What if 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

[Make7]

How would the foreign and domestic policies of the US Government be different if 9/11 was not an inside job?

- Make7

[Jazz2006]

1. That's a very good question,

and one that I've never seen raised on CTer sites, although they go on and on ad nauseum about how the foreign and domestic policies of the U.S. gov't were formulated/changed/ingrained/etc. as a result of 9/11 being an inside job.

Now that you've raised it, I am wondering why on earth that very question has not been raised and debated and shouted on rooftops at CTer sites. They are self-proclaimed "truth" seekers, after all.

Hmmmm.

I've never used this smiley before but this seems an appropriate time to invoke it:

:popcorn:



Edit: italics for the latin.

[Ka hrnt]

15. Good quesition!

"I am wondering why on earth that very question has not been raised and debated and shouted on rooftops at CTer sites. They are self-proclaimed "truth" seekers, after all."

Um...maybe because they avoid all the blatantly obvious things that destroy their ridiculous theories? Just a thought. ;-)

[savemefromdumbya]

64. policies of the US govt were formulated long before 9/11

nothing really changed only the US had more friends than it thought it had Mr Putin and Udday Hussein?

[canetoad]

2. What if?

I do not deal in what ifs. I find it strange for people to do so, strange for them to hypothesize long and complicated chains of events starting from a what if.

It happened. Deal with it and deal with what you life has become.

[Make7]

3. Please do not neglect to also share your opinion....

... in this thread: What If 9/11 Never Happened?

- Make7

[canetoad]

5. Don't be a gig

and don't try to control where, when or how I post. Mind yer manners.

[Grateful for Hope]

10. Agree n/t

[mirandapriestly]

24. Someone thinks they're a moderator, eom

[Make7]

32. I don't know if that was canetoad's intention.

Although he/she did tell me what to, and what not to do, I don't think he/she was really trying to moderate anything. And I do agree in general that his/her statement, "Mind yer manners", is something that would improve things around here if it was followed more closely. Although I am not entirely clear on why he/she felt that was something that needed to be brought up in response to me simply suggesting that he/she share his/her ideas on another thread. Perhaps there was a slight misunderstanding.

- Make7

[greyl]

4. "Suspicion is all that is needed" - canetoad

"Imagine if JFK had been assassinated in a time when we had global communication via internet." - canetoad

"What if nobody ever used their imagination to learn from thought experiments?" - greyl

[canetoad]

6. So what.

That was then this is now. Deal with it.

[greyl]

7. So maybe you'll contradict yourself again tomorrow.

You must have missed the question I asked:

What if nobody ever used their imagination to learn from thought experiments?

[quickesst]

8. If 9/11

wasn't an inside job, I would still be calling for a new investigation into the sheer incompetence from our government in allowing it to happen, especially with all the warnings that were recieved. As far as incompetence vs complicity, I don't see incompetence as a get out of jail free card. I've said all along, whether one or the other, a new investigation should be called. Thanks.
quickesst

[Make7]

9. I agree with that.

There were shortcomings and obstructions to the investigations and trying to rectify that is certainly called for. However, my intent with the original post was more to question what would be the difference in the foreign and domestic policies of the US Government/Bush Administration if 9/11 was or was not an inside job.

- Make7

[planeman]

14. An excellent question Make7.

Unfortunetly politics is a cynical game.The Arabs who flew those planes on 9-11 knew the consequences of their actions.They knew that the U>S would be induced into a vietnam like struggle to defeat the organiztion that they belonged to(AlQuida).I believe that was their motive for having perpetuated 9-11.

[CJCRANE]

22. They had no way of knowing

that Bushco would attack Iraq (if they genuinely were islamic fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia).

[Make7]

40. He said Al-Qaeda, not Iraq. He didn't even mention Iraq.

And even if he had, your theory that they would have no way of knowing is very likely untrue. I believe there were indications in the public domain prior to 9/11 that military action in Iraq was a policy that was supported by members of the Bush Administration.

- Make7

[Virginia Dare]

43. So, in essence it furthered both of their agendas....

Al Quaeda and PNAC. More fodder for the theory that it was an inside job in my opinion.

[Make7]

27. Welcome to DU planeman.

Thanks for the reply. I certainly understand your viewpoint, and although I do not disagree with the concept in your post, my intention for this thread was more to see how people felt about foreign and domestic policies of the US post 9/11. For example: the Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, the attack on Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, etc. How would these be different if 9/11 was an inside job vs. if it was not an inside job?

Perhaps I should have gone into more detail by what I meant in the opening post by: "the foreign and domestic policies of the US Government".

:hi: Make7

[Old and In the Way]

11. Maybe we would have had an immediate investigation of 9/11...

and we'd have had a full airing of all of the evidence. If almost anyone else was President, I don't think they would have obstructed, slow walked, and underfunded that investigation. As another poster notes upstream, incompetence is no excuse...they still should be held accountable for not paying attention to all the warning signs. Of course, if they knew and let it happen, I think that makes it a capital crime.

[Grateful for Hope]

12. Such a good point!

This is a such a great forum!

[AZCat]

18. I don't think it would have mattered who was president...

so much if they were Republican. I think the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rove crew had maneuvered within the party successfully enough that any Republican president would have had his administration infested with these scumbags. IMHO they would have forced the same stalls, ommissions and lies that are so prevalent in the White House account of that tragic day.

A Democrat, on the other hand, is usually blessed with an operating brain (and a few competent assistants) and would have seen the value in a full accounting of the tragedy.

[Make7]

28. I hadn't really intended to discuss the investigation in this thread...

... but since everyone is bringing it up - I might as well respond...

Just for the sake of argument, let's consider an opposing scenario: What if 9/11 was an well planned and executed inside job?

They must have known that a thorough investigation would be called for almost immediately. Why wouldn't the post-911 investigation have been part of the preparation and planning of the operation itself? Wouldn't a speedy and "thorough" investigation have been the quickest and most effective way to minimize any suspicions of a cover-up? Why would they purposefully act in a way to intensify any feelings that the investigation would simply be a cover-up?

- Make7

BTW - stepping out of the "what if" world...

I do agree that incompetence is no excuse, someone should be held accountable.

[wildbilln864]

13. and what if...

shit did not stink?

[Make7]

30. Glade would sell fewer air fresheners. ( n/t )

[DemInDistress]

16. what if cheney,rumsey and the band of murderer's were about

to be exposed for the 911 attacks would they nuke America?
with the recent attack of a 911 researcher and the sudden suicide of Hunter Thompson couple yrs. back there can be no doubts 911 was an inside job.
This murdering administration (PNAC) needed this well planned attack to conduct foreign policy as they saw fit, plans for Iraq were ready to roll during dick's secret energy task force meeting in april/may 2001.
I hope you don't want us to believe that 19 arabs could outwit our intelligence,military and astute investigators.
Keep it secret keep it safe thought the BFEE but 59 months later without the help from our government (FOIL requests) enough disturbing facts have emerged to warrant a new independent from the WH investigation, what we need to accomplish that is a change in Congress
and that's coming in Nov.

Make7..what if bush warned all America on Sept 7 2001 that he has reason to believe arabs would try to hijack a commercial jet and crash it into a skyscraper? in the world of "what ifs" your Q is meaningless but I do enjoy your input.. thanks my friend

[Make7]

42. RE: "...(PNAC) needed this well planned attack..."

DemInDistress wrote:

This murdering administration (PNAC) needed this well planned attack to conduct foreign policy as they saw fit, plans for Iraq were ready to roll during dick's secret energy task force meeting in april/may 2001.

My question was basically a different way to look at the 'they needed a "new pearl harbor" to implement their policy so they planned and executed 911' vs. 'they took advantage of circumstances by using 911 to implement their policy although they didn't actually have a hand in 911' debate.

I guess I'll put you down in the '911 was planned and executed by them to implement their policy' column. But just suppose that they didn't do it. Would the invasion of Afghanistan and/or Iraq still have happened? I would say yes to both. Support for military action in Iraq by members of PNAC go back to the late 90's.

Many of the provisions of the Patriot Act had been proposed before 911, wouldn't they have passed that whether 911 was an inside job or not?

I simply don't feel that the post-911 policies of the Administration would have been any different if 911 was an inside job vs. if it was not an inside job. So I am wondering if the post-911 policies can reasonably be used to point the finger of blame squarely at the Bush Administration.

- Make7

[DemInDistress]

44. good try Make7... no 911..no Patriot Act, no GWoT,no trifecta,

Yes the neocons wanted war in Iraq during Clinton's term(s) but Bubba refused. It took a stolen election and the placement of a supreme idiot to pull off 911. Had McCain defeated the idiot king my guess is McCain wouldn't tolerate needless war in Iraq or the death's of thousands on 911 nor would he permit the continuing
financial rape of California during the staged power shortages in 2000/2001 from the thieves in Houston Enron,
Dynergy,Texas ElPaso and others.
Its funny how these 2 murdering louts could do nothing for 8 months in 2001 then within a week after 911 produce an 1100 page Patriot Act which was rushed through the House in hours.

I don't believe you Make7 support the Official 911 Report because of the omissions and distortions. I admire your reasoning and thoughtfulness but this thread "What If" is fantasy..

You put me on to terrorize.dk where evidence in video exists of explosive demolition. Need I show you a video or 2?

If this administration has even 1% complicity then the case for treason is made. It was you,me and millions of other innocent Americans "who didn't know" but BUSH KNEW ASSCROFT KNEW CHENEY AND RUMSEY KNEW" they kept it secret from all of us.

What if you were President Make7 how would you have handled all 52 warnings leading up to 911?


see you tonight.

[seatnineb]

62. Really?

Should not your oh so deviouse little question have been:

If 9/11 never happened......would the U.S have been able to implement these policies?

[Make7]

66. Unfortunately it is too late to edit the opening post.

I would like to suggest that you go participate in the What If 9/11 Never Happened? thread, that seems to be much more compatible with your idea.

- Make7

[seatnineb]

68. No I think I will stick around here......................

If 9/11 is an inside job......then the goverment act on the premise that the public thinks that 9/11 was perpetrated by AlQuida.......and act accordingly and invade Afghanistan.

If 9/11 was not an inside job then the goverment act on the premise
that it was perpetrated by (in this case)Alquida...........and act accordingly and invade Afghanistan.

So really it boils down to motive.

I said it before and I will say it again.........destroying 2 militarily ineffective towers,flying into a newly re-inforced wedge at the Pentagon ,crashing a plane in an abandoned strip mine and killing nearly 3000 people......is hardly going to bring a nation of 250 million with the strongest military might known to man on her knees......is it?

And recent history has proved that it didn't.

Consider 9/11 like a provocation.....designed to trigger a response.

But who does the response favour......the perpertrators(Alquida) or the victims(U.S).

[Make7]

69. Can't say that I am surprised.

seatnineb wrote:

So really it boils down to motive.

People within the U.S. power structure and people within AlQaeda both had motives to commit the attacks on 9/11. They both also had reasons not to commit those attacks. There are also other people/organizations/countries that one could consider to have a motive for perpetrating the attacks on that day. Perhaps you should explain your point in more detail.

seatnineb wrote:

Consider 9/11 like a provocation.....designed to trigger a response.

But who does the response favour......the perpertrators(Alquida) or the victims(U.S).

Provoking a disproportionate response is a textbook terrorist organization tactic.

"In the first stage, terrorism, the activist intellectuals were to act for the masses - on their behalf but without their participation. They would sow terror among the clique in power, which would expose its weakness, provoke brutal overreaction, and inspire mass support for radical change." (page 162)

"What the terrorism experts should understand - but apparently do not wish to acknowledge - is that retaliation based on the principle of collective responsibility for terrorist actions follow precisely the adversary's script." (page xvi)

Source: Alchemists of Revolution, Rubenstein, Richard E., 1987

I must say that I do not care for the wording of that final question of yours. The victims of 9/11 are the people that died in the attacks and the loved ones and friends of those that were lost.

But to answer what you meant by that question, both organizations had motives to perpetrate the attacks and also had reasons not to go through with them. Maybe you should just try to explain your point instead of asking questions. The chance of you and I having the same answer to one of your questions seems remote.

- Make7

[seatnineb]

71. Damn fuckin right...I don't agree with you!

If Alquida did 9/11....then the following premise that you state is illogical:

In the words of Make7:
Provoking a disproportionate response is a textbook terrorist organization tactic.

So by executing 9/11 alquida knew that........the disproportionate response of the U.S would be...would be.....would be....to invade Afghnanistan!...a country riddled with intercinine strife which had next to no chance of repelling any kind of U.S/British invasion........

So give me one example how the U.S invasion of Afghanistan favours Alquida?

If 9/11 on the hand is an inside job ....then the following premise that you state:

In the words of Make7:
Provoking a disproportionate response is a textbook terrorist organization tactic.

..may hold true......

Because attacking Afghanistan is the disproportionate response to the crime(9/11) committed.

Which favours the U.S.....would you not agree?

In the words of Make7:
I must say that I do not care for the wording of that final questiion of yours. The victims of 9/11 are the people that died in the attacks and the loved ones and friends of those that were lost

You do not care to answer....more like you are afraid to answer ......Scared7.....remember!

:scared:

...because you know it undermines the bullshit official story...that you believe in.

Yes the victims of 9/11 are those who died aswell as the friends and relatives of these people.But the victims of the response to 9/11 are those who died aswell as their friends and relatives .....during the U.S invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

As I said .....killing 3000 people,2 militarily useless towers,smashing a reinforced wedge at the Pentagon and an abandoned strip mine is going to invoke a disroportionate response!....from a nation of 250 million with the most powerful military on planet earth right now........

So maybe you should rephrase your statement from this:

In the words of Make7:
Provoking a disproportionate response is a textbook terrorist organization tactic.

To this:

In the words of Seatnineb:
Provoking a disproportionate response is a textbook state terror organization tactic.

[Grateful for Hope]

73. Very good post

Thank you.

[seatnineb]

74. Thanks! n/t

[Make7]

80. How could I forget?

Edited to change things

Scared7... and don't forget about Denial7 either. I always kinda liked Christophera's nickname for me - Make3½. Good times... good times...

What I particularly enjoyed were are these little games you play. To illustrate what I am talking about I will begin by quoting from my previous post.

I wrote:

seatnineb wrote:

Consider 9/11 like a provocation.....designed to trigger a response.

But who does the response favour......the perpertrators(Alquida) or the victims(U.S).

I must say that I do not care for the wording of that final question of yours. The victims of 9/11 are the people that died in the attacks and the loved ones and friends of those that were lost.

But to answer what you meant by that question, both organizations had motives to perpetrate the attacks and also had reasons not to go through with them. Maybe you should just try to explain your point instead of asking questions. The chance of you and I having the same answer to one of your questions seems remote.

And in response you say, "You do not care to answer....more like you are afraid to answer ......Scared7.....remember! ...because you know it undermines the bullshit official story...that you believe in."

Clearly I did not say that I don't care to answer, in fact I gave an answer to what I thought you were asking. Apparently I didn't interpret your meaning correctly. My request for you to explain your point should have indicated to you that I wanted you to clarify what you meant. You misrepresenting what I had said is not exactly what I had in mind when I suggested that you explain your point.

I still don't know who you are even referring to in that question when you use the term "victims(U.S)". Do you mean the people that died on 9/11? Their families and friends? The overall U.S. population? The U.S. Government? The Bush Administration? Please be more specific. Or simply restate your point without making it a question.

From your previous post:

seatnineb wrote:

If 9/11 is an inside job......then the goverment act on the premise that the public thinks that 9/11 was perpetrated by AlQuida.......and act accordingly and invade Afghanistan.

If 9/11 was not an inside job then the goverment act on the premise
that it was perpetrated by (in this case)Alquida...........and act accordingly and invade Afghanistan.

Given that the magnitude of the actual attacks on 9/11 are the same whoever perpetrated it and your contention that the response would be the same no matter who was the perpetrator, how is the response disproportionate for one perpetrator and not the other? You said my statement regarding a disproportionate response was illogical if it was not an inside job, but may hold true if it was. Aren't the initial attacks and subsequent responses the same in both cases? How is it disproportionate in one case and not the other?

I simply request that you clarify what exactly it is that you mean. Instead of trying to rewrite what I have said to change what I meant, why don't you just write a clear explanation of what your viewpoint is?

- Make7

[seatnineb]

81. You have not forgot how to be deceptive!

Question by seatnineb:

"Consider 9/11 like a provocation.....designed to trigger a response.

But who does the response favour......the perpertrators(Alquida) or the victims(U.S).

Answer(which is not an answer!) by Make7:

"both organizations had motives to perpetrate the attacks and also had reasons not to go through with them."

I used the term perpetrators and victims to conform to the official story .And you knew this.....but you pretend not to understand so you don't have to answer the question!

The question which was this........

Who did THE RESPONSE to this attack favour?.......The U.S or Alquida?

Does the response(which constitutes the invasion of Afghanistan) favour Alquida or the U.S?

I think it favours the U.S.
If you disagree...and think that the invasion of Afghanistan favours AlQuida....then tell me why?

And this is a poor attempt to create confusion...........


In the words of Make7:

"You said my statement regarding a disproportionate response was illogical if it was not an inside job, but may hold true if it was. Aren't the initial attacks and subsequent responses the same in both cases? How is it disproportionate in one case and not the other?"

What actually changes is the motive to commit the crime.

The response is disproportionate...whoever the perpetrator is.

And the response is tied to the motive.

Which determines who is more likely to be the perpetrator.

That was my point.....

Alquida knows that there will be a disproprortionate response to the crime that they commit (9/11)....that is why it is illogical for them to go ahead and execute 9/11....

And that is why it is illogical for them to conform to this premise:

In the words of Make7:

"Provoking a disproportionate response is a textbook terrorist organization tactic."

On the other hand........if 9/11 is an inside job.....

The U.S knows that their disproprortionate response to the crime(9/11) that they themselves commit-on their own people.....allows them to invade Afghnaistan.....so it would be logical for them to go ahead and execute 9/11.

[Make7]

82. Sometimes I just don't understand what you are saying.

I had asked you to clarify what you meant by "U.S.". How difficult is it to just state what your meaning is?

I requested that you simply explain your point instead of asking me questions because you never seem to care for the answers you get in return. Why ask me a question when you already have in mind what you want me to say? Please just make your point instead.

Let us return to Alchemists of Revolution. On page xvii Rubenstein writes:

Terrorism, if you like, is a kind of crime that aspires to become warfare. Its goal is to link a small vanguard of militants to the resigned, timid, or corrupted masses - to awaken these oppressed sleepers and lead them to power.

How is this accomplished? The key lies in the truism that there is no force more terroristic than a national state at war.

    <- snip ->

In terrorist theory, this simple fact has the impact of Newton's falling apple; for if small-group attacks can provoke powerful governments to retaliate against the terrorist's suppliers, sympathizers, and ethnic brethren, the state itself will accomplish the terrorists' main task. The sleepers will awaken, the cycle of retaliation will continue, the struggle will go forward.

The president of the International Observatory on Terrorism in Paris seems to have a similar theory about 9/11:

In 1998, bin Laden decreed that Muslims should kill Americans, including civilians, wherever they could. In interviews, he explained that American citizens were culpable for the sins of their government because they elected it "despite their knowledge of its crimes." He invoked the principle of reciprocity, saying Americans had killed Muslim women and children, so their women and children would die too.

This guerrilla war, with women and children as collateral damage, is part of a broader military strategy to ensnare the U.S. in a larger East-West conflict. Roland Jacquard, president of the International Observatory on Terrorism in Paris, believes that bin Laden intended the Sept. 11 attack to be so "audacious, impudent and massively inhumane" as to ensure a "massive, inordinate" U.S. retaliation that would further inflame Muslim opinion against the U.S. and against the Arab regimes allied with Washington. Says Jacquard: "His design is to create sufficient instability to bring about Islamic revolution."

October 15, 2001
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,178412-2,00.html

Is anti-Americanism and radical Islamic ideology increasing in the Middle East?

In one sense, this strain of Islamic ideology has been around for at least the past two decades. It's been taught in the proliferating fundamentalist madrassahs in Pakistan. It has been fueled by petrodollars from Saudi Arabia, and preached in mosques from Egypt to Indonesia. And it continues to inspire militant groups such as Al Queda, the Taliban, Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, and many others.

What is new - and appears to be gathering momentum with every US air strike in Afghanistan - is the intensity of feelings this ideology has created among younger Muslims. Even in the traditionally more "moderate" Muslim nations of Southeast Asia, a culture of jihad is now spreading.

One's credentials as a "true Muslim" are increasingly based on a willingness to use violence. In just the past year, the walls of buildings throughout northern Pakistan have become hand-scrawled billboards for "jihadi training," complete with phone numbers. And people are calling.

"I never thought I would see a Pakistani or a Punjabi willing to kill himself for Islam," says a local Pashtun journalist, who has interviewed bin Laden. "You used to see a lot of boots, AK-47s, and flak jackets around here. But no jihad. The number of suicide bombers in a group like Lashkar [e-Tayyiba] used to be maybe 10 or 20. Now it is close to 400."

October 18, 2001
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1018/p1s2-wogi.html

To answer your question - both Al Qaeda and the U.S. benefited from the retaliation to the attacks on 9/11.

- Make7

[seatnineb]

83. Ohh.......I think you understand all too well!

O.K ……

According to the bullshit official parameters…………..

Alquida intends to benefit from executing acts like 9/11 to achieve the following…………….

Bin Laden, like other Islamic radicals,foresees the overthrow of current regimes across the Muslim world and the ESTABLISHEMENT OF ONE UNITED GOVERMENT strictly enforcing Shari'a, or Islamic law.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,178412-1,00.html

Instead the only benefit that Alquida seems to have derived from the response to 9/11 is this(by your own admission)

Alquida benefited by inflaming Muslim opinion against the U.S. and against the Arab regimes allied with this same U.S and caused an increase in anti-Americanism and amplified radical Islamic ideology!

Some benefit for Alquida.....which is hardly a benefit at all.

Your friend...Rubenstein admits as much.........

In the words Of Richard Rubenstein:
"So, you take Osama Bin Laden, does he have mass support? Sure. What is the quality and you know lots of people think he is standing up for the Islamic world against the Jews and crusaders, the Americans in particular. What is the nature of that support? And when I say he has got mass support I am not saying a vast majority, I am just saying lots and lots of people, one hundred, maybe tens of millions of people. Anyway, what is the nature of the support? At the moment it is very weak. At the moment it is very passive, you know when the two towers went down two years ago almost to this date a lot of people around the world said, "Good, the Americans finally got what was coming to them." Does that mean that they would be willing to finance or do the same thing themselves or get in a plane and kill themselves? No."
http://www.beyondintractability.org/audio/richard_rubenstein/?nid=2469

Sorry....but with a "weak and passive support" amongst the Muslim populace............

Alquida are still a long way from the ESTABLISHEMENT OF ONE UNITED GOVERNMENT

In the meantime.........

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have now fallen into American hands....

And the goverments of Pakistan,Oman ,Yemen and Saudi Arabia have all solidified their relationship with this same U.S post 9/11.......which benefits the U.S(aswell as these Arab/Muslim undemocratic rulers)....don't ya think!

I think it is a safe bet to say that the U.S(alias Al CIA-DA) benefited completely from the response to 9/11.....

[Make7]

84. And I am starting to wonder if you understand at all.

seatnineb wrote:

Instead the only benefit that Alquida seems to have derived from the response to 9/11 is this(by your own admission)

Alquida benefited by inflaming Muslim opinion against the U.S. and against the Arab regimes allied with this same U.S and caused an increase in anti-Americanism and amplified radical Islamic ideology!

That's the only benefit by my own admission? Really? Show me where I said that. And please give a direct quote to support your statement.

seatnineb wrote:

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have now fallen into American hands....

And how is that working out for them?

You seem to believe that these invasions have been successes for the U.S. - I think you are trying to write history before the events in question have concluded.

Remember how successful the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan turned out? How long did that last? Perhaps you should wait to see how the Iraq invasion works out for America. It may turn out to be one of America's greatest strategic blunders. (Although if the U.S. starts hostilities with Iran in the near future, it will likely make the invasion of Iraq look like a brilliant decision in comparison.)

Why do you think this chapter in history has already been written? People in the Middle East tend to have a much longer attention span than those in the "West".

- Make7

[seatnineb]

85. You want people to think I don't understand. but you know I do!

I combined your link:

Make7's link:
U.S. retaliation that would further inflame Muslim opinion against the U.S. and against the Arab regimes allied with Washington.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,178412-2,00.html

And your own statement:

Statement by Make7 himself/herself:
Sun Sep-03-06 04:04 PM

"Is anti-Americanism and radical Islamic ideology increasing in the Middle East?"

............into the following conclusion:

In the words of seatnineb:
Sun Sep-03-06 07:43 PM
"Alquida benefited by inflaming Muslim opinion against the U.S. and against the Arab regimes allied with this same U.S and caused an increase in anti-Americanism and amplified radical Islamic ideology!

.....and then defined it as your own admission in terms of how you thought Alquida benefited from 9/11.

Something I was fuckin' well entitled to do....and you know it....because that is how you think Alquida benefited from 9/11!

Your comparison between the U.S invasion of Afghanistan(and Iraq) with the Soviet Union's invasion of this same Afghanistan .....is flawed......

Because the Soviet's enemies in Afghanistan(in the 70's and 80's) just happened to be the Mujahadin who were backed by the American CIA/Saudi GID/Pakistani ISI/British MI6 axis.

Wheras the U.S's enemies in this same Afghanistan (in 2001-2006) just happened to be the Taliban and Alquida .... who post 9/11 were/are backed by.....backed by ...umm...uh...who are they backed by?

Name me one goverment of any country that either covertly or openly supported,trained and funded the Taliban/Alquida axis post 9/11....

You already know the answer.

Nobody.

Which is another reason why Alquida stood to gain fuck all by inducing the U.S into a response for 9/11.

Saying that history has not been written is a poor way to get out of the trouble you find yourself in.......when it comes to defining how Alquida stood to benefit from executing 9/11.

Because they didn't stand to benefit.....at all.

And history has so far....proven it so.

[Make7]

88. With every post you make, you seem to understand less.

I'll try to make this easier to understand. You previously wrote:

So give me one example how the U.S invasion of Afghanistan favours Alquida?

And later you wrote:

... the only benefit that Alquida seems to have derived from the response to 9/11 is this(by your own admission)

Alquida benefited by inflaming Muslim opinion against the U.S. and against the Arab regimes allied with this same U.S and caused an increase in anti-Americanism and amplified radical Islamic ideology!

That's the only benefit by my own admission? Please show me a direct quote where I say that is the only benefit. (I know that question may sound familiar. Perhaps it is because I asked it in my previous post. I hope that restating my request for a quote makes my question clear enough. Your previous response would seem to indicate that you may not have fully understood the question.)

Regarding my comparison of conflicts, let me repeat what I said:

Remember how successful the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan turned out? How long did that last? Perhaps you should wait to see how the Iraq invasion works out for America. It may turn out to be one of America's greatest strategic blunders.

Your answer suggests that you are again not quite understanding what I am saying.

First, let me supply the answers to those questions. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was unsuccessful. It lasted nine years. Now that that's out of the way, I would simply like to ask one additional question that hopefully will clarify the intention of the quote above.

At this point in the Iraq War, would you consider it a success?

- Make7

[seatnineb]

90. Rubbish.

I don't have to provide jack shit to you.......

This is the only benefit:

"Alquida benefited by inflaming Muslim opinion against the U.S. and against the Arab regimes allied with this same U.S and caused an increase in anti-Americanism and amplified radical Islamic ideology!"

.......that you have cited/implied/ADMITTED(through a combination of links/statements).... so far with regards to HOW YOU THINK Alquida benefited from 9/11.

So I am correct in saying that this:

"Alquida benefited by inflaming Muslim opinion against the U.S. and against the Arab regimes allied with this same U.S and caused an increase in anti-Americanism and amplified radical Islamic ideology!"

....is the only benefit THAT YOU have cited/implied/admitted.

Do you have any OTHER examples of how Alquida benefited from the U.S response to 9/11.

Didn't think so.......

And your comparison is wrong between the respective Soviet and U.S invasions of Afghanistan.........

The Soviet occupation was ultimately unsuccessful because they were up against a CIA/ISI/GID/MI6 backed entity(Mujahhadin).

The U.S occupation is successful so far....because they are up against an entity(Taliban/Alquida) which has no backing from any goverment or state.

Which begs the question why Alquida would want to execute 9/11 knowing full well that both Pakistan and the UAE(the 2 countries that recognized the Taliban pre-9/11).........would NEVER fight and protect the Taliban/Alquida in a post 9/11 situation.

And history proved that the UAE and Pakistani goverments did not fight and protect the Taliban/Alquida post 9/11.....

On the contrary ...the Pakistani goverment had no problem in turning their back on the Taliban and aiding the U.S in their invasion of Afghanistan....

I know the above practically destroys any pathetic excuse you can come up with of how you think Alquida benefited from the U.S response to 9/11.......

But hey....keep tryin'

To answer your question:

Like Afghanistan.....the Iraqi war is successful......for the U.S.....

If you disagree...tell me why.....

[mirandapriestly]

77. Who can say what a "textbook terrorist organization tactic" is

when the US has been staging middle eastern terror attacks since the 1950's?

[ima_sinnic]

17. WHAT IF . . . bush wasn't trying to cover something up?

what if: bush actually doggedly led an investigation into the real facts of 9/11?
what if: bush did NOT delete 28 pages of evidence that protected his friends and co-conspirators in Saudi Arabia?
what if: bush gave open testimony to the 9/11 commission, without sitting on cheney's lap like the ventriloquist dummy he actually is?
what if: bush did NOT immediately after 9/11 withdraw all troops from Saudi Arabia?
wbat if: bush welcomed the testimony of Sibel Edmonds as a route to the truth? (what she has to say must be incredibly damaging to him, since his administration has fought tooth & nail to prevent her from speaking. gee, I wonder why that is?)
what if: bush ordered the release of all videotapes of what actually crashed into the pentagon? and opened the doors of the hangar where the pieces of the "airplane" are supposedly laid out?

if 9/11 was not an inside job, why are all of these hypothetical questions?

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Are you sure that the 28 pages were about SA?

I had heard they were about Pakistan. I could be wrong.

[mirandapriestly]

78. Such a good point!

This would be a good thread idea.

[Jazz2006]

20. So, what if 9/11 was not an inside job?

How would the foreign and domestic policies of the U.S. gov't been different if Sept. 11, 2001 was not an inside job?

That was the question.... so far, the vast majority of the responses have not actually addressed that question.

But I'll break out some more popcorn just in case some of the tinhatters get around to responding to the actual question.

:popcorn:

[quickesst]

21. If 9/11...

was not an inside job, the policies would be exactly as they are today. Everything this administration has done was due to 9/11, the phony connection of SH to the event, the illegal invasion, lying to the American people, congress, and the UN. All based on 9/11. Since the OCT is now the mainstream accepted version, you are witnessing our foriegn policy based upon the premise that there was no govenment involvement. The question changes nothing in that respect. Thanks.
quickesst

[Make7]

31. Thank you for actually answering the question.

For a few follow up questions I would like to refer you to the first part of one of my other replies concerning the investigation(s).

- Make7

[quickesst]

35. In regard to your link....

I think the easiest explanation I could come up with is that preparation for a cover up would involve a level of acting that would have to be near perfect, and involve too many people in roles that may not stand up to scrutiny. The way it did turn out, with confusion, multiple conspiracy theories, including the OTC, and the appearance of mass incompetence, very little rehearsal and acting was required. It has worked for several years, and without a major shift, will continue to hold up. Thanks.
quickesst

[Make7]

41. I'm not sure if I'm following you...

quickesst wrote:

...preparation for a cover up would involve a level of acting that would have to be near perfect, and involve too many people in roles that may not stand up to scrutiny.

Why would this be true for the post-911 investigation(s) but not for the actual cover-up of the 911 operation itself if it were actually an inside job?

Could you expand on your point in a little more detail?

Thanks,
Make7

[quickesst]

46. Just that...

I believe a lot of people were just left hanging, and was not informed, or was mis-informed, including dubya, Rice, and Powell. Their job that day was to act as if it were a surprise, and that's what they did, because they were unaware of the circumstances, and or, the severity of what was to transpire that day. Nothing solid, but just my gut reaction from reading and watching the reactions of certain people. That's the beauty of acting vs natural reaction. Can't flub the lines, even if they are the statements of a dumbass. Sorry if this is not clearer, but it is my own personal view, and not part of any group ct. Thanks.
quickesst

[Make7]

49. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.

I see where you are coming from concerning this particular question, but obviously what you have outlined is not cause for indictment - rather it is a indication that you feel you are pointed in the right direction. To make a case, the other issues must also be factored in. But the other issues are not the subject of this thread, we should discuss those matters in the appropriate location.

- Make7

[The Straight Story]

76. My question on it all:

If it was planned by bush and crew why would he sit looking like a dumbass while it was all going down? He could have planned it better so that he looked more like a hero. Hell they could have staffed a few planes with terrorists and had agents on the plane to stop them, making them look better, or shot them down saying they saved more buildings and boo-hoo bush felt so bad but had to it (playing the victim).

The fact that so much was fucked up leads me to believe it is just another case of a bloated government doing a piss poor job.

BUT I am willing to listen and learn - there may well have been some within the administration/govt who knew and helped plan it. I just don't think dumbass himself was involved in any major way (he is a puppet).

IF this was planned, chances are it started before bush was even selected. Does not mean clinton did it, just means the incompentency (or evil) runs at a level underneath the labels of democrat or rethug.

[John Q. Citizen]

87. Your questions are reasonable so let me attempt to answer them or

most of them anyway.

First I don't see many who do believe that there may have been US involvement in the attacks claim that bush was the architect of such a scheme. While i believe bush probably has at least an average IQ, I don't believe he's brilliant or anywhere near approaching that. I do believe he is dyslexic (look at daddy, it runs in families) and I believe he is a sociopath. He has plenty of people around him though who are quite capable and intellectually outstanding, even if sociopathic by most standards. I also believe these people use incompetence as a smoke screen to explain away their actions which otherwise would appear to be sociopathic. Katrina is an example of this. It was LIHOP. These people honestly believe that through chaos they can transform the world to achieve their goals, a "new Middle East." Look at their stated Middle East policy. They plan to transform the Middle East. They are on record as favoring destabilization to achieve this transformation. These people believe war is the greatest engine for social/political/economic change there is. And the cost in human suffering is justifiable and is rationalized as "birthing pains" for their grand vision.

This chaos theory of social change doesn't stop at our boarders. In fact is extends to the whole world. If you doubt me read their own writings by their philosophical leaders. Have you read the writings by the intellectuals involved with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC?) They lay out concisely what we have witnessed over the last six years clear as a bell. Read Machiavelli's, "The Prince" (Machiavelli is one of their heroes, as is Nietzche)

If they had stopped the chaos of 9/11 before it began (looking like heroes you would suppose) they would have stymied their own plans. Here's an example why to clarify it for you. The Clinton and Gore administration did a good job of stopping a reasonably large number of terrorist plots. Yet the US public apparently still is under the impression that a guy like Gore (or Kerry) might be "soft" on terrorism. Who gets the higher marks on being "strong" on terrorism? Why it's bush. How can that be? Think about that for a little bit.

Also, think about why the Secret Service, who's mission is to protect the President allowed him to sit there for so long instead of immediately rushing him to a safe place? What's up with that?

I believe you when you write, "The fact that so much was fucked up leads me to believe it is just another case of a bloated government doing a piss poor job."

Well, for so called "incompetents" they sure have you buying into their meme put forth for the last 25 years at least. You are more than willing and ready to buy what the advocates of privatization have been selling for years. And you are. presumably, a liberal. They are so incompetent that they have you promoting their programs and slogans for them. That's not incompetent, that's very slick of this administration.

I have long believed that the bush crime family cares much more about acquiring power and wielding power than about anything as mailable and trivial as party labels. i do believe that there are members of the bush crime family who call themselves, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and Republicans, because their goal is power, not faith in some party label. Party labels are primarily for the little people to rally around. The wolves manipulate the sheep as well as the labels (icons, or symbols)to acquire power.

Please read "The Prince" and the PNAC writings and get back to me.

[CJCRANE]

23. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan & UAE would be worried (nt)

ed: sp

[wildbilln864]

25. If 911 was not an inside...

job then I think we'd have already caught OBL or killed him.
I believe he's long dead.

[CJCRANE]

26. Exactly

especially if it had been on Gore's watch.

If OBL is dead then it was probably due to the Pakistan earthquake or kidney failure.

[wildbilln864]

29. and I also believe...

we'd know every detail of how the terrorist did this. We'd have a commision report that wouldn't be full of holes and ommisions! The gubment wouldn't need to hide everything! Nor gag anyone!
And this country wouldn't be as divided as it presently is.

[mrgerbik]

33. would the patriot acts go through without 9/11? ...

and the numerous other acts and policies that are all under the guise of "National Security"?

Maybe, maybe not.

[salvorhardin]

34. I believe you are not understanding the OP's question

He is not asking how the administration's policies and actions would be different if 9-11 never happened.

He is asking how the administration's policies and actions would be different if 9-11 was not a BushCo plot.

In other words, 9-11 happened. I think we can all agree on that. If the events of 9-11 were brought about and transpired pretty much as the 9-11 Commission describes, would the Bush administration have been able to do any less (or more) than if 9-11 was a neocon plot to bring about a new Pearl Harbor?

Make7 -- please correct me if I've misread you.

[Make7]

50. You are correct. For some reason I thought the question was clear enough.

Next time I guess I should elaborate a little bit more if it's an opening post. Thanks for clarifying the question in your own post.

- Make7

[KJF]

36. When I see the transcripts of the NSA intercepts...

... of communications between the hijackers in the US and their "base" in Yemen, I may well be able to say how things would be different now if they had been released in a timely fashion (which I guess they would have been if they weren't covering something up). However, as I haven't seen them, I can't really say how things would be different. Maybe they give a complete list of the airliners they're going to hijack, maybe they're just talking about the weather and Khalid Al Mihdhar's baby. It depends. If it were widely known that the NSA intercepted some of the hijackers' communications, I think the NSA wiretapping debate would be different to what it is now.

Otherwise, I find it difficult to say. A lot depends on what sort of "inside job" you think it was. It also depends on what you think the administration's motivation is - do they genuinely want democracy in the Middle East or are they doing the bombings themselves so they can appoint Chalabi dictator?

On edit: how about this: if it wasn't an inside job, they would have stopped it, so it never would have happened.

[greyl]

37. "if it wasn't an inside job, they would have stopped it"

That statement is pure fantasy.

[CJCRANE]

38. It's a logical conclusion

from the hypothesis in the OP.

[salvorhardin]

39. It's also really bad reasoning

"If it wasn't an inside job, they would have stopped it" is still an interpretation that leaves the Bush administration with entirely way too much credit in that it presumes them to have had perfect knowledge of when, where and how the 9-11 attacks would occur.

[Make7]

48. My meaning of inside job was that they actively participated in it.

KJF wrote:

...I find it difficult to say. A lot depends on what sort of "inside job" you think it was. It also depends on what you think the administration's motivation is - do they genuinely want democracy in the Middle East or are they doing the bombings themselves so they can appoint Chalabi dictator?

History would indicate that 'democracy' is not very high on the priority list when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. The reason the U.S. has been involved in the Middle East for so long has to do with control of the energy resources.

I don't think they are committing the IED and car/truck bombings themselves in Iraq, but I do think they are beneficial to them in some ways. So their attempts to stem the chaos may be somewhat less than sincere. A dictator being installed in Iraq would not surprise me at all, although I doubt very much it would be Chalabi.

My original question for this thread is basically this: If the foreign and domestic policy of the U.S. would be essentially the same whether 9/11 were an inside job or not, how can someone point to what happened after 9/11 as evidence that it was an inside job? On the other hand, if the policies would have been different in some way if it was an inside job, what are those differences in policy?

Personally, I think the policies would have been the same whether the current Administration simply took advantage of an outside attack or if they actually facilitated the attack themselves. I wanted to see what the opposing viewpoint(s) might be. Most people have emphasized what they believe the differences in the investigations would have been, but my original idea was more concerned with the overall geopolitical strategy of the U.S. Oh, well - it seemed like a good idea when I posted it.

- Make7

[KJF]

55. I think it's just supposed to be a supporting argument

It's not supposed to stand alone. A jury won't convict you just because you benefitted from the insurance policy of the person you allegedly killed, but if you stand to collect under a policy it's fairly likely the prosecution will mention it. So I'm going to take your comment:

If the foreign and domestic policy of the U.S. would be essentially the same whether 9/11 were an inside job or not, how can someone point to what happened after 9/11 as evidence that it was an inside job?

And turn it around:
"If X would have collected under the insurance policy anyway whether he murdered Y or not, how can the prosecution point to what happened after the murder as evidence that X killed Y?"

I don't think that argument would impress the jury much, so it's reasonable for the 9/11 truth movement to point out who benefitted and it is evidence, just not very strong evidence.

Re Iraq/Chalabi: I think they always wanted Chalabi as dictator, but pressure from elsewhere forced a democracy - I really doubt Dick Cheney is a true believer in the natural democratic instincts of Arabs. I doubt they're doing all the IEDs and I think it would be unnecessary to do any of them, but I am beginning to wonder. If they're incompetent, then how come they're going to get a dictator, which is what they want. Have you read Svejk?

[Make7]

67. What if people think Z did it?

KJF wrote:

A jury won't convict you just because you benefitted from the insurance policy of the person you allegedly killed, but if you stand to collect under a policy it's fairly likely the prosecution will mention it. So I'm going to take your comment:

If the foreign and domestic policy of the U.S. would be essentially the same whether 9/11 were an inside job or not, how can someone point to what happened after 9/11 as evidence that it was an inside job?

"If X would have collected under the insurance policy anyway whether he murdered Y or not, how can the prosecution point to what happened after the murder as evidence that X killed Y?"

I don't think that argument would impress the jury much, so it's reasonable for the 9/11 truth movement to point out who benefitted and it is evidence, just not very strong evidence.

But if you're trying to convince people that believe Z killed Y, then it probably would not be very convincing at all. Especially if Z also benefited in some way.

My impression is that the phrase "new Pearl Harbor" has generally been used to illustrate why the Bush Administration needed an attack like 9/11, and since they needed one the implication is that they planned them to advance the PNAC agenda. My belief is that if someone else carried out the attacks on 9/11, the Bush Administration would have taken advantage of the situation to implement those very same policies.

Others also benefited from the attacks on 9/11. Is everyone that gained something from the situation also a possible suspect?

KJF wrote:

Re Iraq/Chalabi: I think they always wanted Chalabi as dictator, but pressure from elsewhere forced a democracy - I really doubt Dick Cheney is a true believer in the natural democratic instincts of Arabs. I doubt they're doing all the IEDs and I think it would be unnecessary to do any of them, but I am beginning to wonder. If they're incompetent, then how come they're going to get a dictator, which is what they want. Have you read Svejk?

It is quite likely that their original intention was to have Chalabi running things post-invasion, but that doesn't seem possible anymore IMO. Appealing to the ideals of democracy is a well used device in U.S. foreign policy. It has never been a primary motivation before, and it isn't one now. It does make it sound like we have good intentions, but it's little more than a public relations campaign.

Competency in one arena does not necessarily mean competency in another. Perhaps we should wait to see how things turn out before we judge the Iraq War a success.

No, I haven't read Svejk. (I haven't made nearly enough time for reading lately.) I think I remember Joseph Heller mentioning it (if we are both talking about the same thing), so it has been in the back of my mind to get to it, but there are quite a few things ahead of it on my reading list. How highly do you recommend it?

- Make7

[mhatrw]

45. All the horrors foisted upon us in the name of 9/11 would be just

just as heinous.

This is why it's completely baffling to me that any progressive individual would ever want to spend his or her precious time and energy defending the official 9/11 narrative against those seeking to cast doubt on it.

[mirandapriestly]

51. No progressive individual would want to do that.eom

[greyl]

52. Defending the "official narrative" isn't the issue at all.

Many of the people you find disagreeing with you on this topic, will also argue against Ronald Reagan's astrology, Laura Bush's tarot cards, Katherine Harris's homeopathy, psychic hotlines, dowsing, crop circles, Clinton killed Vince Foster, "buying these pants will make you sexy" bullshit marketing, and against the most prevelant religion in this country.

Iow, they are truly progressive and freethinking individual humans.
Attempts to lump them with our common foe will always come up short.

[Make7]

56. After not so careful consideration.

mhatrw wrote:

All the horrors foisted upon us in the name of 9/11 would be just as heinous.

Does that mean you believe that the domestic and foreign policy of the U.S. Government would be essentially the same whether or not 9/11 was an inside job? Or just that whatever policies put in place afterwards would be "heinous" either way?

mhatrw wrote:

This is why it's completely baffling to me that any progressive individual would ever want to spend his or her precious time and energy defending the official 9/11 narrative against those seeking to cast doubt on it.

After not so careful consideration I have decided that I will respond to your repeated posting of this question by repeatedly posting one of my previous answers to essentially the same question.

I wrote:

Just because someone disagrees with one, many, or even all of the conspiracy theories presented in this forum does not mean that that person is "propping up the official version of 9/11".

Unless you can show that premise to be incorrect, your question has no foundation and should rightfully be ignored.

There is an exception where your question would be valid - if you can demonstrate that a particular poster actually is "propping up the official version of 9/11". If you are able to do that, I would suggest you ask your question to that poster directly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=101457&mesg_id=102085

If you believe I am the one "defending the official 9/11 narrative", please demonstrate why you think that is the case and I will answer you. But if you simply continue to post this same question over and over, if I reply at all it will just be my response above.

I don't believe asking that same question repeatedly is going to bring you closer to any understanding. But by all means continue to do so if you think it will help.

- Make7

[MissWaverly]

47. well, Homeland Security would be different

they would not have squandered money on designer dog booties and beer machines, they would
have purchased scanners for cargo containers

[mirandapriestly]

53. An attack of the magnitude of 9-11 could not have been carried

out without the aid or direction of people on the "inside". If a real attack did occur, say a hijacker on a single flight or something, there would have been an investigation to find out exactly what happened.

[greyl]

54. You must have a lot of faith in the competence of your gov't to say that.

I don't.

[mirandapriestly]

61. I don't think the Air Force, Norad, and the FAA

became incompetent with the Bush administration and I think the bush administration is extremely competent at meeting their own goals, they have accomplished amazing things , unfortunately they are only for the benefit of the elite. One of the things they have accomplished is a loss of faith of the people in the federal government, so that they can go about privatizing.
It is also noteworthy that most of what they have accomplished - war in Iraq, lessening of citizens rights, spying on people, huge giveaways to their defense industry pals, a total lack of transparency in government(if you ask questions, you are not patriotic), two stolen elections (no one was paying attention to the news that Gore won Florida released a day before or after 911)has been possible because of 911.
Incompetency is a myth to get people used to the idea of government failure and dependent on corporations.

[John Q. Citizen]

57. The people who made huge bets via the stock market that 9/11 was going

to happen would be busted?

[Jazz2006]

58. 1) Who are these people that you refer to?

2) Names and links, please.

3) What evidence do you have that the individuals you name in response to 1) and 2) above "made huge bets" "that 9/11 was going to happen"?

4) How much money did these individuals bet and how much did they make (or lose)?

5) Upon what charges should they be "busted"? (I am guessing that by saying that these individuals "would be busted", you mean that they would be charged with criminal or quasi criminal offences, but please provide the specifics of what charges you think are justified and the evidence upon which you base those charges).

Thanks.

Edit for typo and clarity and then again to add:

6) It is not clear to me how your post responds to the question asked in the opening post. That is, please explain whether you are saying that "busting" the people you are going to name in response to 1-5 on the charges and details that you are going to provide in response to 1-5 would be a change in domestic policy or foreign policy? I'm guessing that it wouldn't represent a change in foreign policy but I'm not clear on how it would represent a change in domestic policy either. Come to think of it, perhaps I should just wait for your response to 1-5 before asking #6.

[John Q. Citizen]

59. Hey, I answered a hypothetical question to the best of my ability. I

haven't seen you answer it yet. It's not clear to me that you have answered the question and you have already said twice what a great question it is.

So then I have a ton of other questions to answer? Is this an 8 part question?

Google 'stock market 9/11' and i bet you can get the answer to most of your follow up questions.(probably not the names, because it was an inside job, not a hypothethical "not inside job.")

I don't know what google will tell you, because I'm going to bed and haven't done it my self.


Good luck! sorry I responded.

[Jazz2006]

60. No, you posted something that didn't address the question at all.

Let alone answer it.

You seem to have posted a pseudo response that raised and purported to answer several questions, none of which were asked by the opening post, and none of which answered the actual question asked in the opening post.

Thus my questions 1 through 5, and potentially 6, which are asked solely in response to your post (#57) which suggests that you have already asked and answered them all, (otherwise you could not have come to the conclusionary post that you did). I am merely asking you to provide the evidence upon which you based the conclusions in your post #57.

No worries about the fact that you're going to bed now, though. Tomorrow is soon enough for you to respond to support your post. Threads have a long shelf life here in the 911 dungeon.

As an aside, it seems a bit odd for you to ask me to "google" some vague search terms that would not be responsive to either the opening post or to the questions that I am asking you which arise from your own post (#57). You didn't actually ask any questions in your post, by the way. You drew and posted conclusions, though, and I'm simply asking you to provide the facts and evidence in support of those conclusions that you've drawn.

Rather than waste time googling vague terms that will in no way answer either the opening post or the questions raised by your own post (#57), I will gladly wait for your return and your detailed response to the specific questions 1-5 above. Don't worry about #6. As I said from the outset, that one may be redundant. Moreover, it may well be rendered nugatory by your responses to the first five.

So, sleep well, and I'll look forward to your detailed response tomorrow.


Edit to fix poor sentence structure and such.

Edit again to add the post number (57) for clarity.

[greyl]

63. Google? Dude. nt

[Make7]

70. I got the imdb page for "The Big Lebowski". ( n/t )

[Jazz2006]

65. kick

just because

[Grateful for Hope]

75. Where is Jazz? n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

72. If 9/11 was not an inside job

And, we had bullet-proof evidence of this, I would be an extremely happy person.

[mirandapriestly]

79. Me too, I wish one of these octs could prove it wasn't

but all they do is convince me more.

[Sinti]

86. First of all, we'd actually have better port/infrastructure security.

We wouldn't have some foreign business entity in charge of our port security. Our water systems would have been secured. Food delivery systems would have been secured. They would have actually spent the money for the "bomb sniffing" machines in every airport, rather than randomly taking grandma out of line for a strip search. The INS would probably have scoured their records for instances of Muslims who have overstayed their visas, in an effort to toss them. The Express Visa program for SA would have definitely been immediately canceled - in fact, if they had been worried about terrorism, it would have never been approved. Chem and nuke plants would be hardened to the max. We wouldn't be giving more "anti-terror" money to Indiana than we are to New York City.

We'd still be after bin Laden, or we would have caught him. The FBI would have evidence it was, in fact, bin Laden. The Saudi and Pakistani governments would not be our "strongest allies" in the GWOT. In fact, since they paid for the terror, there would be hell to pay for them. I assume we'd at least bring their financing of terror before the international community in an attempt to force them to stop, rather than brush his under the rug, because they're our friends and we don't want them to look or feel bad. The current Paki regime is a military junta that overthrew a democratically elected government - we wouldn't recognize them as legitimate.

We'd go after the roots of terror - desperate people most readily turn to a vengeful god, because they see no justice on earth. We'd have a policy like we did in rooting out communism, only it would be rooting out greedy, thuggish monarchies in the ME. We would have never gone into Iraq searching for fairytale WMDs - we would probably eventually look for a way to get rid of Saddam, just not with our military right now.


I could go on - this is just off the top of my head before I head out :)

[Make7]

89. Why?

Regarding your first paragraph, except for the Visa Express program (which was canceled, although not immediately) who is ultimately responsible for all of those things?

As for the rest of your post, I believe most of it can be grouped together to allow me to address it with the following question: Why do you believe that the U.S. Government would truly be concerned with fighting terrorism? (I imagine that question can apply to your first paragraph as well.)

- Make7

[Sinti]

91. Re: the first part - primarily Bush appointees

The people below them give them what they're asked for. Why do I believe they'd be concerned with fighting terrorism? Wouldn't that make for LIHOP if they weren't? IMO LIHOP and MIHOP haven't enough difference between them to matter. It's treason either way. :shrug:

[Make7]

92. Wouldn't those issues be handled by the Department of Homeland Security?

That department that has more Congressional oversight by far than any other entity in the federal government. If I am not mistaken, that means that Congress is responsible for making sure that the DHS is doing its job effectively. I also believe they allocate their funding. Would that indicate that the majority of both houses of Congress are part of a cover-up of an inside job?

I don't think that would make for LIHOP. My post was in response to the post-9/11 issues that you raised. How is placing a higher priority on the business relationship with Saudi Arabia than on fighting terrorism indicative of an inside job for the attacks on 9/11?

Do you believe that if 9/11 was not an inside job, the Bush Administration would actually care about the average American citizen? Do you really think that fighting terrorism would be a higher priority than protecting America's business interests?

- Make7

[Sinti]

93. Actually, they would be protecting American business interests

The president submits a budget, and the Congress works around it. They actually don't do appropriations in a vacuum. They oftentimes do things differently than what the president would like, but his budget is a major consideration. While they appropriate the money to DHS, that doesn't mean DHS follows their intent to the letter. Congress, while responsible for oversight, does not micromanage the agencies, that would be out of line, and actually has bitched about the priorities of DHS. I can't see why that would indicate anything regarding the "inside job," some people like to see everyone who turns a blind eye as a co-conspirator, I don't. Congress hasn't followed up on the missing $2.3 trillion in th DoD either, are they co-conspirators in that? They often just don't ask questions that make them uncomfortable (this is true for any Congress not just this one).

The DHS is headed up by a presidential appointee. Think of it as a business, the priorities of any business are designated from the top down. The manner in which they've prioritized the money is laughable. If Michael Chertoff was concerned about anther attack, he'd prioritize properly. Apparently Tom Ridge was concerned, he raised a hell of a lot of questions when he quit.

Congressional oversight is basically non-existent with this administration and you know it. So while I have no love of the slack-jawed, backslapping Republicans in there, I don't expect them to do anything that would displease their "Dear Leader".

About those American business interests, you do realize that the terrorists didn't attack American citizens as much as American business and military interests, right? The WTC and the Pentagon aren't exactly Main Street. It's American business, and the American military used as enforcers for said business, that the terrorists are supposed to hate so much, at least that's their rhetoric. Given that fact, I would assume business would be their target. If I said I hated Joe, who is Jim's boss, I don't think it's logical to assume I would attack Jim in order to get at his boss, right?

The Saudis need us just as much as we need them, it's a two-way street with them. We protect them from their own population, in large measure. I really don't think they'd stop selling us oil if we told them to stop financing terrorists.

Furthermore, what the hell do we owe Pakistan? Pakistan, back in Clinton's time, was terrorist training central. They get the kids in there at like 10 years old and start teaching them hate in the madrases, then they go back home to their villages with that message and sense of vengeance, and it goes from there. Now Pakistan will give UBL a place to stay in freedom, as long as he's a good boy and doesn't do any more harm, and that's okay with us. WTF? Keep in mind, as I said, the Paki government is not a democratically one, it's a junta that overthrew a democratically elected government.

I realize this may seem like a bit of a rant. We obviously have different points of view on this, and I suppose reasonable individuals can disagree on their interpretation of current events. I can't see how further stirring up the hornets nest, and doing next to nothing to prevent another attack, is advantageous to anyone.

[Nozebro]

94. Does this mean you have or have not decided if 9/11 was an inside job?

I had gotten the idea that you DID believe it was an inside job, but in your more recent posts you seem to accept premises that many 9/11 Truth Seekers reject. (terrorists, hijackers, FL 77 "may have hit the Pentagon" and so on)

[Sinti]

95. I have a slightly different POV from many MIHOP/LIHOPers

Out of curiosity, have you read http://book-case.kroupnov.ru/pages/library/Grand/">The Grand Chessboard?

First off, this operation would have taken years to put together. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it began as the Cold War ended. There was a lot of money made in the Cold War. When it ended companies like Northrup and Grumman, for instance, had to merge to survive. They were very upset. They went up to Congress and aired their complaints at length, stopping just short of demanding protection money. They stated, you need to continue to support us at X level, because when the next enemy comes along we won't be there to protect you... look at who's making the money now and how much.

As far as the operation itself goes, you cannot give enough weight to the amount of risk involved. Due to this tremendous risk, I believe firmly they would have used "real terrorists". I think they would have recruited them through a fairly high level asset in the ME, someone they could trust in this matter. They would need someone who would both directly benefit from the operation, and who was very well trusted by the http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/muslim-brotherhood/">Muslim Brotherhood. It may have been necessary to build this trust up, but there was plenty of time to do it. Real terrorists on every plane means that if a pilot managed to land somehow, nothing would be revealed and they could move on to Plan B. You would have to have a Plan B.

I can't see any reason for using a missile rather than an airplane at the Pentagon. It's illogical. It involves an incredible amount of risk. It brings too many other potentially dangerous witnesses. It would be extremely foolish, and if they did use a missile at the Pentagon shame on them for their hubris.

Also, if MIHOP is true, the perpetrators of the crime would have sprinkled false leads along the way, tons and tons of false leads. Think of it as a murder. When you think of a hijacked airplane you automatically think "Muslim terrorist." So it's a copycat crime in that sense. Lots of warnings came through the regular channels to all intel agencies (internationally) that "Muslim terrorists" were going to use a plane as a missile - Operation Bojinka - WTC was already targeted - perhaps as part of the build up. This gives tremendous air cover, if you will, to prevent an international investigation into the event.

If you want to get away with something, you don't go off half-cocked. You put everything in place before you begin, know every answer to every possible question that can be asked. You set up false leads, dead ends, poisoned pills as you go along, and you control the opposition. The best way to control the opposition is to lead it yourself. Therefore, you get your folks out there first with pod hallucinations, no-plane theories, no-terrorist theories, Marvin Bush and the security company, and so on. You then try to focus the conversation on things you know can either never be proved, that sound crazy, or that you can prove false if need be.

This is just my POV on the matter. :shrug:

Have you ever read http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html">The Art of War?

[Nozebro]

96. Thanks for sharing your point of view. In a recent post, you included a

quotation that I believe is by Dick Cheney, but because it's difficult to be certain because of the way it's worded. But, as I say, I believe it is a quote from Cheney, because I've read it in other places where it was attributed to him.
When you get a chance, would you please go back to that thread/post and confirm who was being quoted?

Thanks

[Sinti]

97. Done. BTW, Welcome to DU if I didn't already say so. :) n/t

[FoxOnTheRun]

98. Zbigniew Brzezinski wants to jump on Russia immediately

That might explain why Condi(Europe and Soviet expert) is on board, not an expert for the ME .

He is not for an entanglement in the ME...


I just read some parts and heard comments about it