been. The POINT you're trying to make is there is a connection from what I read in several places now.
So.... how does the fact that someone formed a group of whatever kind of conservative, or liberal for that matter have ANYTHING whatsoever at ALL to do with this lie that someone planted explosives in WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7?????????
It has NOTHING to do with it. Furthermore, all these "unconnected" pieces of data serve NOTHING more than to help obfuscate the fact that people who are making the claims of controlled detonation are nothing more than Bush/US Government/America haters who want to see chaos reign.
Chaos is reigning Rick. That's pretty much been my only point all along. As for the rest of the above points, I'm unfortunately having a difficult time deciphering very much of it but I'll remain hopeful that it isn't simply an apoplectic snarl.
Looking back through this thread, it's pretty clear that it has (perhaps inadvertently) been hijacked away from Blogstar3's initial thought experiment on the possible effects of doing away with certain key members of a group so as to observe the behavior of their lieutenants etc., and for that, certainly Blogstar3 is deserving of an apology. From there we were introduced to some sort of Google excercise that seemed to hint at the idea that it might be some kind of a news flash to discover that Iraq was actually an issue prior to the 2003 invasion or something to that effect. Regrettably, since then the focus of this thread has indeed turned away from poisoning the Bilderbergers, and moved on to Iraq. Now it would seem that we're really off to the races.
If you're truly interested in rehashing the Bin Ladens and their Saudi friends, 9/11 conspiracy theories, whether "Bush Haters" are any more "America Haters" than say "Clinton Haters, comparative research techniques, etc., I'm happy to oblige, but maybe we should set up an individual thread for each of these topics rather than simply jumping from one to the next each time you've found yourself unable to formulate a coherent defense for some positon that you've taken previously. If not for me, than perhaps for Blogstar3.
_________________________
"Get your chook, Toivo, and we'll go yank some lakers."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#243867 - 04/12/07 01:39 PM
Re: here is the deal
[Re: Tom Young]
|
Rick Donaldson
Time Traveler
Senior Investigator
Registered: 05/04/01
Posts: 6973
Loc: Colorado Springs
|
"Son", I'm afraid I don't recall having ever told you that copying links from other conspiracy sites is research. Bin Laden's family? I'm not exactly sure of the relevance here in this thread, but what the heck. It's clearly obvious that shortly after 9/11, members of Bin Laden's family along with other prominent Saudi's were flown out of the country under FBI supervision, some on a private charter that was usually used by the White House.
It's relevant to the thread because this thread is about conspiracies.
Where is the evidence about Bin laden's Family being flow out under FBI supervision? PLEASE prove that claim
it is a FALSE CLAIM and that precisely is my point. You say it is "clearly obvious".
No Sir. What is CLEARLY OBVIOUS that yet another LIE is being told. The FACTS ARE as follows:
In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the Federal Aviation Administration immediately ordered all flights in the United States grounded, and that ban stayed in effect until September 13. (Even then, for that first day commercial carriers were mostly either completing the interrupted flights of September 11 or repositioning empty aircraft in anticipation of the resumption of full service. New passenger flights did not generally resume until the 14th.) During that two-day period of full lock-down, only the military and specially FAA-authorized flights that delivered life-saving medical necessities were in the air. The enforcement of the empty skies directive was so stringent that even after the United Network for Organ Sharing sought and gained FAA clearance to use charter aircraft on September 12 to effect time-critical deliveries of organs for transplant, one of its flights carrying a human heart was forced to the ground in Bellingham, Washington, 80 miles short of its Seattle destination, by two Navy F/A-18</NOBR> fighters. (The organ completed its journey after being transferred to a helicopter.)
The claim that bin Laden family members (and other Saudis) were allowed to secretly fly out of the U.S. and back to Saudi Arabia while a government-imposed ban on air travel was in effect, all without any intervention by the FBI, has since been negated by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission"). In their final report, the commission noted:
Three questions have arisen with respect to the departure of Saudi nationals from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11: (1) Did any flights of Saudi nationals take place before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001? (2) Was there any political intervention to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals? (3) Did the FBI screen Saudi nationals thoroughly before their departure?
First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.
Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of [National Security Council official] Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals ... The President and Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this matter from any political appointee.
Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United State on charter flights. The Saudi government was advised of and agree to the FBI's requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed. The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart.
The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.
Golly.... so, NO FBI was involved. NO Saudis and NONE of Bin Laden's family appeared to have been involved WITH the FBI OR the President.
One doesn't need to link to conspiracy sites to recognize this. The FBI wouldn't have had the power to grant these persons permission to fly out, and the White House, as usual, has kept quiet on the subject. Some may want to make more out of this than others. Personally, I don't find anything too surprising about this sort of special treatment, other than that the FBI might have done a little better job interviewing the passengers, especially in contrast to the way other far less prominent muslims were being picked up off the streets and detained with no legal council during the same period. Conspiracy? Beats the heck out of me. Clinton? I guess I'm just going to have to leave that one for you to ferret out. Good luck!
There's NOTHINg to ferret out. That's the point. Only those insisting on a conspiracy are "ferreting" things out, and they are lying, putting unconnected material together to try to "connect the dots" and simply put, mostly conspiracy theorist -- including yourself are misinformed people who make shit up as they go along sometimes.
Once again, I don't recall ever having made any statements that the US government blew those buildings up. As much as I usually try and avoid ridiculous, nonsensical journey's into rabbit holes, I can't help but notice that you seem to be trying to lead me into one.
You didn't say those exact words... but I have seen your signature before.... I know who you were on the site before, /chuckles. The point is, you're defending several here who saying those things. And, you're still NOT presenting evidence just like none of the others have. Not ONE piece.
Certainly those who wish to speculate as to the degree that some members of the administration may have helped in some ways to facilitate the 9/11 attack have no shortage of material to work with.
No, Tom, they have NO MATERIAL with which to work. NOT if you and they actually take the time to delve into this crap instead of reading conspiracy sites. How about reading, say, CNN and Fox News, and several papers? How about using actual quotes with people's names in them? How about NOT quoting something found on Alex Johnson's site, or whatreallyhappened DOT COM? Good grief. Yes, Tom you and others enjoy taking and twisting, at every opportunity, the words of others, or denying things you've either said, or defended, just like you're doing here.
Mostly, you and the rest on this thread defending things as "chaos reigning" should really start here...
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=9-1...0&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
Well Rick, the problem (at least as I see it) is that the only person in this thread that has been rambling about 9/11 conspiricies, controlled demolitons and the like is you. If you're not projecting, than I can only assume that you've somehow mistaken this thread for some other one.
No...it's not just this thread. It's all of them. I don't ramble, I check the points and I give answers. It appears you don't like the answers so you stoop to implying that *I* am somehow mentally defective, according to Freud or whatever. Can it Tom, you know better than to stand there and try idiotic tactics like that. Don't step over THAT line again. Is that clear?
_________________________
Ad astra per aspera
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#243870 - 04/12/07 09:24 PM
Re: here is the deal
[Re: Rick Donaldson]
|
Tom Young
Member
Registered: 01/14/04
Posts: 354
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
Blogstar gets no apology. He suggested murdering people.
I don't see that has hijacking this thread. I see it as keeping his ass out of jail, and trying to show how hypothetical all of this really is.
Including the idea that any one group is ultimately in charge of all world politics.
That's a load of nonsense.
Well, I'm not exactly sure whether the OP's suggestion was hypothetical or not, but I'm leaning towards the hypothetical.
In any case, I agree that it's pretty hard to imagine any one group being in charge of all world politics, at least not from looking around at the condition the world is in so far. Still, The idea of private power brokers, either "white hat" or "black hat", mixing it up with public policy, either governmental or religious (or both), has been with us throughout human history.
Here in the western world, the "slate" was more or less cleared off during the dark ages, but since the middle ages, all manor of various groups have arisen, then fractionalized, merged, re-fractionalized, etc., few have faded entirely into the night. Like everything else, things usually start out innocent enough. Some Queen somewhere would enlist the help of a privateer to quash a few disturbances around the empire In turn the privateer would pocket the spoils and before too long the Queen would be looking down the barrel of that privateer's canon. Either that or some Bishop would be a few too many knights short of a crusade, and sign into a pact with the "devil" in order to get their hands on some mercenaries, often with much the same outcome.
By the end of the 16th century, the smart money began moving out of overt piracy and taking on the cover of "legitimate" finance. From there, fraternities of like minded individuals formed into various factions, continuously reshaping themselves in step with the political and religious developments of the time. Some went mainstream, soliciting outsiders as members as a means of gaining additional strength through social control while others continued to work in the shadows. The Freemasons of 18th century Britain gave us the affable Masons of today as well as the Skull and Bones. Thirty some years ago, a handfull of Bonesman finance a group of mercenaries to help shore up the empire in South Asia, and today we have Al Qaeda.
The cycle continues.
_________________________
"Get your chook, Toivo, and we'll go yank some lakers."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#243873 - 04/12/07 11:44 PM
Re: here is the deal
[Re: Rick Donaldson]
|
Tom Young
Member
Registered: 01/14/04
Posts: 354
Loc: Chicago, IL
|
The claim that bin Laden family members (and other Saudis) were allowed to secretly fly out of the U.S. and back to Saudi Arabia while a government-imposed ban on air travel was in effect, all without any intervention by the FBI, has since been negated by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission"). In their final report, the commission noted:
Once again Rick, I have never claimed that any of these flights took place while air traffic was grounded. They were however, among the very first flights out following the initial grounding. On the surface, it's a simple diplomatic issue. The Saudi embassy contacts the State Department, requesting the safe passage of prominent Saudi nationals including members of the royal family out of the country during a time of crisis. The State Dept. passes that request to the White House, and in turn, the White House passed it to Clarke. Clarke claims not to remember exactly who in this chain actually passed him the request (there's that plausible deniability card again.) Clarke refuses to approve the request, deferring the matter to the FBI, giving them final approval (or disaproval) based on the passenger manifest. In turn, the FBI rounds up the passengers, hopping from airport to airport at a time when most people (including counter-terrorism agents from within the agency) couldn't get their hands on a flight to save their lives. They run a few cursury interviews and send them on their way. The FBI initially claims to have been "satisfied" that none of the persons involved had any information regarding the 9/11 attacks. What would they be expected to say? None the less, we're talking about 140 persons heading out the door lickety split. While one might "assume" that at least most of them had no direct involvement with the 9/11 attacks, rounding up and providing transportation for this many people in this short of time under the conditions that were in place at that time didn't exactly allow for any lengthy interviews and in fact a good number of these passengers were never interviewed at all. Two years later, in response to various criticisms in the press, the FBI released a series of internal memo's documenting that "although the FBI took all possible steps to prevent any individuals who were involved in or had knowledge of the 9/11/2001 attacks from leaving the U.S. before they could be interviewed, it is not possible to state conclusively that no such individuals left the U.S. without F.B.I. knowledge." Also, if the FBI really felt as comfortable about this exodus as they'd originally claimed publicly, they wouldn't have felt it necessary to return to Vegas with subpeona's five days after saying bon voyage to search the suites of the Saudi Royals they'd just flown out of the country.
This was a white glove diplomatic mission, not an investigation. While I'll won't deny viewing this process with a jaundiced eye, I must remind you that I'm not the one that brought it up. Personally I've never seen it as anything but a relatively minor issue in the greater scheme of things. But to just blanketly assume that none of these persons could have had any knowledge of Saudi funding of terrorism up to and possibly including the 9/11 attacks because Fox News told you so is the height of naievity.
No...it's not just this thread. It's all of them. I don't ramble, I check the points and I give answers. It appears you don't like the answers so you stoop to implying that *I* am somehow mentally defective, according to Freud or whatever. Can it Tom, you know better than to stand there and try idiotic tactics like that. Don't step over THAT line again. Is that clear?
What's clear is that you have no answers. All I've seen from you so far are childish ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments. Your continued attempts towards dismissing me as a "so-called conspiracy person" are expectedly specious. If you have some probelem with any "lines" that I may have crossed, I suggest you re-examine some of the "lines" that you've been crossing yourself.
_________________________
"Get your chook, Toivo, and we'll go yank some lakers."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#243919 - 04/18/07 10:46 AM
Re: here is the deal
[Re: Tom Young]
|
Rick Donaldson
Time Traveler
Senior Investigator
Registered: 05/04/01
Posts: 6973
Loc: Colorado Springs
|
Once again Rick, I have never claimed that any of these flights took place while air traffic was grounded. They were however, among the very first flights out following the initial grounding.
No, you didn't, but you DID say this:
I'm not exactly sure of the relevance here in this thread, but what the heck. It's clearly obvious that shortly after 9/11, members of Bin Laden's family along with other prominent Saudi's were flown out of the country under FBI supervision, some on a private charter that was usually used by the White House.
And many others have echoed that, and not only flat out stated that it occurred "during the grounding of flights", but also have now CHANGED their tune to say what you're saying. It's all part of the same conspiracy, which is my point.
The mere suggestion that this occurred, when it didn't happen AT ALL is simply perpetuating a lie. That's the point. You're saying it DID happen. And it did NOT happen. At all. Never. Period.
None the less, we're talking about 140 persons heading out the door lickety split.
Again, as far as the FBI and other agenices are involved, they are saying "It didn't happen"... and yet you're choosing to believe it did. Therein lies the problem. Where are the FACTS on this exactly? Who has the facts? I'm certain it's NOT the conspiracy folks.
This was a white glove diplomatic mission, not an investigation. While I'll won't deny viewing this process with a jaundiced eye, I must remind you that I'm not the one that brought it up.
No, I brought THIS up in relation to this whole conspiracy theory idea. Which is what this thread is about. What I SPECIFICALLY said was:
Don't sit there and tell me that copying links from other conspiracy sites is research. I'm talking about getting to the bottom of who said what. There used to be a really good thread on that here, where people were touting a "Presidential executive order" about Bush "ordering the US to safely remove Bin Laden's family" out of the country right after 9/11.
And, for the record I wasn't talking to YOU Tom, anyway, I was talking ABOUT CaryP's predilection for posting links to conspiracy sites and your own defense thereof.
But to just blanketly assume that none of these persons could have had any knowledge of Saudi funding of terrorism up to and possibly including the 9/11 attacks because Fox News told you so is the height of naievity.
Tom, first you're assuming again, too much. "Just because Fox news told me" something doesn't mean that's where I even GOT the information. Secondly, I DO my own research and not ONE news agency out there has the correct information right off the bat. Thirdly, this information (above) that I referred too didn't come at ALL from Fox news. You're ASSUMING that I ONLY listen to that news station, and you'd be very wrong. My radio room has two televisions in it, and I routinely switch back and forth between local news, CNN, FOX, MSNBC and the local channels, I use the internet to get my news for the most part. I LISTEN to those other channels at home when I'm listening to the news. NOT for my facts.
I get my facts from news papers from MANY SOURCES. I get my FACTS from eye witnesses, as I did within hours after the plane hit the Pentagon. I personally interviewed people MYSELF who saw it. People I know, people who are credible.
You see, Tom, you like Cary wrongly assume I can't think for myself and I can't do my own research. The very sad part about all of this is that it is really CaryP, yourself and other conspriacy theorists who continue to spout the same, lame stuff over and over, even after it has been SHOWN and PROVEN incorrect. That's what is sad here.
[quote]
What's clear is that you have no answers. All I've seen from you so far are childish ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments. Your continued attempts towards dismissing me as a "so-called conspiracy person" are expectedly specious. If you have some probelem with any "lines" that I may have crossed, I suggest you re-examine some of the "lines" that you've been crossing yourself.[/qoute]
There has not been ONE ad hominem attack against you, Caryp nor anyone else here by me. In fact, TOM, it was YOU who made the remarks about Freud and attempted to imply I was somehow "mental" - That, SON, is an Ad Hominem attack, and NOT anything I've said previous to this.
The original poster of this thread brought up the fact that to PROVE a conspiracy, you're going to have to kill people. That's plain WRONG and it hasn't ONCE been brought up by one of you pro-conspiracy people that what he said was bordering on criminal. Sure, he suggested it, but it is still WRONG to suggest it.
As for my "attempts" to dismiss you as a conspiracy theorist -- well, sorry, but your own words are speaking for themselves. Your OWN words at defending these idiotic theories show that you believe this stuff, or at least are giving it some thought as being truthful. Look back at what you read, Tom.
I DO have answers, and I DO have facts. It is you, Cary and the rest of the clueless people who contine to make these claims against the government which you can not prove.
_________________________
Ad astra per aspera
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Rick Donaldson, Backstop
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered
and 5 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
