Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Bush Can’t Allow Habeas Corpus – And Why we Need to Leave Afghanistan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:45 PM
Original message
Why Bush Can’t Allow Habeas Corpus – And Why we Need to Leave Afghanistan
The whole rationale for our war in Afghanistan probably would be exposed to the world as the farce that it is if the Bush administration allowed its “War on Terror” prisoners to use the writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detentions. That appears to be a major reason, if not the major reason, why the Bush administration has for several years fought tooth and nail to deny its prisoners the habeas corpus rights that are guaranteed under our Constitution. And it is also probably a major reason why whenever our courts have over-ruled the Bush administration in specific cases, Bush has released the respective prisoners rather than allow them a fair and open trial.

The whole rationale for our Afghanistan war is based on the presumed refusal of the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden, whom George Bush claimed to have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on our country, to U.S. custody. But there are enough holes in that story to drive a truck through.

The ultimate rationale behind the indefinite imprisonment without charges of many or most of our “War on Terror” prisoners is rooted in the claim that they fought for the Taliban or al Qaeda against our country (when we invaded it). Since we accuse the Taliban of harboring bin Laden, whom we claim perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, and since we also claim that the Taliban knew of bin Laden’s role in the 9/11 attacks and yet refused to hand him over to us, therefore the Taliban is guilty of terrorism, and so is anyone who fought for the Taliban when U.S. troops invaded their country.

Since that scenario provides the rationale for our imprisonment of the so-called “terrorists”, and would therefore provide the basis for any formal charges that were to be brought against them in a fair and open trial, and since the underlying scenario can be so easily disproven, obviously the defendants’ lawyers would attempt to expose that scenario for the fraud that it is if they were given the chance to do so in a fair and open trial. And then the whole house of cards that we call the “War on Terror” would come tumbling down. And then of course, quite a few high level officials would be vulnerable to war crimes charges.

That’s it in a nutshell. Let’s look at some of the evidence:


THE FRAUDULENT BASIS FOR THE U.S. INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN

Bin laden denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks from the beginning

I’ll start out with bin Laden’s denials of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. That of course means little by itself – except for the fact that our news media have been such cheerleaders for war that most Americans probably believe that bin Laden admitted his responsibility for the attacks from the beginning. But he didn’t. To the contrary, six days following the attacks, CNN published the following statement by bin Laden, which he had made to al Jazeera:

The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations.


Lack of evidence of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11

To support their claims of bin Laden’s guilt, the British and U.S. governments published a dossier of “evidence”. That dossier was lambasted by numerous critics, including Bronwen Maddox in the Times of London, as:

a puzzling and worrying piece of work with so many puzzling omissions that the document begins to undermine itself… more significant for what it leaves out than for what it leaves in, with few clues even to the form of evidence for September 11… It seems lame – to the point of advertising a deficiency – to say that a signature of an al Qaeda attack is the absence of a warning.

One of the points of evidence was the claim that bin Laden warned his closest associates to return to Afghanistan by September 10th. But since there were no known incidents of bin Laden associates actually returning to Afghanistan shortly before September 11th, the evidence for that claim is quite weak.

Another of the major points of evidence was that three of the hijackers were said to be “associates” of bin Laden. But the nature of the alleged association with bin Laden was not very well spelled out.

And there was the claim that no other organization than al Qaeda is known to have both the motivation and the capability of carrying out such an attack. That claim has been widely disputed. But even if no such organizations were known to have had the motivation and capability of carrying out such attacks, that hardly constitutes evidence of al Qaeda involvement in 9/11.


Bush administration and Taliban interaction prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan

But whether or not bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks on our country is not the primary issue. The more relevant issue is what the Taliban – whom we declared war upon – had to do with it.

The Taliban never demonstrated the kind of intransigence on the issue that the Bush administration and the U.S. news media accused it of. To the contrary, The Taliban Information Minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said from the beginning:

Anyone who is responsible for this act, Osama or not, we will not side with him. We told (the Pakistan delegation) to give us proof that he did it, because without that how can we give him up?'

But the Bush administration never provided that proof. It claimed to have secret information beyond the “dossier of evidence” described above, but it refused to share that secret information with the Taliban.

Then on October first, the Taliban went a step further. They agreed to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan – an American ally – to stand trial for charges of participation in 9/11. They agreed that if the court found sufficient evidence that bin Laden would then be extradited to the United States. And bin Laden even agreed to that. But President Musharraf turned the deal down, for the absurd reason that he could not guarantee bin Laden’s safety.

George Bush turned down all Taliban offers, saying “We know he’s guilty. Turn him over”. Bush later elaborated further on that, saying, “When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations”.


U.S. obligations under international law

One of the major purposes of the United Nations is to prevent unnecessary wars. Therefore, it is not surprising that its charter says: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered”. Clearly, George Bush’s actions with respect to his invasion of Afghanistan fall well outside of that mandate. Maher Osseiran explains the implications of that:

The Bush administration, with premeditation, ignored its international obligations in deference to war. If the Bush administration had supplied the evidence to the world and specifically the Taliban who were requesting such evidence in exchange for bin Laden, the war might not have taken place and bin Laden would very likely be in custody.

Not pursuing that route makes the Afghanistan war an illegal war under the UN Charter and The Geneva Convention; thereby, the majority of the Guantanamo detainees can no longer be classified as enemy combatants, but (rather) victims of war crimes.

That, of course, is what fair and open trials of Bush’s detainees are likely to show – which of course is why he can’t allow that to happen.


FBI finds no hard evidence of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11

If all that isn’t enough (and it should be), several years later the FBI admitted that there is no substantial proof of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11.

The FBI website lists Osama bin Laden as one of its 26 most wanted terrorists. However, it says nothing about his involvement in 9/11. The Muckracker Report, an investigative group, looked into this oddity in an attempt to find the reason for it:

The Muckraker Report contacted Rex Tomb, who serves as Chief of Investigative Publicity with the FBI. Tomb's response? “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11… He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”


BUSH ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS TO DENY HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS TO ITS PRISONERS

The following examples show the great extent to which the Bush administration has repeatedly gone to deny its prisoners their rights under international law and our Constitution, and to manipulate the law for their own nefarious ends.


Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Yasir Esam Hamdi was captured by the Northern Alliance in November 2001 and turned over to the U.S. military in Afghanistan (probably for a large bounty), then sent to Guantanamo Bay as an “enemy combatant” and a suspected terrorist. After the U.S. military discovered that Hamdi was a U.S. citizen (having been born in Louisiana), he was transferred to a U.S. Navy brig in Norfolk, Virginia, still classified as an “enemy combatant”, where he remained, in isolation, for the next two and a half years. His father claimed that he was a humanitarian relief worker, not a terrorist.

Several criminal defense attorneys, concerned about the trashing of our Constitution by the Bush administration, filed suit on Hamdi’s behalf. After working its way through lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case on June 28, 2004. Though the Bush administration tried to spin the decision as a victory for them, eight of the nine justices agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the right to indefinitely hold a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections. Constitutional lawyer Cass Sunstein summarizes the main finding in his book, “Radicals in Robes”, by noting that the court

said that an enemy combatant must be supplied with notice of the factual basis for his classification and a fair opportunity to rebut the government’s factual assertions before a neutral decision maker. The plurality did not deny the possibility that the constitutionality could be met by a military tribunal.

Explaining the decision, Justice O’Connor, writing for the majority, said that “… We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens.”

What this meant was that now the Bush administration had to either provide Hamdi with access to a lawyer and some sort of hearing on his case or else release him. Faced with that choice, three months later it decided to release him back to Saudi Arabia.

Deliah Lithwick comments on the absurdity of the situation:

So the Bush administration's decision to release Hamdi is stunning, given that only months ago he was so dangerous that the government insisted in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and the world that he could reasonably be locked up for all time, without a trial or criminal charges….

He was slammed into solitary on some flimsy assertions contained in what's known as the two-page "Mobbs Declaration." … swearing that Hamdi was an enemy combatant, because, according to his captors from the Northern Alliance, he was "affiliated with a Taliban military unit." Any other American suspect, including serial killers and Timothy McVeigh, would have been given an opportunity to dispute that bare claim; to tell his side of the story – which, according to Hamdi's father, was that Hamdi was in Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons. But we never heard that story and we never will. Yaser Esam Hamdi was evidently too dangerous even to set foot in a courtroom.


Rumsfeld v. Padilla

On May 8, 2002, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was taken into custody by the FDA and locked up as a “material witness”. On June 10, four days after Colleen Rowley testified to Congress about the failure of the FBI to respond to her pre-9-11 warnings of an impending attack, Attorney General John Ashcroft made an announcement to the nation about Padilla. Referring to him as “a known terrorist” who had been plotting to explode a radioactive bomb in the United States, Ashcroft announced that the FBI foiled the plot by capturing Padilla. The previous day, George Bush had classified Padilla as an “enemy combatant” and had him sent to a Navy brig in South Carolina, where he remained for three and a half years and was repeatedly tortured.

As with the Hamdi case, lawyers concerned about the abrogation of Padilla’s Constitutional rights took up his case. On September 9, 2005, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Padilla’s detention without charge was legal. The author of that ruling was J. Michael Luttig, who was considered to be a potential Bush Supreme Court nominee. Padilla’s lawyers then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but before the Supreme Court made a decision on whether or not to take the case the Bush administration made the case moot by rescinding Padilla’s “enemy combatant” status and agreeing to prosecute him in a civilian court. But the charges had nothing to do with the original allegations about plots to explode a “dirty bomb” on U.S. soil. Rather the new charges were “providing – and conspiring to provide – material support to terrorists, and conspiring to murder individuals who are overseas.”

Luttig, the 4th Circuit Court judge who had made the prior ruling, was incensed at this about face by the Bush administration. Charlie Savage, in his book, “Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy”, describes Luttig’s reaction:

Luttig – one of the most conservative and executive power-friendly judges on the federal bench – accused the Bush-Cheney administration of manipulating the judicial process to make sure that the Supreme Court would have no opportunity to evaluate the precedent that Luttig himself had just written. The Padilla indictment, he said, raised serious questions about the credibility of the government’s statements on which the judge had relied when crafting that precedent, and “left the impression that Padilla may have been held for all these years, even if justifiably, by mistake”.


Hamden v. Rumsfeld

Salim Ahmed Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 and brought to Guantanamo as an “enemy combatant”. He was the personal driver of Osama bin Laden, but he claimed not to be a terrorist or even a member of al Qaeda.

In November 2004 a federal district court ruled, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that the Bush administration’s military commission trials violated the Geneva Conventions. But that decision was overturned on July 15, 2005, by the D.C. Circuit Court, in a 2-1 decision ruling that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to war time detainees suspected of terrorism.

John Roberts cast the deciding vote in that decision, just 5 days before he was nominated as Chief Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court by George Bush. Furthermore, it later emerged during Roberts’ Senate confirmation hearings that Roberts had: met with Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez 6 days prior to hearing oral arguments in the Hamdan case; in the midst of deciding the case, met secretly with Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Andy Card, Harriet Miers and Gonzalez, and; met with Bush himself on July 15, the same day that the court handed down its decision.

In the end, the ridiculous D.C. Circuit Court decision was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-3 decision. Roberts, though Chief Justice of the USSC by that time, had to recuse himself because the Court was ruling on his own previous decision. Two of the USSC justices who voted in the minority on the Hamdan decision (Scalia and Thomas) were two of the same scumbags who had voted in 2000 to hand Bush the Presidency by stopping the vote counting in Florida.

In the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld USSC decision, Justice Stevens, speaking for the majority, explained that the petitioner Hamdan was “entitled to the full protection of the Geneva Convention”, and that the “military commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Universal Code of Military Justice and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention”. Justice Kennedy further elaborated on the Geneva Convention that the USSC determined the Bush administration to have violated:

The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law… moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered “war crimes,” punishable as federal offenses…


The Military Commissions Act and its overturn by the U.S. Supreme Court

Consequently, the Bush administration pushed through Congress the Military Commissions Act, in an attempt to ensure that detainee trials remained secret. However, on June 12, 2008, the USSC determined that this law too was not Constitutional, primarily because the Act was not sufficient to restore habeas corpus:

Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . .

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.


CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of George Bush’s “War on Terror” detainees are never charged with or tried for a crime. On the rare occasions when they are charged with a crime, the American people are afforded the opportunity to learn, if they care to, what George Bush’s “War on Terror” is really about, and to what extent he will go to manipulate our judicial system for his own political purposes: In the case of Hamdi we find, after holding him in isolation for two and a half years, that George Bush would rather set him free than give him a hearing to present his case, as demanded by our Supreme Court; In the case of Padilla we find, when faced with the possibility of an adverse ruling from our Supreme Court, that Bush would rather drop his “enemy combatant” status and try him on vague charges rather than on the spectacular charges (plot to explode a “dirty bomb” on U.S. soil) that he originally used to scare the American people with, and; In the case of Hamdan, Bush found it necessary for he and his administration to secretly and repeatedly meet with the justice who was trying the case while simultaneously dangling before him the possibility of being nominated as Chief Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court – assuming that he ruled correctly, of course.

All of this because an open and fair trial of any one of George Bush’s so-called “illegal enemy combatants” could expose his “War on Terror” for the fraud that it is.

What does all this say about our war in Afghanistan? In the first place, the war has been illegal from start to finish, and those who perpetrated it should be subject to criminal charges. But even if we had a decent reason for our original involvement, what are we accomplishing by our continuing presence there? This is what the editors of The Nation have to say about escalating our war in Afghanistan:

The United States and its NATO allies are losing the war in Afghanistan not because we have had too few military forces but because our military presence, along with the corruption of the Hamid Karzai government, has gradually turned the Afghan population against us, swelling the ranks of Taliban recruits. American airstrikes have repeatedly killed innocent civilians. Sending thousands of additional troops will not secure a democratic and stable Afghanistan, because the country is not only deeply divided but also fiercely resistant to outside forces. Indeed, more troops may only engender more anti-American resistance and cause groups in neighboring Pakistan to step up their support for the Taliban in order to stop what they see as a US effort to advance US and Indian interests in the region…

Second, securing Afghanistan is not necessary to US security and may actually undermine our goal of defeating Al Qaeda…. American safety thus depends not on eliminating faraway safe havens for Al Qaeda but on common-sense counterterrorist and national security measures – extensive intelligence cooperation, expert police work, effective border control and the occasional surgical use of special forces.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. Bin laden denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks from the beginning
Thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HeresyLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. If bin Laden had done it,
if he'd even known about it, he'd have been there with bells on claiming responsibility for it, and crowing about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. That's what I think
There would be no point in doing it if he didn't plan to take credit for it.

But even if he did do and and Bush had proof that he did it, the invasion of Afghanistan was still a war crime. Bush never wanted bin Laden handed over to him. If he had the evidence he could have showed it to the Taliban, but he was intent upon war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. i think we need to leave the Muslims to themselves, whatever the consequences, because ..
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 10:02 PM by sam sarrha
in Islam God is Great, the wisest, infallible.. what the Muslims do to each other is obviously Allah's grander plan.

we should not intervene. when we interfere we are saying that out western ways/ideas/concerns are better than Allah's will/plan/grace. which is the greatest of insults.

leave them alone, what we see as horrific, inhuman is simply missguided observation without faith. we arent qualified to judge them


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
40. I do not give a flying fuck in the Afghans eat each others' children
and pray to a gourd and leas their women around on leashes. But when their government allows its honored guests to launch attacks on civilized people, it's daisycutter time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. but we need evidence to support that assertion....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Bill, read your own link... there is no mis-translation of the admission of guilt.
The only mis-translations identified are as follows:

"We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy", translator Dr. Murad Alami finds that: "'In advance'" is not said.

"We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day." Dr. Murad Alami: "'Previous' is never said.

Neither of these translation errors changes the context of the tape in any way.

Only in a very small corner of the universe known as the "9/11 Truth Movement" is there any doubt that al Qaeda, and by implication its titular head UBL planned and carried out the attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #40
126. eyes only
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. "Not a "Good War" Gone Bad"

Afghanistan: Not a Good War Gone Bad

By LARRY EVEREST

SNIP

One thing that’s not been up for debate in the Presidential campaign is Afghanistan: both candidates (not to mention George W. Bush) agree on the urgent need to escalate – and win – that war. This stance has overwhelmingly gone unchallenged – even by most who opposed the invasion of Iraq. But the war in Afghanistan is not the proverbial "good war," now gone bad. It was an unjust, imperialist war of conquest and empire from the start. And it continues to be an unjust, imperialist war of empire today.

The war in Afghanistan was never simply a response to 9/11. It was conceived of by the Bush administration as the opening salvo in an unbounded war for greater empire under the rubric of a "war on terror." This war’s goal was to defeat Islamic fundamentalism, overthrow states not fully under U.S. control, restructure the Middle East and Central Asian regions, and seize deeper control of key sources and shipment routes of strategic energy supplies. All this grew out of over a decade of imperialist planning, strategizing and intervention. And from the beginning all of it was part of an overall plan to expand and fortify U.S. power—to create an unchallenged and unchallengeable global imperialist empire.

All this is shown by what the U.S. rulers were doing—and planning—in these regions and globally during the decade of the 1990s, including in Afghanistan itself. It can be shown by the plans the U.S. had for destabilizing, perhaps overthrowing, the Taliban government of Afghanistan even before 9/11. It can be demonstrated by the actual discussions and decisions taken by the Bush regime in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and by the U.S.’s war objectives in Afghanistan and the Middle East as a whole, which it is still pursuing. And it can be shown by the U.S.’s conduct of the war and the impact it has had on the people of Afghanistan.

SNIP

Right after the Soviet collapse, a core of imperial strategists—the neoconservatives or neocons—began arguing that the U.S. should lock in this unipolar world and prevent any rivals from emerging to challenge the U.S.

This was articulated in the Defense Department’s 1992 "Defense Planning Guidance"—written by Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad under the direction of then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney—all later top officials in the Bush II administration. This document argued that the U.S. should insure "that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territory of the former Soviet Union" and that the United States remain the world’s predominant power for the indefinite future. The Defense Guidance envisioned accomplishing these far-reaching objectives by preemptively attacking rivals or states seeking weapons of mass destruction, strengthening U.S. control of Persian Gulf oil, and refusing to allow international coalitions or law to inhibit U.S. freedom of action.

http://www.counterpunch.org/everest10172008.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aragorn Donating Member (784 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
18. 1 other reason/factor
Apparently the DEA assists the growth of record amounts of opium in Afghanistan, to insure continued cooperation from them. Much as in Iran-Contra this factor seems to be overlooked. Meanwhile the DEA is considered, by many, to be the "new CIA" around the globe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. True
Britain is protecting the biggest heroin crop of all time
By CRAIG MURRAY

SNIP

Our economic achievement in Afghanistan goes well beyond the simple production of raw opium. In fact Afghanistan no longer exports much raw opium at all. It has succeeded in what our international aid efforts urge every developing country to do. Afghanistan has gone into manufacturing and 'value-added' operations.

It now exports not opium, but heroin. Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker. The tankers and bulk opium lorries on the way to the factories share the roads, improved by American aid, with Nato troops.

How can this have happened, and on this scale? The answer is simple. The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government, the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.

When we attacked Afghanistan, America bombed from the air while the CIA paid, armed and equipped the dispirited warlord drug barons, especially those grouped in the Northern Alliance, to do the ground occupation. We bombed the Taliban and their allies into submission, while the warlords moved in to claim the spoils. Then we made them ministers.

SNIP

My knowledge of all this comes from my time as British Ambassador in neighbouring Uzbekistan from 2002 until 2004. I stood at the Friendship Bridge at Termez in 2003 and watched the Jeeps with blacked-out windows bringing the heroin through from Afghanistan, en route to Europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469983/Britain-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
62. "..an unjust, imperialist war of empire,.." should be a no-brainer,
9-11 just opened the door.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. Another reason Afghanistan is NOT our "good" war.
Nothing created by Bush is good. Nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
6. The Bush administration promised we the people
Shortly after the attacks of September 11, the Bush administration claimed it had irrefutable proof tying Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to their planning and execution. The white paper has never come out.

After all that's happened in the past eight years, has the Bush administration earned anything even remotely resembling trust from us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Traveling_Home Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. WOW - Does Obama Know????? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. He knows or he's ignorant.
Take your pick. The Democrats support this was because it is still publicly perceived as just and not a complete failure (compared to Iraq). But be sure, they do not support it because *they* perceive it as just. That war is a political football game, and the Democrats are about to make a touchdown. Sad but true.

We are in Afghanistan because of an overall resource strategy, and the nation's post 9/11 bloodlust never stopped the people from seeing different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:28 AM
Original message
Ah yes, PIPELINES..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
178. Jesus Christ. Is it 2002 again?
Are we really back to this pipeline in Afghanistan shit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Ah yes, PIPELINES..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. Indeed. The pipelines
Granted, these guys always try to scratch more than one itch at a time and in this case they definitely did, but the pipeline to the Caspian was an especially big itch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. A carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. I don't see how he could not
I am very much hoping that he will reconsider his campaign rhetoric about "winning" the Afghanistan war. I think he's too smart for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
10. Thank you for this and k&r!
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 02:03 AM by wildbilln864
We know Bin Laden didn't really do 9/11. The question is who did! Who was involved in the murders of those three thousand that day and why doesn't the country demand to know the whole truth? :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illuminaughty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Yes and I always think the answer to that question is
the Jack Nicholson moment. "YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

If the public ever gets close to some real truth about 9/11, what will they do with that knowledge?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. "Smirk." - Commander AWOL & cabal of corrupt republicon cronies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueMTexpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
11. Thanks for so clearly laying this out.
K&R from me too! :kick:

Although it has not been a popular stand and I do not justify any actions of the Taliban or of bin Laden (our own CIA-trained and funded operative, after all), I have always maintained that our launching a war against Afghanistan after 9-11 was not justified. But both Congress and our brain-washed media went along, with the media leading the charge.

Gitmo is a manifest stain on our international legal credibility (as you so rightly state, it's war crimes territory). The fact that it has been maintained for seven years without major national outcry on our part makes us all complicit, I'm afraid. The tens of thousands of "disappeared" individuals who are in even worse circumstances ... or dead ... is an even greater stain and an even worse complicity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 05:28 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. "I have always maintained that our launching a war against Afghanistan after 9-11 was not justified"
But note also how quickly the US invaded Afghanistan, within a month or so of 9/11. Now sure the US might have contingency plans to invade every country on earth, but is it reasonable to believe they could have carried out the Afghanistan invasion as they did on a month's notice without some preparation for this beforehand?


US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11
By Patrick Martin
20 November 2001

Insider accounts published in the British, French and Indian media have revealed that US officials threatened war against Afghanistan during the summer of 2001. These reports include the prediction, made in July, that “if the military action went ahead, it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” The Bush administration began its bombing strikes on the hapless, poverty-stricken country October 7, and ground attacks by US Special Forces began October 19.

It is not an accident that these revelations have appeared overseas, rather than in the US. The ruling classes in these countries have their own economic and political interests to look after, which do not coincide, and in some cases directly clash, with the drive by the American ruling elite to seize control of oil-rich territory in Central Asia.

The American media has conducted a systematic cover-up of the real economic and strategic interests that underlie the war against Afghanistan, in order to sustain the pretense that the war emerged overnight, full-blown, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.

The pundits for the American television networks and major daily newspapers celebrate the rapid military defeat of the Taliban regime as an unexpected stroke of good fortune. They distract public attention from the conclusion that any serious observer would be compelled to draw from the events of the past two weeks: that the speedy victory of the US-backed forces reveals careful planning and preparation by the American military, which must have begun well before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

SNIP

This account of the preparations for war against Afghanistan brings us to September 11 itself. The terrorist attack that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon was an important link in the chain of causality that produced the US attack on Afghanistan. The US government had planned the war well in advance, but the shock of September 11 made it politically feasible, by stupefying public opinion at home and giving Washington essential leverage on reluctant allies abroad.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUlover2909 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 04:15 AM
Response to Original message
14. Wow man. Mind blowing. Bush-Co never ceases to amaze me.
It figures. Everything Bush does sucks. I bet even the aid he's giving to Africa is somehow corrupt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
49. The Gipper in effect threw us a $1 trillion party: junior's policies and actions/inactions
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 07:25 PM by indepat
will have created total destruction exceeding $10 trillion when the counting is done, devastating two countries, the environment, the economy, the stock markets, the capital markets, the job markets, the value of the dollar, and letting the infrastructure rot. Amazingly, 66% of the white folk in my native state voted to stay the course with McShame. :D

edited to remove a superfluous have
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
16. And what IS the incentive for the "War On Terror" and presence in Afghanistan (and all the Stans)?
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 06:36 AM by Dover


Afghanistan and Eurasia in general have been in our sites for some time. And it's definitely a
bipartisan project. Obama seems to be on that same page.

Primarily it's about economic development, competition with Russia, etc, oil/gas and pipelines, as well as a U.S. presence for geopolitical reasons. Similar to Iraq. We're just relocating the emphasis back to Eurasia instead of the Middle East. Energy independence? Not anytime soon, apparently.

Check this out: Our Silk Road Strategy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #16
76. Excellent bit
Please re-post your link which it seemed none commented on.

Let me know when you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
20. A Timeline Of Oil And Violence Afghanistan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. Interesting link, thanks. Wish they would update it to present.
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 04:00 PM by Dover
We can trace almost all of our foreign wars/disputes along planned or existing pipeline routes.
In fact that premise would make an interesting study...a web page that tracked our foreign
wars/invasions along these proposed and existing pipeline routes. The unrest in Chechnya, for instance, is/was in part about a pipeline route. And there are several deals in the Middle East surrounding pipelines that haven't gotten much press (involving Israel, Syria, Iraq, etc.)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
21. Another great thread
K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
24. TFC, you're one of the main reasons I stay tuned to DU!
what an excellent piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #24
60. Thank you very much nashville
It's very nice to hear that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
26. T/C - you do know that Obama plans to send more troops to Afghanistan - right?
He spoke alot about that during his campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
59. Sure
I very much hope he reconsiders that. It certainly wouldn't be unreasonable for him to explore methods of dealing with this short of escalating the war in Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
27. Twoofer BS
I want Osama's head on a pike and think Obama's positions on Afganistan are exactly want we need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. you want Usama's head on a pike but Bush does not! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phred42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. No contry in history has ever survived the occupation of Afganistan
Neither will the US
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #31
55. Comparing the Soviet occupation to the American's is a facile analogy.
The Soviets were fighing a proxy war with another superpower (us).

The Soviets were trying to convert a deeply religious fundmentalist state to a Communist system. We are not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #55
71. Your assumptions puzzle me. What evidence do you have that
we are not fighting a proxy war there now?

What evidence do you have that the US is not trying to convert a deeply religious fundamentalist state to a Free Market Capitalist system?

I am not saying I disagree with you, just skeptical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #71
78. We're not fighting a proxy war with a *superpower*. We are fighting
a proxy war with a worldwide network of Islamic charities that funnel money to the Taliban, as well with rogue elements of Pakistan's own ISI service.

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/08/uk-british-mu...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158861

My guess is that the Russians would love to see us fail there, but their military is still reeling from manpower and cash shortages. Despite their recent drubbing of the Georgian military, they simply can't afford to intervene in any meaningful way. I also suspect that the thumping they took there is still fresh in their collective memory.

Afghanistan is already a free-market capitalist state. Corruption and lawlessness are rampant. It is the number one exporter of opiates in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Production_in_Afghan...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #78
84. The Russians had their hands full in Georgia.
Here's a pretty good article on that.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1010/p01s01-woeu.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #84
89. Good article - so it really wasn't a cakewalk at all. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #27
38. Why?
Assuming that the Afghanis don't want us there, and that to escalate the war there would probably result in the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, as has been the case in Iraq, and as occurred during the Vietnam War, what reason would you give for doing that?

And do you think that bin Laden is in Afghanistan?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Afgansitan needs to be stablized so it can't be a haven for A-Q and the Taliban.
And Pakistan needs to get it's act together in clean the Taliban out of the tribal areas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. What makes you think that Afghanistan won't turn out to be another Iraq or Vietnam
if we escalate there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicalboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
29. So if Bin Laden didn't do 9/11
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 02:21 PM by BecauseBushSaysSo
Who did? I've known for years he didn't do it. Better be careful with your facts. You could get labeled a conspiracy nut here by those who think the laws of physics changed on 9/11. Or there's no airport in NY to take and hijack a plane and turn it around and smash into the WTC. A lot easier to leave out of Boston I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phred42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. False Flag. It was an inside job
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 02:38 PM by Phred42
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #30
58. I agree
Some variation of LIHOP/MIHOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
33. "bin Laden didn't do it" is not a convincing reason to abandon Afghanistan,
even if that were true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. What reason would you give to stay there and
try to "win the war" in Afghanistan?

Assuming that the Afghanis don't want us there, and that to escalate the war there would probably result in the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, as has been the case in Iraq, and as occurred during the Vietnam War, what reason would you give for doing that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. You might want to re-examine "Assuming that the Afghanis don't want us there."
The people of Afghanistan are not opposed to the NATO presence.

You then might want to re-examine "to escalate the war there would probably result in the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands." In Afghanistan, death is caused not by the presence of NATO troops, but rather by the chaos and narco-warlordism that fills power vacuums wherever NATO is unable to offer its support. More people will die, both immediately and down the road, if we abandon Afghanistan to drugs and thugs, than if we were to bolster the NATO mission.

Afghanistan was badly unsupported for years. We had better troop coverage in the post-invasion period in Haiti and Bosnia than we did in Afghanistan. Comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam is absolutely ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Why ARE we in Afghanistan to begin with?
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 04:09 PM by Dover
Assuming, for the moment, that bin Laden is not reason enough.

What's our purpose there, and what is our intended outcome and gain?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
66. Because failed states result in worldwide proliferation of
drugs, crime, and terror.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #66
87. I hope you are being sarcastic.....you are actually quoting Busholini in your statement..
must have forgotten this :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Here's a re-examination:
Afghanistan’s 30 million people today are no more content with U.S. rule than a smaller population was with the failed British attempt to extend its empire there in the 19th century. While the “surge” was supposed to be taming Iraq, the resistance movement inside Afghanistan was growing...

In May and June more U.S.-NATO “coalition” forces were killed by the resistance in Afghanistan than were killed in Iraq. In mid-July the U.S. was forced to abandon a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan after resistance fighters killed nine U.S. troops and briefly seized the area...

NATO slaughter of civilians continues. The United Nations estimates that 698 civilians were killed in the first six months of this year in Afghanistan; this compares with 430 killed during the same period last year. Of those 698, some 255 were killed by NATO forces. Human Rights Watch says air strikes alone have been responsible for killing 119 civilians in 2008.

http://www.workers.org/2008/world/afghanistan_0807 /

The civilian deaths are currently relatively light compared to the case in Iraq, but what would happen if the war was escalated? The opinion described here is similar to what the editors of The Nation had to say about it, which I describe in the OP. Admittedly, those opinions could be wrong. But what information do you have that would warrant a rosier assessment?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #37
67. Oh, wow, "Worker's World." I trust their opinion, especially when it's offered without any support
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 11:42 PM by Occam Bandage
for any of their claims, nor with any context for their figures.

Beyond that: it's late, I'm tired, and I'm a depressed lout who doesn't really feel like painstakingly attempting to completely change a reluctant and intellectually insulated internet poster's world-view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #67
83. Talk about intellectually insulated
You make unsubstantiated claims that the Afghani people are not opposed to our presence and that attempting to occupy their country will not cause civilian deaths, and the only thing you have to say is that you don't trust the source that I gave you -- though you don't have any sources to present yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #35
56. Absolutely spot-on in every point. Thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
39. It never ceases to amuse (and amaze) me that people who
believe that 'Bush done it' somehow heard the initial denial and then mysteriously went deaf and blind for every other occasion on which he admitted responsibility for the attacks.

Let's start here... November 2001

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanis...

<snip>

OSAMA BIN LADEN has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Telegraph can reveal.

In a previously undisclosed video which has been circulating for 14 days among his supporters, he confesses that "history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents".

<snip>

And then there is this tape captured in Afghanistan from December 2001...

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation...

And another bin Laden broadcast from 2004...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.h...

<snip>

Bin Laden said he thought of the method of attacking U.S. skyscrapers when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.

"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind."

<snip>

Then there were the suicide videos of the hijackers themselves...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/11/binlade-tape.h...

<snip>

The video began with a still photo of bin Laden in front of a brown backdrop. A voiceover says: "This talk of mine consists of some reflections on the will of a young man who personally penetrated the most extreme degrees of danger and is a rarity among men: one of the 19 champions (may Allah have mercy on them all)."

Then, the videotape appears of Sept. 11 hijacker Walid al-Shehri, who was aboard American Airlines Flight 11 that hit the World Trade Center.

"We shall come at you from your front and back, your right and left," al-Shehri said in the tape, asserting that the United States would suffer the same fate as the Soviet Union.

<snip>

I can do this all day long. You can play too... all you need is a Web browser and Google.

Now, I know for a fact that SLaD and WildBill, who spend as much time as anyone around here reading Dungeon posts, have seen all this data before. But given their pathalogical hatred of the BFEE and their ability to rearrange reality to suit their worldview, I expect that this post will have absolutely no effect on them.

But if anyone reading this has a shred of objectivity, you can research this yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Those tapes are very controversial
I don't have the expertise to evaluate them, but many have put forth reasons to believe that they are phony.

And furthermore, what sense does it make that bin Laden would initially deny involvement and then accept responsibility?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #41
52. Look at the bigger picture... al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1998
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/19/terror.tape.main/...

"By God's grace," bin Laden says on the tape, "we have formed with many other Islamic groups and organizations in the Islamic world a front called the International Islamic Front to do jihad against the crusaders and Jews."

"And by God's grace," he says at another point in the tape, "the men ... are going to have a successful result in killing Americans and getting rid of them."

Look at the timeline of al Qaeda attacks against the US...

1993 - American forces are attacked and retreat from Somalia
1993 - WTC bombing
1998 - al Qaeda bombs US embassies in Africa
1999 - Millenium bombings (thwarted)
2000 - USS Cole is bombed

Here's a good timeline on bin Laden and al Qaeda...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/...

None of these attacks were responded to in any significant way. Sometimes you can't rationalize with religious fanatics. Try telling a fundie Christian about evolution (at least they don't blow people up). You can't reason with people who have lost the ability to reason. You have to kill them. Leaving them alone will do no good when they are unable to accept others who do not share their beliefs. You put them down like the mad dogs they are.

I sincerely hope that as many Islamic fundamentalists as possible are hastened along in their journey to Allah in any manner we can facilitate.

I place absolutey no value whatsoever on the lives of religious lunatics who treat their mules better than their women, and brainwash their children to memorize religious dogma and forsake critical thinking. I honestly do not care if every single human being in Afghanistan is incinerated if it saves the life of even one US citizen.

Look, I believe that Bush has fucked up virtually everything he has touched in his eight-years. But bombing and invading Afghanistan was the one right thing he did, which he then promptly fucked up by invading Iraq. In my opinion, we should have nuked Afghanistan on September 12, 2001.

Barack Obama believes that bin Laden and al Qaeda is a real threat, and he is a very smart guy who is surrounding himself with other very bright people who feel the same way. I don't know how they are going to address this problem, but it has now become geopolitical instead of military, thanks to Bush letting him escape into Pakistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. The bigger picture
I agree that bin Laden and al Qaeda should be considered real threats.

But I don't think that invading a sovereign nation is the way to deal with it. If Bush had the slightest interest in finding a way to deal with al Qaeda short of going to war with another nation, he would have sat down and talked to the Taliban about it. They offered to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan to stand trial. They even offered to extradite him to the U.S. if we provided evidence of his involvement in 9/11. Bush had no interest in negotiating on any of that -- any more than he had any interest in avoiding war with Iraq.

I have (at least some) confidence that Obama will try to find a way to deal with this short of escalating the war in Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #57
65. I respectfully disagree - the Taliban were playing games.
They would never have handed UBL over. Their culture requires them to grant sanctuary to any Muslim for any reason. Every single Talib would gladly die protecting their guest, as would the militant Pakistani Talibs occupying the Federated areas where he is now (allegedly) hiding.

I suspect that BO will work behind the scenes with the Pakistani government (which is teetering on the brink of an Islamic fundie takeover) while letting them publically howl over Predator strikes and Special Forces ops, just like the Bush regime has done. As I mentioned earlier, the problem is not a military one, but rather a geopolitical one. We could easily carpet bomb the Federated region into rubble but that would push Pakistan over the brink. The last thing we need is a nuclear-armed Islamic militancy.

Bush really, really screwed up by not capturing bin Laden when we had him at Tora Bora. This failure made the whole problem virtually unsolvable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arikara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. Which Bin Laden?
The fat one or the skinny one?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Are you aware of the PAL to NTSC conversion issue?
When you convert PAL video to NTSC format, everything gets vertically squashed. Heads get fatter.

The original format of the video was 50 Hz PAL format.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. not very persuasive! nt
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 07:32 PM by wildbilln864
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. It's only non-pesuasive if one is ignorant of the technical issue.
Once one understands that PAL format has 625 lines of resolution and NTSC has 525 lines, it becomes simple arithmetic and indisputable fact that converting PAL to NTSC compresses images vertically by a factor of 625/525 or 1.2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #54
74. Ridiculous. What about line doubling?
By similar logic, using a line doubler/scaler would cause 50% vertical compression when converting signals from 480p to 720p? Or that we'd all look like squat little elfs when upscaling to 1080p? All that matters is the aspect ratio. A 4:3 picture is going to remain a 4:3 picture so long as both formats utilize square pixels. I've converted many videos from NTSC to PAL and vice versa. Your arithmetic and indisputable fact is pretty pathetic. Whatever you need to convince yourself, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. Simple PAL to NTSC converters just throw away every fifth line.
But seriously, use your brain... if this video were faked, would it not be easier to just digitally remaster it to make it look exactly like UBL?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. Both vertical and horizontal resolution is tossed.
If you're throwing away every fifth line, then you're also losing 20% of the horizontal resolution as well, which leaves the aspect ratio intact. You're forgetting that in each case, you're dealing with square pixels. If you're displaying a 720p image on a display only capable of 480p, you need to throw away 1/3 of the vertical lines of resolution. However, because you're only capable of displaying 854 pixels instead of 1280, you need to toss 1/3 of the horizontal resolution as well. You obviously no as little about video conversion as you do about the events on 9/11. Please, use YOUR brain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. You're full of beans. Analog video does not contain pixels, only
lines of resolution. Do you disagree with this?

Throwing away horizontal lines has no effect on the width of the image, just the aspect ratio.

I suspect you've been doing digital image conversion and are unfamiliar with how analog video works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #80
81. And what are those lines comprised of?
You're full of something, but beans it ain't. By your standard, each line comprising either an NTSC or PAL image would contain one discrete color, that's ridiculously stupid. In analog television, they're not called pixels, but each line can display a fixed resolution. As for your assertion that analog video doesn't contain pixels, that's 100% wrong. Are you familiar with VGA? VGA is analog, yet has a fixed resolution of 640x480. And to suggest that anyone dealing with video like this would use conversion techniques that would throw away vertical resolution but leave the horizontal resolution alone is ridiculous. And what happened with the future videos? Did they all of a sudden get it right? Did someone in the CIA take some community college classes? And you talk about how easy it would be to digitally manipulate the video so it looked more like the real Osama. You're suggesting they can't even get simple video conversion right, but they'd be able to manipulate the image without any digital artifacts left over? Is there anything you won't do to delude yourself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #81
85. What is the resolution of an analog TV set?
If your answer uses the word 'pixel' then you are completely and utterly full of shit and have no idea what you are talking about. You may be too young to even understand the NTSC standard. If you did, you would realize that there was a whole world of analog video before there was even the concept of VGA.

> Are you familiar with VGA? VGA is analog, yet has a fixed resolution of 640x480.

VGA has exactly, precisely nothing to do with the NTSC and PAL standards. You're confusing the nature of the video signal with the nature of the display device.

First of all, raw analog video is just that, analog. It knows absolutely nothing about pixels. Analog video is composed of a combined luminace and chroma signal that is defined by the NTSC standard in terms of scan rate and colorburst frequency. Analog TVs take the analog composite video sigmal off the analog tape and then amplitude modulates it and rasterize it to form 525 horizontal scan lines. There is no horizontal resolution. Repeat after me. There is no horizontal resolution. Did I mention that there is no horizontal resolution?

NTSC verticle resolution was limited to 525 lines due to bandwidth limitations in CRTs 60 years ago. PAL was able to go to 625 lines because the 50 Hz verticle refresh rate gave them the ability to juggle the available bandwidth around.

Now, if you want to talk digital video encoding and conversion, I'm all ears. Perhaps this is where your expertise lies. But there are some serious gaps in your knowledge about the older analog technology that videotape used.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. The NTSC standard is 480x720.
Of course, not all analog televisions are capable of displaying that fully. And you say that VGA has nothing to do with this, yet you said that analog video NEVER has any pixels. VGA is analog, completely analog yet has a resolution of 640x480. You are wrong, extremely wrong. I've proven you wrong time after time, yet you just bring up more crap to change the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. You should quit while you're behind.
> yet you said that analog video NEVER has any pixels.

I most assuredly did not state this.

I said that analog TV sets and the analog NTSC standards do not have a fixed horizontal resolution. You state that they do. You are wrong.

VGA content can be transmitted over an analog or digital interface, but it has a fixed horizontal resolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Unless you are using HDMI for your interface, all communication between your DVD player and your TV set is analog. Whether your TV is analog or digital (plasma or LCD) is where the difference comes in.

A digital display (fixed resolution) can only display video in the display's native format, so every single signal that comes in needs to be scaled and interpolated unless it is an exact match (unlikely). This is why every single digital TV sold today has a scaler/interpolator.

An analog set connected to a DVD player takes the fixed resolution (480 X 720) of the MPEG2 encoded image and displays it in standard NTSC format, ie 525 horizontal lines.

Sorry, there's just no way around that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. Analog video does not contain pixels, only lines of resolution.
Those were your words, not mine. I suppose you're going to say I force fed those words to you or something? And I never said that NTSC standards have a fixed horizontal resolution, only that it has resolution, PERIOD. That's you trying to put words in my mouth. 480x720 is the max for NTSC, but there are many others depending upon the source. In fact, I even provided you a link explaining why horizontal resolution typically isn't listed for NTSC. And all this other stuff you're spouting off, I'm quite aware. But it has nothing to do with the myriad errors you've made and the corrections that I've made to them. And fixed resolution and digital are not the same thing. How else would you explain the many CRT HDTVs (while they still made them) that included DVI/HDMI inputs? And all this to defend your points that I've already proven wrong. As well as the points I made that you haven't even addressed yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #85
90. And read this if you want to find out why horizontal resolution typically isn't listed.
It's NOT because it doesn't exist, it's because it varies from signal to signal and display device to display device. Once again, if there was no horizontal resolution, each line would be comprised of a single color. That wouldn't make for a very good picture, would it?

http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/tech/vid_horizont...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. Well, thanks for proving my point. This is what I have been trying to explain to you.
When you go to a digital display device, the resolution is always, always, always the same.

Analog TVs (and by association, analog sources like VHS tapes) do not have a fixed horizontal resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. Output resolution, not input resolution.
I never even brought up digital display devices (and by that, I assume you mean fixed pixel displays, NOT the same thing). Of course it goes without saying that if you've got a fixed pixel display that you'll need to scale resolutions to the native resolution if they're not the same. As to why you're bringing up fixed pixel displays, that's beyond me. But you seem to keep mixing up input and output display resolutions. Assuming that a CRT is capable of displaying a particular resolution, it will display it as is, without any scaling. For analog televisions, that includes an array of NTSC signals that include both vertical lines as well as horizontal resolution. To say that NTSC, PAL or other analog standards don't include horizontal resolution is just ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #94
101. At this point you're just arguing with yourself. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. I'll take that as a concession.
After all, there are still a dozen or so points of yours that I've refuted that you haven't even touched or have responded with non-sequiters. It's a shame you won't keep going, I thought for sure that you were going to steer the conversation into the field of ballistics next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. OK, please explain for us how a cheap analog converter handles
the PAL to NTSC conversion.

Do the output images get squashed vertically or not?

This is the essence of the debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #106
111. They "squash" the image horizontally just as it is done vertically.
It's extremely simple to keep the image in the same aspect ratio that it was originally recorded in, you just remove the same proportion of horizontal data as you do vertical data. And since you've ignored just about every question I've asked, I'll ask you this one again. Why was this issue only present in one of the videos? Did AQ make the transition to NTSC? Or did the CIA finally find someone who was capable of converting video properly? Why would OBL bother to send out a video denying his involvement in the attacks originally? Is THAT tape manipulated?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #111
117. Oh, I understand that it can be done correctly using a digital
editor, but can it be done incorrectly? That is what I am interested in. Supposedly there are $30 analog converters that just squash the image.

Now, on to your questions...

The original video was found in Afghanistan, where PAL is the standard. In order to copy it for distribution to the media, it would have to have been converted to NTSC. We don't know who did the conversion, so that will probably remain unknowable.

As to why bin Laden would originally deny involvement, I have no idea. Probably just fucking with us. His writings indicated that he hoped the US would indeed invade Afghanistan where his Mujahadeen would dispatch them as they had the Russians.

Now back to you... why do you believe only the denial video and reject all the admission audios and videos?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #117
118. Because once he denied it, the cat is out of the bag.
While Bin Laden may be an evil man, he's not the type to 'fuck' with us. If he spent those ridiculous man hours and money planning something so symbolic like this, it wouldn't make any sense for him to deny involvement with it. Him taking credit for it is essential for the symbolism. And everything that has come to light since then has suggested that he didn't have any involvement. Where is the smoking gun that shrub promised? Why doesn't the FBI believe that he had anything to do with 9/11? Do you not think that these are HUGE issues?

Now, might there exist rather cheap and shitty converters that fuck with an image like that. I suppose they might exist, but I certainly haven't even seen cheap ones that do that. But the point is that AQ would have distributed the video in its native PAL because all the media around them would use PAL as well. As for converting for the North American audience, that would have been wholly unnecessary because any North American television studio would have decent conversion hardware. Do you think they were thinking to themselves "Well, we better convert this to NTSC because otherwise Americans are NEVER going to see this. They just won't put the effort forward, so we better do it for them." Of course not. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that if AQ sends us a video, it doesn't matter which damn format it's in, we're going to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #118
127. EOTE, Thanks for the info regarding video....
I have always believed UBL is long dead. The videos are faked to keep the boogy man alive. They argued the same thing in the dungeon about the video conversion and this the first knowledgeable answer I've seen to that argument. :hi:
UBL's Funeral
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. No problem.
I don't know whether he's alive or not. It would certainly make sense that he were dead now. What I am fairly sure of is that he wasn't behind 9/11. Even disregarding his own denial, the evidence just isn't there. And I don't know why so many people are so willing to give shrub the benefit of the doubt after he said that there was "smoking gun" evidence that he was so close to revealing, yet never did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. I'm in complete agreement on that also. thanks for the response. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #118
138. You continue to ignore data that conflicts with your pre-conceived notions.
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 09:39 PM by Flatulo
Here I posted links that I found in 20 seconds where OBL admits that al Qaeda planned and carried out the attacks. No, OBL did not hijack or fly the airplanes, but he bears and accepts responsibility.

Can you refute these?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #138
142. You've got some nerve talking about ignoring data.
This discussion started with me defending why I thought at least one of the tapes by OBL was faked. You unsuccessfully try to refute that and try to change the course of discussion several times throughout. Then, you ignore every one of my questions including: Why does the FBI not believe that OBL was involved with the attacks? Why did Bush promise the world smoking gun evidence that Bin Laden was behind the attacks and then provide NOTHING? And why is it that you believe these subsequent tapes, but not the original tape where Bin Laden says that he's NOT responsible for the attacks? Why on earth would I even bother to refute any of that when you still have yet to admit that you were wrong even once?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #142
150. Semantics 101
Rex Tomb said "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

Nowhere in this statement does the FBI spokesman claim that the FBI doesn't *believe* that bin Laden was complicit. It simply says what it says. No hard evidence. What's 'hard' evidence? I dunno - fingerprints, eyewitnesss, DNA, etc. Of course they don't have any hard evidence. He was nowhere near the crime scene.

That means that all the bin Laden audio/video is not being taken as 'hard evidence', including the first denial video and the subsequent 'confession' videos.

In their zeal to prove that anyone but the actual terrorists are guilty, the Truth Movement chooses to present this single statement as somehow exonerating bin Laden completely, and by implication, blaming ... BushCo. This is quite dishonest, but typical, and consistent with other statements that are used as Proof that 9/11 was an inside job, like Rumsfield's statement that a 'missile' hit the Pentagon.

OK, now on to our little discussion. You have utterly and totally failed to prove that the confession video is a fake, and I have utterly and completely failed to prove that it is not. I don't expect this will change soon, and the 'confession' video will continue to be quite controversial. One theory that I have not heard spoken of is that perhaps bin Laden *had* gained fluid weight due to his failing kidneys. Perhaps he was on steroidal medicine that causes the head to swell. What I don't see the Truth Movement addressing is the identities of his confederates in the video. There seems to be no dispute that al-Zawahiri is present at the meeting. Why would the al Qaeda #2 sit down with a fake and pose for the camera?

> Why does the FBI not believe that OBL was involved with the attacks?

This statement is utterly unsupported. It is quite a leap to go from 'no hard evidence' to 'we think he's innocent'. If you have any official FBI statements that actually proclaim bin Laden's innocence, please present them.

Now, I told you earlier that I believed that bin Laden was fucking with us in the initial denial tape. I would further postulate that the Taliban did not share his zeal over a potential US invasion of their country and probably pressured him to issue a denial.

Would you be so kind as to share with me why you think all the subsequent post-October '01 audio and video where bin Laden claims responsibility are unimportant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #150
152. You are some piece of work.
So once again, you refuse to admit that any of your bullshit claims were wrong, you just move on to the next subject that obstinately you'll refuse to budge on no matter what evidence has been provided. So basically, your response to the FBI having no hard evidence for Bin laden's connection to 9/11 (they have plenty of hard evidence for the other crimes that he's committed) is "so what"? Yes, so what that we've invaded a sovereign nation to "smoke him out of his cave" when we have no hard evidence he was involved in the crime to begin with. I mean, it's just an illegal invasion, right? International law is soooo passe. I'm convinced that Flatulo has been stealing my power tools. The FBI assures me that this isn't the case, but what the hell do they know? I'll be invading your household just in case. Once again, your hypocrisy is outstanding. You accuse me of playing the semantics game, what a joke! Let me ask you this. Does the FBI believe that Bin Laden is connected with the 9/11 attacks? No, you say? Well, then would it be proper to say that the FBI DOESN'T believe that Bin Laden is connected with the attacks? Wow, that wasn't so difficult, was it? I guess I really should have counted on having to explain that to you in as simple terms as possible. Are you familiar even slightly with a concept called "burden of proof"? Silly question, I should assume not. Then after that, you tell me that I've failed to prove that the confession video is a fake. Well, no shit sherlock, I never attempted to. I simply said that your assertion that Bin Laden was fat because of the PAL to NTSC conversion is a bullshit one. I never attempted to do anything more than that, yet you continued to bring up one point after another that had nothing to do with the issue at hand. Perhaps to cover for your epic fails? As for the subsequent tapes, I think they're fake or manipulated. Either that, or Bin Laden decided it would be in his best interest to claim responsibility for something he didn't do. Now, as for the myriad other questions I've asked that you seem so intent to ignore? I guess I'll be waiting for those answers for quite some time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #152
156. You are incapable of understanding a simple concept...
I'll try again...

The FBI admitting that they have no hard evidence does not mean that they think he's innocent. It means exactly what they said. It does not mean that they think he is innocent. You cannot possibly be this stupid, so I must assume that you are deliberately being obtuse so that your belief system is not violated.

Do you think that the presense of 'hard evidence' is a prerequisite for an FBI investigation?

I'm not sure why you cannot understand this.

> I'm convinced that Flatulo has been stealing my power tools. The FBI assures me that this isn't the case,

This is exactly what the FBI has NOT done. Please show me where they have stated that bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11. If you cannot understand the difference between this statement and what they actually said, then your reading comprehension is in need of a tuneup.

The FBI has in no way shape or form indicated in the slightest that they believe that bin Laden is innocent. They have been investigating bin Laden since long before 9/11.

I have given you several chances not to provide this information, and you have declined. You then lambaste me for not answering your questions. What have I not answered?

You're the one playing games.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #156
159. Why has Bush not provided any evidence of Bin Laden's involvement?
That's just one of the questions you haven't answered. And you still insist that just because there's no evidence of his involvement, it's okie dokey to go ahead and attack a country for it. What can't you understand about this? Are you so completely and insanely daft that you think it's OK to attack a country without any 'hard evidence'? Why can't you get it through your incredibly thick skull that you need EVIDENCE to do these kinds of things. I know you just love the Bush Doctrine, but in the real world, you can't just say something is so and expect everyone to go along with you. I never said the FBI thinks that Osama is innocent, they've just investigated the matter and they can't find a lick of evidence connecting him to 9/11. You do know that in the real world, the burden of proof resides on the country who'll be invading the foreign country, right? In a court of law, you can't have a forensic investigator investigate someone for a crime, come up with no evidence linking that person and then say "Oh, just lock the fucker up. The investigator might not have found anything, but what does he know? As the prosecutor, I say the guy is guilty so lock him up." You have the same mindset as a psychopath. Once again I'll ask you, do you know what burden of proof is? Of course you don't. If you did, we wouldn't be having this ridiculously stupid conversation. I have proven you wrong time and time again, yet you've refused to own up to anything. Not only that, but now you're really displaying the attitude of a psychopath. I now know where you stand in terms of the Bush Doctrine. If we even THINK that another country is plotting against us or harboring terrorist, get ready for some shock and awe, fuckers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #159
160. Self-delete
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 06:23 PM by Flatulo
I shouldn't let people piss me off for calling me names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #159
167. There was a strong chain of evidence of al Qaeda attacks on US interests going
back to the '90s. Don't believe me - read a book. We were attacked on 9/11 precisely because we never responded to the previous attacks in any meaningful way. With each successive attack, al Qaeda became convinced that they could chip away at American interests with no consequences.

Now your position that the US needed 'hard evidence' to proceed with action against bin Laden is one position, but it is a distinctly minority position. Clinton tried mightily to kill the fucker. Dick Clarke tried vainly to get Bush to kill him prior to 9/11. The American people overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and the guy you (presumably) voted for for POTUS is determined to kill the man, quite possibly by invading yet another country. All without the FBI's 'hard evidence'. Imagine that.

9/11 was not some junkie knocking over a liquor store. International law has not kept pace with the evolution of international terrorists. If bin Laden's left nut had been found dangling from the landing gear of Flight 11, people like you would claim that it was planted. Anyone fucked-up enough to let religious lunatics pick off their fellow citizens willy-nilly is fucked-up up enough to never be able to acknowledge that the bad man actually did it, regardless of what evidence was available.

You have demonstrated to me that you are determined to ignore any and all evidence that bin Laden is guilty. I have given you plenty of links, and your response was this...

> As for the subsequent tapes, I think they're fake or manipulated.

Wow, that was thought-provoking. You've got cognizant dissonance on your sleeve.

No, Bush will never be able to produce evidence that would satisfy you. And you know what? I don't give a flying fuck. Bush did the right thing - the only right thing - that he ever did, and I'm hopefully optimistic that Obama is smart enough to finish the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #167
168. Once again you launch into the non-sequitors.
Good job bringing up a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Do you really think that I'm not aware that AQ has attacked us in the past? I guess that means that we can invade in the future any country that we believe might be harboring any AQ member, right? Listen, I'm through with you. You've been pwned, seriously. I'm not going to continue this discussion with you knowing that every time I refute one of your bullshit claims, you're going to bring something up completely irrelevent to the discussion, or perhaps relevent, but certainly not what we've been discussing. I'm not going to bother going through great lengths explaining myself when you won't even acknowledge that I've torn to pieces all of your previous arguments. I've been reading through this thread and it's nice to know that I'm in good company. You've done the same thing to many others in this thread. Here's how it goes: You try to start some stupid argument, someone corrects you and smacks you down handily, then rather than admit how incredibly wrong you are, you bring up something completely different and force them to address your new argument. So I'm through with you. Let me say it again, YOU'VE BEEN PWNED. You've been proven wrong time after time and I'm not going to waste any more of mine. You are not saving face, you are just making yourself look like even more of a close minded ass. I hold out no hope that you're capable of learning anymore. Good bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #168
170. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #170
171. Have yourself another big helping of fail.
First of all, the Bush Doctrine includes the policy of preventive or preemptive war. It states that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represent a potential or even perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat is not immediate. That's EXACTLY what you advocate in terms of Afghanistan. Even you admit that there's no evidence linking OBL to 9/11 (I'll give you a hint, saying that he's done bad things in the past is NOT evidence), yet you still support this doctrine of preemption. So, you may not KNOW that you support the Bush Doctrine, but you certainly do. Which makes you even less intelligent than I originally thought. You are wrong. Then you accuse me of me of lying when I went on to say that a PAL to NTSC converter as you described MIGHT exist. I was attempting not to be as close minded as you are when I allowed for the possibility for such a device to exist, it would be foolish to say that it can't. Hell, maybe the Professor made one for Gilligan. It's hardly anymore difficult to preserve the aspect ratio of the original source even in an analog device, it doesn't require any sophisticated electronics. Sure, television studios have converters that cost thousands of dollars, but they cost so much because quality is paramount and lesser converters don't do nearly as good a job in terms of color integrity. But you also never explained to me why AQ would bother using this steam powered device to convert the video to NTSC for the sole benefit of the North American audience when all local media is in PAL and any television studio would be able to do a far better job. Here's an interesting little tid bit. I tried searching for the device you refer to using 'the Google'. Initially, I used the search terms "PAL to NTSC vertical squashing". Guess what the first result I got was? Your precious link from teamliberty.net. I tried many permutations of similar search terms and that link almost always came up first. The funny thing is though, I couldn't find any other information about the existence of such a shoddy converter.

Of course, this is just a small sampling of the many things that you've gotten wrong. Both in our sub-thread and in your many attempts to shout down others on this thread. If you recall, this conversation started regarding why I thought that the video conversion excuse for the fat Bin Laden tape was bullshit. So here's a few more things you got wrong:

You stated that analog video can not contain pixels: FAIL
You stated that NTSC and analog video in general does not have horizontal resolution: EPIC FAIL

Then you've got the nerve to tell me what I lack in terms of expertise in video. This coming from a person whose sole knowledge comes from having a room mate who worked with video :rofl:. Let me tell you something, either your room mate was an idiot, or you're an extremely shitty learner. I'm inclined to believe the latter. Now, I may only be a Senior IT Analyst, but I also work with video conversion (both analog and digital) on a weekly basis, and I've been doing this stuff since I was about 13 or so. At 14, I knew loads more than you know now about video. Analog video too, you probably aren't aware, but line doublers existed well before digital video was common. Oh, and you still haven't even attempted to tell me why shrub has never presented the smoking gun evidence he swore was just around the corner. Once again I'll give you a hint: Saying that he's done bad things in the past is NOT evidence. You also try to insult me for replying to you that I think there could be 3 possible explanations congruent with my thinking to explain the subsequent videos. I said I thought they could be faked, manipulated or possibly OBL thought it would be to his advantage to claim responsibility at that point. You have the unmitigated gall to try and lambaste me for that, yet your explanation for the original video is "He was fucking with us." Brilliant explanation, Einstein. I want Bin Laden's head on a platter too, no doubt he's a murderous bastard. The difference between you and I is that I'm not stupid enough to let my hatred of Bin Laden cloud my judgement enough that I'd allow Bush to start a preemptive war for his own benefit based upon that hate. I don't believe in the Bush Doctrine, YOU DO. Unless you start owning up to your many fails and start answering the questions I've posed to you, I'm through with you. Everyone else sees it, you don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #171
172. Epic WIN!
Resorting to calling you names and slandering you is the typical OCT'er's tactic when they've lost the argument. Thank you for your expertise and explaining why the UBL videos are probably faked. Hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #172
173. You too! You can have my extra portion of stuffing :)
I get two Thanksgivings this year. Hope yours goes great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #173
175. Thank you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #172
174. Bill, reading has never been your strong suit, so here's some help....
In order of timestamp, here's what the EOTE has called me...

> Why can't you get it through your incredibly thick skull

> Not only that, but now you're really displaying the attitude of a psychopath.

I don't start with the name-calling - I just respond in kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #174
176. I read as well as you.
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 12:41 PM by wildbilln864
As evidenced in your failing to win the debate above. And in the post to which I'm replying. Saying you have a thick skull isn't name calling. Nor is saying you have a certain attitude.
I realize it's frustrating sometimes debating 9/11 from either mindset. We just disagree.
I still hope you have the best Thanksgiving ever Flatulo! But 9/11 was MIHOP!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #171
177. You were right about the Bush Doctrine and I was wrong.
From Wiki:

"The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to aggressively secure itself from countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan."

"Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.<2><3><4> Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002."

Since the doctrine was not fully articulated until September of 2002, it didn't exist in its final form at the time we invaded Afghanistan.

So the complete doctrine includes at lease three elements:

1. The right to attack countries that harbor terrorists who attack US interests
2. Regime change and nation building of said countries
3. Pre-emptive war on states that we feel are a threat to our security

There are other principles, but for the sake of argument these three are sufficient.

I've made no secret of the fact that I agree 100% with the invasion of Afghanistan, as did a ridiculous majority of the American people. So yes, I agree with the first clause of the Bush Doctrine.

For the record, I strongly disagree with clause 3, which would pertain to the invasion of Iraq.

I sincerely apologize for calling you stupider than Sarah Palin. This discussion has gotten me quite hot under the collar but I'm resolving to keep it civil if you care to continue.

I guess the problem that I'm having with you is that you seem more intent on proving that I'm an idiot and a shill for Bush than in convincing me that the Afghan invasion was morally wrong. And frankly, your posts confuse me greatly.

You have very strongly given me the impression that you believe that bin Laden is innocent of the 9/11 attacks on the basis of one denial video, which may or may not have been faked.

Yet here in your last post you state...

> I want Bin Laden's head on a platter too, no doubt he's a murderous bastard.

Well. How do you know this? By your own (and the FBI's) standards of proof, there is no reason for you to 'know' that bin Laden is guilty of anything. You have completely rejected the subsequent conession videos and all evidence from his confederates that he was complicit. But suddenly you are demanding his head on a plate.

Can you explain this?

Now, let's revisit the whole NTSC/PAL thing one more time.

I did indeed make the statement that NTSC video has no horizontal resolution. This is technically incorrect as you point out. My intention was to explain that when displayed on an output device, the concept of horizontal resolution cannot be defined in pixels, but is entirely a function of bandwidth, only bandwidth. The resolution is in fact defined by the ability of the output device to sweep a beam horizontally across a screen and amplitude modulate a 15.75 kHz tone fast enough to create pieces of color and lumna information 6 micro-seconds in duration. Trust me, I understand this.

I assumed that you were conversant enough to takemy meaning, and I believe that you did, but were more intent on trying to browbeat me into admitting that I'm an idiot, which I won't do.

Instead you undertook a crusade to show the world that I am clueless. This offended me greatly, because I assure you I am not clueless about how TV works. In the 1980s I was the lead mechanical engineer on a project to create a data storage device from an industrial VCR. As part of the due diligence, I learned quite a bit about NTSC and how analog information is stored on tape and then displayed on an output device. The project ultimately failed, not because we could not get the recording process to work, but because the tape transport mechanism was a complete piece of garbage.

I am however, completely clueless about the conversion of PAL to NTSC and vice versa. Removing every fifth scanline seems like a perfectly reasonable way to do this, albeit with the caveat that the image becomes squashed.

While it may in fact be ridiculously easy to reformat PAL into NTSC while maintaining the aspect ratio, it seemed reasonable to me that people working out of a cave may not have the hardware and software to do it correctly, and may have relied on a very cheap piece of hardware to do it.

SO I'll repeat it again for clarity. I don't know if or how that original confession tape was edited. But I do not believe it to be a fake because if it was, why hasn't bin Laden ever claimed it was faked? If he was intent on denying his culpability, why would the (normally very media-savvy) bin Laden not disavow this fraudulent work?

Your turn. Let's see if you can return to civility.

If not, then have it your way. You have totally PWN3D me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #177
179. I'll try to reply one by one.
First of all, thanks for changing the tone of this sub thread. I didn't mean to let it escalate to the point where it's gotten, and I apologize. Sometimes it's easy to forget we're on a progressive chat board and we all want pretty much the same ends, even if it's by different means.

With regards to the Bush Doctrine, I don't know if I believe that the Afghanistan war really falls in the first element you listed. First off, as listed in the OP, the taliban initially offered to hand over anyone thought to be involved with the attacks so long as the U.S. government offered proof they were involved. After that, the taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to Pakistan even without proof. They said then that if the U.S. offered any proof, they'd then extradite Bin Laden to the U.S. Time for Change does a really good job of covering this in his OP (full disclosure, I'm TfC's son). As for the majority of Americans agreeing with the Afghanistan invasion, that really doesn't mean much at all to me. Supposedly, the majority of Americans supported GWB and at one time, the majority of Americans supported slavery. I don't believe that the majority of Americans are evil, not even close. But I think it's possible for the majority of Americans to support very, very bad actions simply because the bulk of them are misinformed.

With regards to you calling me stupider than Sarah Palin, forget about it, I kind of chuckled when I read that and assumed you were pretty heated, so I disregarded it. As for my intentions, I'm simply trying to assert my case as strongly as possible. In doing that, I know I've said some disrespectful things, and for that I apologize.

As for the cognitive dissonance you see regarding me not believing that Bin Laden was involved with 9/11 and yet still wanting to see him dead, I think that can be explained rather easily. There are many dispicable acts that I have very little doubt that OBL did do. He's wanted for terrorist acts by the FBI, including the embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. Also, he's been indicted by the Spanish government for his involvement with the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Now, back to the video conversion issue. You bring up the pixel issue again, but it's really a non-issue. The fact that the discrete colors that comprise horizontal resolution in an NTSC aren't called pixels really doesn't mean anything. You could send a CRT a signal consisting of alternating black and white. Then you could increase the h-scan of that signal to the point where the lines were the smallest, yet each color was discrete. At this point, you could count the black and white vertical lines and this would be the maximum horizontal resolution the CRT is capable of displaying. On any one of these lines of resolution, one of those discrete 'dots' may not technically be a pixel, but it's about as analogous (no pun intended) as you can get. I'm not entirely sure why the term isn't used, but I'm guessing it's because of slop involved when a signal is displayed entirely in the analog domain. Because you're not dealing with a fixed pixel display, the 'dot' size can vary by miniscule amounts, just as one color may appear as a very slightly different color the next time it's used (hence the old video tech acronym for NTSC, Never Twice the Same Color). I understand that AQ would be working with very limited means, but I still don't buy this particular explanation for the fat Bin Laden. First of all, I still can't imagine why such a shoddy device for converting PAL to NTSC would exist. I used to work with ICs a lot when I was younger and I'd get Heath Kit catalogs all the time. One of the kits was a PAL to NTSC/NTSC to Pal converter and it was based upon a very cheap and easy to find 16 pin IC. I don't recall exactly how much the kit cost, but like most things from Heath Kit, it was really cheap (definitely under $40). The reason I have a hard time believing that a converter like that would exist is because I can't imagine that it would be anymore difficult (or expensive) to make a converter that maintained proper aspect ratio. Nowadays even relatively sluggish ICs wouldn't have a hard time keeping up even real time. I now know you're rather qualified in this field and didn't mean to diminish your experience. I wasn't on a crusade against you, I was just frustrated for having to talk about so many different issues simultaneously.

As for why Bin Laden wouldn't have claimed it was fake, I'm not entirely certain. There are so many inconsistencies pertaining to the events surrounding 9/11, it's hard to find a single thread that ties everything together and makes sense. I certainly don't buy the official government explanation, and probably never will. However, I look at various conspiracy theories and there doesn't seem to be a thread to tie them together as well. One possible reason could be that Bin Laden is now dead. Another reason I can think of is that he benefits by taking responsibility. It's very easy to make the argument that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been extremely good for recruiting violent extremists. That's what I can think of off the top of my head, but once again, it's nearly impossible to find a timeline of the events leading up to and taking place after 9/11 that makes complete sense. While I'm certain I don't believe the official government theory, it's very difficult for me to create a complete and cogent timeline of events and actions that really makes sense. If you haven't already, I recommend that you read TfC's OP from start to finish. I think the Bush Doctrine has been extremely harmful for the U.S.'s image in terms of world opinion. I think there needs to be an extremely high burden of proof required if we are to actually invade another country, causing many civilian deaths as well as massive infrastructure damage. TfC also does a good job of showing how the Bush administration's actions after the start of the invasion show that they were far more interested in locking away 'enemy combatants' for their own ends than they were in providing evidence justifying their invasion in the first place. I think this kind of attitude towards international law needs to change immediately and is one of the reasons that I'm so incredibly relieved that Obama (whom I did vote for, though not in the primary) is now our President Elect.

Anyway, I think I covered everything. Once again, I didn't mean to let this escalate to the point that it did. I didn't mean to demean your knowledge or your expertise, it's just a rather emotional issue for me, and for you most likely as well. If you respond, it might be a while until I get back to you as I probably won't be around computers much until Friday. Regardless, thanks for changing the direction of this sub-thread and I hope you have a great Thanksgiving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #179
188. What was the level of proof for the prior indictments?
> First of all, thanks for changing the tone of this sub thread.

Thanks to responding positively to my olive branch. I started with the snarkiness first, so I thought it was appropriate to try to tone it down.

> With regards to the Bush Doctrine, I don't know if I believe that the Afghanistan war really falls in the first
> element you listed.

At the time of the invasion, it didn't, since it hadn't been formally articulated yet. Bush justified the invasion post-facto one year after 9/11, at least if my memory serves me.

> First off, as listed in the OP, the taliban initially offered to hand over anyone thought to be involved with
> the attacks so long as the U.S. government offered proof they were involved. After that, the taliban offered to
> hand Bin Laden over to Pakistan even without proof.

I think the problem with handing bin Laden over to Pakistan was that Pakistan was largely sympathetic to the Taliban and Islamic militancy in general. The Pakistanis served as the conduit for much of the hardware we sent into Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, and their ISI was rife with Taliban sympathizer (and may still be).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/intervi...

> They said then that if the U.S. offered any proof, they'd then extradite Bin Laden to the U.S. Time for Change
> does a really good job of covering this in his OP (full disclosure, I'm TfC's son).

I think that was a pretty safe offer to make, since there was no obvious (to me at least) way to prove his culpability at the time. If we had pursued this in the World court, things could have dragged on for years. Slobodan Milosevic died of old age five years afer he was indicted by the World Court. Then there was the additional problem of even apprehending him. The Taliban could have waffled forever, blaming the rough terrain and ambiguity of the border with Pakistan for their inability to take him into custody.

> As for the majority of Americans agreeing with the Afghanistan invasion, that really doesn't mean much at all to
> me. Supposedly, the majority of Americans supported GWB and at one time, the majority of Americans supported
> slavery.

Well you're exactly right about that. Tyranny of the Majority I think it's called. The rule of law should always trump popular opinion. But wouldn't you agree that this was an (almost) unprecedented event? Afghanistan did not attack us, but their guests (allegedly) did. I'm not aware of any international standards that addressed an attack on a state by a stateless entity.

> As for the cognitive dissonance you see regarding me not believing that Bin Laden was involved with 9/11 and yet
> still wanting to see him dead, I think that can be explained rather easily. There are many dispicable acts that
> I have very little doubt that OBL did do. He's wanted for terrorist acts by the FBI, including the embassy
> bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. Also, he's been indicted by the Spanish government for his involvement
> with the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

What was the standard of evidence used to indict him for these crimes? Forensic or circumstantial? Did al Qaeda operatives testify against him? And as a practical matter, he can be indicted all day long, but unless he turns himself in or someone goes in to get him, a conviction is unlikely to be forthcoming.

> As for why Bin Laden wouldn't have claimed it was fake, I'm not entirely certain. There are so many
> inconsistencies pertaining to the events surrounding 9/11, it's hard to find a single thread that ties
> everything together and makes sense.

We're in violent agreement on that.

> I certainly don't buy the official government explanation, and probably never will.

The 9/11 Commission Report was a total whitewash - agree 100%. What I'm not sure of is whether the intention was to cover asses or something more sinister.

> However, I look at various conspiracy theories and there doesn't seem to be a thread to tie them together as
> well. One possible reason could be that Bin Laden is now dead. Another reason I can think of is that he benefits
> by taking responsibility. It's very easy to make the argument that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been
> extremely good for recruiting violent extremists.

No doubt on both counts. I think this was certainly anticipated by most thinking people. Iraq especially has provided a very compelling argment that we are engaged in wars of aggression against Muslims.

At the end of the day I have no good legal arguments for the invasion of Afghanistan. My reasoning is that the Taliban were playing games with us and that they would have taken advantage of the civilized worlds' adherence to law to avoid ever having to turn him over. The only practical way to bring him to justice was to go get him.

I know this action has turned out badly, as has everything else Bush has done. It would be very interesting to see how a Gore or Kerry would have handled the whole affair.

Anyway, hope you had a good Thanksgiving. I don't expect we'll agree on the whole Afghan business, except that Bush has certainly screwed it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #177
180. technically it was first known as "the wolfowitz doctrine" and the primary author was guess who?
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 10:25 PM by reinvestigate911
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #180
183. I completely oppose the notion of pre-emptive war.
I have some strong Libertarian leanings, and the bedrock prnciple of Libertarianism is 'No first use of force.' I believe this with every fibre of my being.

Unfortunately for the Libertarians, most of them are at least slighlty crazy IMHO, so I parted ways with their thinking in the '90s. But the 'No first use' doctrine really rang true with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #150
181. does the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 11:44 PM by reinvestigate911
you see, you can't prove guilt without evidence. in the absence of this evidence, one is presumed to be innocent. sorry, but having a "belief" or a "hunch" simply isn't enough.

allow me to offer conjecture as to why the post-october 2001 audio/video recordings are unimportant: they're fugazi.
you seem incapable of reconciling this possibility... then again you also seem prone to believe that PAL to NTSC conversion can transform a man who is left-handed into a man who eats and writes with his right hand.

now i'm beginning to see how your magical math formula can explain free-fall "collapse" ... and produce molten steel, too.

i'm also perplexed by the "either/or" fallacy in regards to al qaeda and the bush administration. is it not possible to recruit a few radical islamic patsies for the boarding terminal photo op alone, yet have paramilitary assistance in the planning and execution phases? your failure to grasp this indicates a lack of imagination that is very curious indeed.

in truth, i could go into any third world country where america has fucked over their economy and find 19 guys willing to sacrifice their lives for a little payback. however, the idea that these 19 freedom fighters might defeat a multi-trillion dollar defense system is a little too "live free or die hard" for those of us who see the world without the filter of mainstream media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #117
124. I reply below.
I accidentally replied to my post instead of yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #94
139. Here's a good article on how NTSC video works....
http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/an_pk/734

Note that the description of NTSC vertical resolution does not mention the concept of 'pixels'.

If I scan one complete frame (or 2 fields, for interlaced signals) in 1/30 of a second, and do that 525 times (horizontal lines) in that same 1/30 of a second, I need a carrier signal with a frequency of 1/(1/30*1/525) = 15.75 kHz. This signal then gets amplitude modulated during the scan.

To the extent that this scan signal has a period of 63 usecs, this can be thought of as resolution. But it's not a pixel, because it's dependant on the ability of the output device to have the bandwidth to display it.

This may be nit-picking, but I think it's important to be accurate when discussing this stuff.

BTW, I am not a broadcast engineer, but I used to work with a guy who lived and breathed this stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #139
143. None of this changes anything.
I already said that they're not called pixels in reference to NTSC video and I already explained to you that analog video can be comprised of pixels in the traditional sense. The point is that there is both horizontal as well as vertical resolution in an NTSC source that can easily be doubled or removed to fit a different display device. This also doesn't change how ridiculous it would be to think that Al Qaeda would think that they had to do their own conversion to NTSC for fear that the North American audience would miss out on the production they worked so incredibly hard on. I suppose they did their own translations too? You know, for our convenience?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #79
164. Did you see this article from Muckraker?
http://www.teamliberty.net/id372.html

<snip>

While reading some of the coverage and investigation done by Maher Osseiran on the bin Laden confession tape, and his assertion that the tape is likely actually a tape of bin Laden himself, it occurred to me that since the tape was recorded in the Pakistan region, it was likely recorded in PAL video format. In the United States, we use the NTSC format. The difference is primarily that the standard PAL format has the same spatial resolution horizontally, but vertically it has a higher spatial resolution (720 x 576 for PAL – 720 x 480 for NTSC) than doe NTSC. Many PAL and NTSC converters simply eliminate the extra horizontal lines from the PAL format in order to conform to the NTSC format. This results in an image that appears to be ‘squashed’ along the vertical axis…making people and objects look fatter after the conversion.

Using video provided to him by Maher Osseiran, Tremblay suspects that a linear interpolation PAL to NTSC conversion method was used in this instance. This method basically eliminates every fifth scan line from the PAL video, thus matching it to the number of scan lines for the NTSC video standard (480 lines for NTSC versus 576 for PAL). Besides linear interpolation, there are other conversion methods and software that might have been employed to accomplish the same distorted effect on the original video. Tremblay is basing this conclusion on the following probabilities:

a. The video was made in Afghanistan or Pakistan and therefore was likely shot in PAL standard format

b. The video that was delivered to him is now in NTSC digital format, so at some point it was likely
converted from PAL to an NTSC

c. If one assumes that linear interpolation was used to sample down the PAL image to fit the NTSC format,
and since scaling the vertical dimension of the video appropriately reestablishes the known proportions of
the people who are purported to appear in the video, then he personally finds that sufficient confirmation
that this process (or a similar process) was indeed applied to the original video causing it to be out of
proportion in the vertical dimension.

There's some other good stuff in there not related to vertical compression.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #50
193. It's rather easy to demonstrate
You can download a trial version of Adobe Premiere (mac or PC) for free, and it gives you two weeks to play around before the trial expires. So professional video editing software is within the reach of anyone who wants to test it.

Or you could settle for a discussion of the subject by other people: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/what-happens-vegas/20875-pal...

No 9/11 content to this at all: I'm just posting it to establish that this is in fact a well-known problem when converting video shot on format for playback on another. Actually, the Muchraker report (which originally was one of the sites alleging monkey business with sid video) later issued a correction: http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id372.html

Like I said, download Adobe Premiere or some other video editing software and see for yourself. You can find footage from PAL cameras very easily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DailyGrind51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
44. Because he can't pronounce Habeas Corpus?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
46. Robert Fisk on déjà double-vu in Afghanistan
Kabul 30 years ago, and Kabul today.

Have We Learned Nothing?


'Terrorists' were in Soviet sights; now they are in the Americans'.

By Robert Fisk

November 22, 2008 "The Independent" -- -I sit on the rooftop of the old Central Hotel – pharaonic-decorated elevator, unspeakable apple juice, sublime green tea, and armed Tajik guards at the front door – and look out across the smoky red of the Kabul evening. The Bala Hissar fort glows in the dusk, massive portals, the great keep to which the British army should have moved its men in 1841. Instead, they felt the king should live there and humbly built a cantonment on the undefended plain, thus leading to a "signal catastrophe".

Like automated birds, the kites swoop over the rooftops. Yes, the kite-runners of Kabul, minus Hollywood. At night, the thump of American Sikorsky helicopters and the whisper of high-altitude F-18s invade my room. The United States of America is settling George Bush's scores with the "terrorists" trying to overthrow Hamid Karzai's corrupt government.

Now rewind almost 29 years, and I am on the balcony of the Intercontinental Hotel on the other side of this great, cold, fuggy city. Impeccable staff, frozen Polish beer in the bar, secret policemen in the front lobby, Russian troops parked in the forecourt. The Bala Hissar fort glimmers through the smoke. The kites – green seems a favourite colour – move beyond the trees. At night, the thump of Hind choppers and the whisper of high-altitude MiGs invade my room. The Soviet Union is settling Leonid Brezhnev's scores with the "terrorists" trying to overthrow Barbrak Karmal's corrupt government.

Thirty miles north, all those years ago, a Soviet general told us of the imminent victory over the "terrorists" in the mountains, imperialist "remnants" – the phrase Kabul communist radio always used – who were being supported by America and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Fast forward to 2001 – just seven years ago – and an American general told us of the imminent victory over the "terrorists" in the mountains, the all but conquered Taliban who were being supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The Russian was pontificating at the big Soviet airbase at Bagram. The American general was pontificating at the big US airbase at Bagram.

This is not déjà-vu. This is déjà double-vu. And it gets worse.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21299.h...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Isn't that the truth.
Thank you for all the links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
61. Gates and the Urge to Surge
By Ray McGovern
November 23, 2008

SNIP

As he did with the Iraq “surge” over the past two years, Gates now is talking up the prospects for an Afghan “surge.”

“The notion that things are out of control in Afghanistan or that we’re sliding toward a disaster, I think, is far too pessimistic,” Gates said.

Yet the argument that Gates used to support his relative optimism makes us veteran intelligence officers gag — at least those who remember the U.S. in Vietnam in the 1960s, the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s and other failed counterinsurgencies.

SNIP

Gates ought to read up on Vietnam, for his words evoke a similarly benighted comment by U.S. Army Col. Harry Summers after that war had been lost.

In 1974, Summers was sent to Hanoi to try to resolve the status of Americans still listed as missing. To his North Vietnamese counterpart, Col. Tu, Summers made the mistake of bragging, “You know, you never beat us on the battlefield.” Colonel Tu responded, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.”

SNIP

I’m all for civilian control of the military. But I see much more harm than good in political generals — like the anointed David Petraeus — who give ample evidence of being interested, first and foremost, in their own advancement.

Why do I say that? Because Petraeus, like McKiernan, knows Afghanistan is another quagmire. But he won’t say it.

Rather than do the right thing and brief his superiors on the realities of Afghanistan, Petraeus and the generals he has promoted seem likely to follow the time-honored practice of going along to get along.

In any event, none of them get killed or wounded. The vast majority get promoted, so long as they keep any dissenting thoughts to themselves.

It is the same pattern we witnessed regarding Vietnam. Although the most senior military brass knew, as the French learned before them, that the war/occupation could not be successful, no senior officer had the integrity and courage to speak out and try to halt the lunacy.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/112308a.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
63. no smoking gun for nine one one
There is no "smoking gun" evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy… there is not one single, conclusive piece of evidence that you could hang an alternate theory on. However, if you take a good look into the state of the art of the truth movement you will find a collection of anecdotal, empirical, circumstantial, and yes, forensic physical evidence with which to build a case. I believe the case is very strong – strong enough at least to warrant a new and truly independent investigation.

Below you will find several links, many of them from credible, mainstream sources. The mainstream media, which has been unsurprisingly "pseudo-skeptical" regarding the evidence, will only detract from the official narrative to the point where it might suggest negligence; not misfeasance or malfeasance. I believe that by considering the following four quotes we can understand why there hasn't been serious investigation into the alternate 9/11 theories by mainstream media:

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
- William Colby, former Director of the CIA (1920-1996)
Source: Derailing Democracy: The America the Media Don't Want You to See (2000), by Dave McGowan

"In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called 'alarmist' for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote 'in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media' -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies... When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market."
Source: http://www.corporations.org/media /

"The military's propaganda program largely has been aimed at Iraqis, but seems to have spilled over into the U.S. media. One briefing slide about U.S. "strategic communications" in Iraq, prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describes the 'home audience' as one of six major targets of the American side of the war."
Source: Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi Jordanian Painted As Foreign Threat To Iraq's Stability
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

"Daschle and Leahy held the most important roles in Congress, as Majority Leader and Chair of Judiciary, respectively, in the possible blockage of the PATRIOT Act, which both men had originally indicated they might oppose.

The long-time attacks on NBC News and other media outlets perceived to have a 'Liberal' bias are well known.

It should be noted that Anthrax letters were also sent to the Editor of the New York Post (a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper) and the National Enquirer offices, whose political bent, if they have one, seems difficult to discern."
Source: Corporate Media Coverage of Now-Deceased U.S. Army Bio-Researcher/Suspect Fails to Note Obvious 'Liberal' Targets of Deadly Post-9/11, Pre-War Letter Campaign
Brad Friedman, http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6237

The typical arguments against US government complicity are (1) "Thousands Would Have to Have Been Involved", (2) "Someone Would Have Blabbed", (3) "Why Would the Government Kill Its Own?" or (4), the "Incompetence Theory". These are nothing more than boilerplate denials that rationalize the dismissal of evidence and the abandonment of science, reason, and a truly independent investigation. Specifically:

1. It's a logical fallacy to assume that government complicity would require "thousands of conspirators" when the official conspiracy theory alleges it only took 19 radical Islamic fundamentalists with little more than box-cutters and airplane tickets.

2. Governments can keep secrets. The Manhattan Project (Atomic bomb) was kept secret from the American public for several years. The illegal slaughter of 40K Indonesians in East Timor between 1975 and 1976 was kept secret from the American public for almost a decade. There are plenty of precedents for governments keeping secrets. More to the point, however, is that there are whistle blowers: Ask yourself why you've never heard of Colonel Anthony Schaffer ("Able Danger" intelligence program, US Army), or Sibel Edmonds (former FBI Translator).

3. Why would the government kill its own citizens? A stock response to this might be "for the greater good", but the question itself is essentially naïve. Why would the government send thousands of soldiers to fight and die in unjust wars when the US was neither attacked, nor under the threat of an attack? The case for morality in the context of a black operation is irrelevant and there are many precedents for state-sponsored false flag terror events.

4. The Incompetence Theory is another logical fallacy: We failed in our response to the hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war is supposedly an abysmal failure… so how could the government pull off controlled demolitions (and cover up thereof) of the twin towers? The illogic of this argument is apparent when contrasted by the six manned lunar landings, the development & proliferation of nuclear energy and weapons programs, or nanotechnologies as applied to advanced biology and medicine. Governments recruit the brightest minds from the best schools – and there are privatized versions of every resource required to plan and execute a black op at the scale of 9/11.

But even after competently responding to the above skepticism, for the average American, questioning the veracity of the official story is more akin to questioning articles of faith. Therefore, it appears that the decision to not investigate 9/11 is an emotional decision, and those who defend the official story do so almost anti-intellectually (in how they selectively argue points or review the evidence). Defenders of the official conspiracy theory rarely consider the facts of 9/11. One cannot review the facts of 9/11 and still believe the official narrative, as even the authors of the official narrative (Keane & Hamilton) have admitted that they were lied to and misdirected during their investigation.

The articles and essays in the following section present some more or less divergent views of what the establishment media asserts, and most are referenced from the establishment media itself (as notated). But what does this say about media complicity in these crimes? It only takes a few people in powerful positions to affect the flow of information in any system. With the above quotes in mind, we can surmise that not everyone is/was "in on it" – and those who were complicit may have been unwittingly duped or intimidated into buying/propagating the official story; people self-censure for the sake of continued employment and pure self-interest all the time. It's nothing new.


MSM ARTICLES & ESSAYS:

The Pakistan connection
2004-07-22, The Guardian (One of the U.K.'s leading newspapers)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1266520,00....

This war on terrorism is bogus
2003-09-06, The Guardian (One of the U.K.'s leading newspapers)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1036571,...

On 7th Anniversary Of Attacks, White House Claims Bin Laden Was Not The 'Mastermind' of Sept. 11:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/seventh-anniversary... /

9/11 COMMISSION SAYS U.S. AGENCIES SLOW ITS INQUIRY (New York Times):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03EFDC...

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon: Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
2006-08-02, Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Federal agency planned plane-crashing-into-building drill Sept. 11
2002-08-22, USA Today/Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-22-sept-11-...

<9/11> Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
2001-09-23, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.st...

Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit
2008-08-05, Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1217892935700117...

Senators Accuse Pentagon of Obstructing Inquiry on Sept. 11 Plot
2005-09-22, New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/politics/22intel.html...

'State secrets privilege' blocks fired translator from suing FBI
2006-11-24, USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-23-whis...

Officer: 9/11 panel didn't receive key information (CNN):
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/17/sept.11.hijacker... /

Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained At U.S. Bases (Newsweek):
http://www.newsweek.com/id/75797

Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore "Able Danger"? (Wall Street Journal):
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007559

Getting Agnostic About 9/11 (LA Times):
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/28/magazine/tm-crg...

Why I Resigned From the CIA (LA Times):
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-...

The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket (LA Times):
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/19/opinion/oe-sche...

Lou Dobbs on CNN Asks Why Government is Lying about 9/11 (CNN):
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/09/ldt.01.h...

Bush Tells Barnes Capturing Bin Laden Is 'Not A Top Priority Use of American Resources':
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama /

Experts Urging Broader Inquiry In Towers' Fall
2001-12-25, New York Times
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40A11F...

What happened to building 7?
2008-06-06, Financial Times
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7d174b42-31fa-11dd-9b87-00007...


NON-MSM ARTICLES & ESSAYS:

9-11, Six Years Later
Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts/9-11...

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

118 Witnesses: The Firefighters' Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers
Graeme MacQueen
August 21, 2006
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_1...

9/11 Research: Molten Metal
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.ht...

Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-th...

WTC MOLTEN STEEL - THE 9/11 SMOKING GUN
http://www.takeourworldback.com/smokinggun.htm

Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=ken_hol...


SHORT CLIPS:

Jeff King, PhD (MIT):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOEe-2n-5_g (part 1: 6:04 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_P2JyU27sg (part 2: 7:58 minutes)

Debunking the "Pancake Theory", Steven E. Jones, PhD; (Brigham Young):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6KRJ4x82L0 (9:29 minutes)

Confronting the Evidence, David Ray Griffin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leY9SJAQqnU (7:29 minutes)

Molten Metal, Steven E. Jones, PhD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQkQ8LqLWu8 (4:15 minutes)

WTC high temperatures & molten steel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zww9-AaIgrw (7:41 minutes)

Molten Metal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUAWc2e_A4E (2:53 minutes)


FULL LENGTH PRESENTATIONS:

9/11 The Myth and the Reality, David Ray Griffin, PhD (Claremont University):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-27557706668821... (138 minutes)

Steven E. Jones, PhD; (Brigham Young):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMhl-S5MyAc (122 minutes)

9/11 Blueprint for Truth, Richard Gage AIA:
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm (120 minutes)

9/11: Press for Truth, "The Jersey Girls":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=397956877941413...

9/11: Fabled Enemies, Jason Bermas:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-21449331908752...


ADDITIONAL RESEARCH:

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage AIA:
http://www.ae911truth.net

http://www.911truth.org / (beginners: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2005020413215... )
http://www.journalof911studies.com /
http://www.wtc7.net /
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy... (Mike Ruppert's 9/11 timeline)


9/11 NEWS:
http://www.911blogger.com

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. Maybe no smoking guns, but certainly some powder burns and fingerprints.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #68
99. claims of no-planes and "video fakery" are part the disinformation campaign
stop peddling the no-planes bullshit or stand prepared to defend it...
i suppose the landing gear debris which pinned pedestrians on the street was "video fakery", too, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #99
108. It was a media psyops job. What corporate entities own the media? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #108
121. i suppose the media psyops also created the airplane debris that crushed pedestrians...?
... and the eyewitness reports of airliners were all media industry shills, too? or the people who confused "holograms" with "airplanes"??
you're either a complete phony, an unwitting dupe (and moron, i might add), or a disinfo agent: nobody buys the no-planes bullshit.

it's disinformation designed to taint the facts of september 11th, plain and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #121
125. I'm not calling you a disinfo agent, though I could attack you like you are me.
But as for arguing with you I won't go there. Have been there, done that too many times with others.

And, for anyone who wishes to see and decide for themselves, watch September Clues:

http://www.youtube.com/user/simonshack
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #125
144. evidence of aircraft parts directly refute the so-called no-planes "theory"
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911 .
again, anyone clinging to this anti-science based "theory" is either a complete fool or an agent of disinformation.

it does not stand up to the facts of september 11th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #99
113. The funny thing about the Truth Movement is that each camp
is absolutely convinced that their particular version of the Truth is the Real Truth and all the others are either disinfo agents or CIA plants.

Surely after seven years a consistent theory could be promulgated?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #113
122. presence of these hare-brained "theorists" should tell you something--or do you deny counter-intel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #122
136. Why do you assume that there are no people dumb enough to believe in no-planes
and other silly shit?

People believe in angels, ghosts, God and all kinds of other stuff for which there is not even a shred of evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #136
145. you cannot disprove the existence of what people call god. no-planes can be disproven.
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 07:07 AM by reinvestigate911
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #145
148. Heh, I agree, but no-planers would call you a fool.
After all, September Clues proves how it was done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #148
169. it might proven that i am a fool... just show me a survivor who believes there was no planes.
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 09:24 PM by reinvestigate911
and by survivor, i mean someone who was in the north or south tower on september 11th, 2001 before the attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #169
182. Time for a second helping of crow.
I'm sorry I was glib in my earlier responses to your posts.

It's too easy to forget that anonymous forum posters are real people with thier own thoughts and ideas. We can sometimes say things that we would never say face to face. Plus I was in a heated discussion with another poster and my emotions spilled over. Mea Culpa.

Part of the problem is that the Truth Movement has so many shitty and dishonest characters that, for me at least, it has marginalized what the more thoughtful reaearchers have to say. (There are a few exceptions here on DU, most notably JackRiddler, who has displayed the utmost fairness and integrity in his posts.)

Anyway, I did watch "9/11 Press for Truth" and I have to say that I was very impressed. It was a first-rate production, and my heart goes out to all the 9/11 families and survivors who have not had their questions answered.

While I do not doubt the veracity of all the claims made in the documentary, I do wonder if everything is quite so sinister when viewed in a different context.

For example, everyone by now knows about the August PDB and the lies that the Administration told in regards to the warnings. But what I haven't seen discussed is what was the typical volume of terror warnings in the time frame of interest. How many threats per day come in through our intelligence apparatus? Is is 10, or 10,000? Was the signal-to-noise ratio sufficiently shitty that the import of the warning was attenuated?

I've asked this question before in the Dungeon, and I don't recall anyone answering it.

Another claim that I hadn't heard before was the safe-passage of the al Qaeda fighters from the north into Pakistan. Again, assuming that this really happened, I wonder what the circumstances were in Afghan airspace at the time. Did we have AWACS in the air? Afghanistan had no airforce, so would it have been necessary to blanket the entire country with aerial reconnaissance?

Even if the flight happened with US knowledge, there may have been some Afghan cultural angle to it. The Afghans have a long history of fighting among the different warlord groups. One side wins, they slaughter some token amount of the captives, then they let everyone else escape so they can fight some more later. Again, I am not trying to be glib about this, but my reading tells me that this is not so far from the truth of Afghan politics.

I believe all the claims made in the documentary can be explained by a frantic ass-covering and flag-waving campaign by the Administration. While this is morally reprehensible, it is not atypical behavior by the government. Any government.

Anyway, I am convinced that there are enough unanswered questions to warrant a new investigation, and I have held this position for some time. Clearly there was a lot of knowledge in various pipelines that was not acted upon. If we don't understand what went wrong, then there is no assurance that it won't happen again.

PS: I don't believe CD theories and won't discuss them here. Maybe in the Dungeon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #182
184. just saw this
i appreciate the concession. not that it means anything to me personally, however i do have deep respect for anyone who can admit a mistake and more importantly, learn.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #63
72. Thank you for all these links
I've read some books on this issue, and everything I read just convinces me more and more that 9/11 and the Kean/Hamilton commission that "investigated" it are phony from top to bottom.

Welcome to DU :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #72
185. check this one out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
64. K&R !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
69. I have a compromise: We still find and kill OBL, but refuse to do any nation building/occupying
Stick to finding and destroying Al-qaeda, not on reinventing the entire middle east.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. OBL not wanted for the crime of 9/11
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 12:42 AM by reinvestigate911
but please tell me, how do does a government conscript its people to send their sons to fight and die in a resource war? you need a boogieman to do that... we needed 9/11 to do that.

This war on terrorism is bogus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #70
73. And as Operation Northwoods and Operation Gladio bear witness,
the "boogieman as motivator" concept is well understood in military and intelligence circles.

Operation Northwoods:

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe
N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662


Operation Gladio:

The Strategy of Tension

SNIP

Western anti-terror legislation does not allow the state to be considered in any way culpable for terrorist activities. As far as our elected representatives are concerned, terrorism is a problem of loosely associated groups of reactionary fanatics “attacking our freedoms”. The assumption, never explicitly stated for then it would be revealed, and easily and permanently ridiculed, is that the state is innocent, immune to indulging in such barbaric practices. Written into the rule of law itself, this assumption posits the state as a paternal Fuhrer, a God figure whom we must all entrust our lives and liberties to.

SNIP

The “strategy of tension” denotes a highly secretive series of interconnected covert operations conducted jointly by the CIA and MI6 largely in Western Europe during the this period. Well-documented by several respected historians, confirmed by official inquiries, and corroborated by former intelligence officials, the “strategy of tension” is one of those unsavoury moments in contemporary history that we don’t learn about in school, or even university.

My favourite book on the subject, and the most authoritative in my view, is Dr. Daniele Ganser’s NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (2004). Published in the UK as part of the “Contemporary Security Studies” series of London-based academic press Routledge, Ganser’s study is the first major historical work to bring the “strategy of tension” into the mainstream of scholarship.

During the Cold War, indeed through to the late 1980s, the United States, United Kingdom, and Western European governments and secret services, participated in a sophisticated NATO-backed operation to engineer terrorist attacks inside Western Europe, to be blamed on the Soviet Union. The objective was to galvanize public opinion against leftwing policies and parties, and ultimately to mobilize popular support for purportedly anti-Soviet policies at home and abroad – most of which were really designed to legitimize brutal military interventions against nationalist independence movements in the “Third World”.

http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2007/05/strategy-of-tension....


Furthermore, whatever way you want to slice and dice it, the anthrax letters were clearly a false-flag attack in that the letter with the anthrax were falsely made to look as if they had been sent by fundamentalist, Islamic terrorists. We now know the anthrax came from a US military lab, and all the evidence points to the attacks originating with someone who had access to that highly secure source of Anthrax, extremely unlikely, to say the least, to be radical, Islamic, terrorists.

Nevertheless, the anthrax letters were of course seized on by the usual suspects, i.e. the retired generals on Fox/CNN, PNACers, neocons and media whores as further evidence of boogieman Saddam and/or boogieman Osama's evil intent to kill innocent, law abiding, Jesus believing Americans if given half a chance. Which of course left the US no choice but to reluctantly defend itself against this horrendous threat by invading Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #73
96. anthrax letters, clearly false-flag terrorism
Let's look the targets and their timing:
http://www.newsgarden.org/columns/anthrax/anthraxtarget...

Senator, Target of Anthrax Letter, Challenges F.B.I. Finding:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/washington/18anthrax....

Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1217892935700117...

Anthrax Suspect Still Messing With People's Heads From Beyond The Grave
http://gawker.com/5049393/anthrax-suspect-still-messing...

no disrespect, but if you can't deduce this one, you're really, really lost at sea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #70
86. OBL is already on the 10 most wanted list. How many times would you like him to be listed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #86
95. let's ask washington, shall we?
Bush Tells Barnes Capturing Bin Laden Is 'Not A Top Priority Use of American Resources':
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama /

On 7th Anniversary Of Attacks, White House Claims Bin Laden Was Not The 'Mastermind' of Sept. 11:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/seventh-anniversary...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #86
97. guess you missed that silly movie on this very topic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. Go here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. .. and he's not listed for the crime. what's your point?
how about you read the articles in the link that you're responding too?
and when you're done, you can read these, too and then hopefully post from an informed point-of-view.

<9/11> Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
2001-09-23, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.st...

i wish he was guilty too... but he's not.

This war on terrorism is bogus
2003-09-06, The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1036571,...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. My point is that he's one the top-10 list. He was on it before 9/11.
Do you want him put on it twice? What good would that do?

I read your links. SO what - some guy on the internet says the War on Terror is bogus. Ho-hum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. considering FBI's rex tomb said “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” that's relevent how?
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 02:37 PM by reinvestigate911
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #103
107. bin Laden didn't hijack or pilot any of the aircraft. So no, there is no
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 02:49 PM by Flatulo
forensic evidence.

But as titular head of the al Qaeda organization, he approved the attacks that were planned by Khalid Shiek Mohammed.

You could read a good book called 'The Looming Tower' is you want a clear history of al Qaeda leading up to the attacks of 9/11.

Or you can ignore all the evidence and believe that Bush did it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #107
115. did i say bush did it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. you've been lied to, friend
watch and learn: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=397956877941413...

...or tap the snooze button and go back to sleep. just please stop embarrassing yourself with weak arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #105
109. Ah, the Big Gun of the Truth Movement... ...YouTube!
Here's another epic video that must be true, because, you know, it was on YouTube and everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbdzmH4CbhI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #109
112. be as snarky as you like but "press for truth" is sourced entirely from mainstream media...
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 03:11 PM by reinvestigate911
and was produced by the victim's family members, "the jersey girls". kindly take your piss-match pseudo-skepticism elsewhere, or get educated and attempt to refute facts like an adult. you may think that interest in a new 9/11 investigation is a joke, but i and millions of others do not.

you do not know the truth of 9/11, so stop pretending like you do... you are only embarrassing yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #112
116. Oh, I don't pretend to know the truth. Please don't put those words
in my mouth. I do believe that there is no evidence of CD or any nonsense that planes were not hijacked and flown into buildings.

I support a re-opening of the investigation, but mainly to establish how our intelligence apparatus failed so miserably. I am fully open to the possibility that some elements in the government were aware of the plot and failed to act. I can't see how Tenet could get off scot-free, and even get a Medal of Freedom.

The problem with an investigation is that if it gets the wrong answer, it will be considered tainted. Due to the whole three-degrees of separation thing, I think it would be impossible to get a commission that is completely free of any connections to the US government.

In that regard I expect any new investigation to fail to assuage conspiracy theorists.

And if you go back to my original entry into this thread, in which the OP posited that bin Laden had denied 9/11 culpability, I posted numerous sources where he in fact changed his story and admitted his guilt, but Truthers seemed to only see the denial, not the admissions.

That is the problem I have with this Movement. The cognizant dissonance and sheer paplable hatred of the BFEE is so seething that they have lost objectivity. If data doesn't fit their worldview, it is simply rejected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #116
119. i suggest you engage those college-honed critical thinking skills you paid so much money for and...
abandon the "cover your ass" mass-negligence bullshit that your worldview hinges on. the world is a business. the elections and the presidential campaigns are the warm fuzzy feel-good advertisements of this business... they run them every four years as opposed to primetime cable's 20 minute ad-cycle. the world is a business. and while i can't presume to know how you run your business, i don't make much money on random rolls of the dice. think about it: the game is rigged, friend.

for as much as the perpetrators stood to gain as a result of 9/11 -- all of which were things they desired in advance -- do you really think they would leave such an important plan to happen-chance? do you really think 19 alleged islamic radicals managed to "slip past" NORAD... four times? do you really think all those reports of molten steel, of secondary explosions, of pops and flashes were invented by tinfoil-hat wearing loonies?

we needed 9/11. how else were we going to get our oil out of their sand? how else do you get people to go fight and die in a war for oil...? or do you also naively believe that we are spreading democracy in the middle east? here's a newsflash: we live in a corporatocracy... and the conspiracy that binds us all together is not fomented by old men in dark hooded robes who sacrifice virgin teens at midnight on a satanic altar.

rather, the power-elite collude with financial forecasting and net profit-cost ratio projections; with the sorcery of media; with their friends in the military-industrial complex. think that's all made up, too? we conspire on the bottom line. we all have blood on our hands because we've kept silent about it... or because we've peddled their "caught with our pants down" boilerplate denial and misdirection. you "debunkers" have a greater truth to reckon with, just like all of us in the west: that is that the evil of big business and big oil has driven us to a place where these events are indeed necessary to sustain the illusion. it's on all of us.

but i assert that september 11 was a gift: it is an x-ray glimpse into the inner workings of a very sick organism. it's a gift because the perpetrators left behind so many loose ends and obvious and glaring contradictions. 110 story buildings do not crumble to dust in 10 or so seconds. it's physically impossible without an additional energy source to initiate such massive structural failure. you have to deal with that... and i beg you to consider that even NIST could not. NIST only focused on the "collapse initiation"... this could go on ad infinitum, you could post your sources and argument, and i mine... but in the end, you have to ask yourself: who am i? what i do stand for?

i was here in NYC that day. i saw those towers collapse with my two eyes. i knew the gloves were off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #119
137. Wow, did you just watch 'Network' this afternoon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #137
146. nah - but you seem to be pretty out of touch with ideas contained therein
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #146
149. No, I'm completely familiar with the premise of your screed.
I've heard it all before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #149
154. you just take joy in debate then?
it's rather surprising that someone who's "heard it all before" is somehow unable to "connect the dots".
where's the disconnect?

speaking for myself, i have yet to hear anything from supporters of the official theory that resembles a plausible, comprehensive explanation of the complete, symmetrical collapse of all three buildings into their footprints at near free-fall speed.

no one's managed to clear that little problem up... not convincingly, anyway.

also, i have yet to hear any rational explanation for all the molten steel found... of which there are numerous eyewitness reports (and physical specimens to support the testimony)... but that's just the physical evidence; the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence on its own is quite compelling (and damning).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #154
155. I've been hanging out here for a few years now, mostly in the Dungeon.
I have spent literally hundreds of hours composing carefull, thoughtful posts with the hopes of convincing even one open-minded person that the events of 9/11 can be explained by physics and engineering (which I am actually trained in). I always show all my work, and no one has ever taken any issue with my math.

However, I have completely and utterly failed to convince even one person that airplanes crashed into buildings exactly as they appeared to, and the resulting structural damage and fires were perfectly capable of making the buildings fall down exactly as they did.

I have no interest in repeating it all again with yet another person who has made up his/her mind.

In your simple one-liner ...

"... complete, symmetrical collapse of all three buildings into their footprints at near free-fall speed."

you manage to capture the three most-commonly told untruths of the Movement.

Arguing with the Truth Movement is without a doubt the most colossol waste of time that I have ever undertaken. I peck away here and there for amusement, but believe me brother, you are not going to change your mind based on anything I can tell you.

This is because your obsessive belief is based not on logic and reason, but in a deep emotional hatred of the Bush regime. It is not possible to counter emotion with objectivity, and I won't waste your time or mine trying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #155
161. your assertion is simply untrue
i could care less about the bush administration, or any government apparatus. all governments are the same, all over the world... only difference in america is that people here like to believe that they live in a free and open society, and that the government is transparent, and essentially just.

and nothing can be further from the truth.

as for the so-called collapse, i'd like to see the math that allows for 110 story building to be transformed into twisted, melted steel and dust in ten seconds.

if you ask me, you have an obsessive belief which is based not on logic and reason, but in a deep emotional need to believe that you live in the aforementioned free and open society.

...and whatever your math is based on, it can't account for molten steel and free-fall "collapse". respectfully, i think you're full of shit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #161
163. Alrighty then, I guess we're done here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #163
165. sounds more like you're done
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #155
162. just a sec
"... complete, symmetrical collapse of all three buildings into their footprints at near free-fall speed."
which part of that are you claiming is untrue?

all three buildings collapsed uniformly, symmetrically, and "at once"
all three buildings fell at near free-fall.
all three buildings were completely destroyed.

while towers one and two "collapsed" into an area substantially larger than their physical footprint, their destruction resembles more of an explosion than a collapse, which would explain the exaggerated radius of the debris field.


so dude? forest the for trees, much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #116
153. the purpose of any investigation....
should not be guided towards any predetermined scenario which you seem to prefer.
"...but mainly to establish how our intelligence apparatus failed so miserably."

It should look at all possibilities and follow all clues where ever they lead until the full accounting of the event is established IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #153
157. So should we investigate space beams and mini-nukes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #157
158. "we" won't be investigating anything.
But if there ever is an investigation it should investigate what and how 9/11 happened. Where ever the evidence leads. Any speculation such as you mention can then be eliminated if the evidence warrants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #102
123. Did you happen to read in the OP the reason why 9/11 is not listed as one of bin Laden's crimes
on the FBI list?

The FBI spokesperson said there's no hard evidence that bin Laden was involved in 9/11
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #100
110. Your YouTubing is seriously out of date. Go here to see the
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #110
114. youtubing? it's from the BBC. maybe you should send them this link in order to redact their story?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #114
130. Great job man!
I agree completely with what you've written in your posts. May I say welcome to DU, by the way? :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. I'm curious, do you also agree with his post 121? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #131
132. I do believe disinfo is used to foil any prospect of investigation...
if that's what you mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #132
133. I agree with that. But attempts to discredit with disinfo aren't limited to one research area.
Do you agree that all investigation into the remaining evidence, which includes the crucial 9/11 news footage as well as the so-called amateur 9/11 videos, is all equally worthy of investigation?

The new version of September Clues which can be viewed on youtube investigates much of this media evidence. It's not about holograms as some may think. It's about MSM psyops, otherwise called "TV Fakery". I consider it a very worthy investigation.

Anyway, not trying to put you on the spot or anything. I just tire of the attempts of many, like in the dungeon for example, to shut down the investigation into 9/11 MSM psyops. So I cannot agree completely with the above posters position as it dismisses such investigation as unworthy.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. i don't know anyone stupid enough to deny the fact that airplanes collided with WTC towers 1 & 2
...so, you are either some poor soul who's been duped into believing total bullshit (in which i case i urge you to stop posting immediately and seek professional counseling) or you are an agent of disinformation.

which is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #134
140. I know plenty of people stupid enough to believe in no-planes.
I think you give the human species far too much benefit of the doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #140
186. for those who haven't seen the argument against this "theory"
http://0x1a.com/# <[No%20Planes>]
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #130
147. thank you, and i appreciate the welcome
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #86
151. once is enough.....
but show every crime he's wanted for in the listing. Oh that's right, they don't have ANY hard evidence he had anything to do with 9/11. So when will they find out exactly who did? :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #151
166. There is hard evidence. The media record. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #166
187. one more time for the thinking impaired
http://0x1a.com/# <[No Planes>]
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
75. K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
82. America’s Wars of Self-Destruction
By Chris Hedges

Posted on Nov 17, 2008

War is a poison. It is a poison that nations and groups must at times ingest to ensure their survival. But, like any poison, it can kill you just as surely as the disease it is meant to eradicate. The poison of war courses unchecked through the body politic of the United States. We believe that because we have the capacity to wage war we have the right to wage war. We embrace the dangerous self-delusion that we are on a providential mission to save the rest of the world from itself, to implant our virtues—which we see as superior to all other virtues—on others, and that we have a right to do this by force. This belief has corrupted Republicans and Democrats alike. And if Barack Obama drinks, as it appears he will, the dark elixir of war and imperial power offered to him by the national security state, he will accelerate the downward spiral of the American empire.

Obama and those around him embrace the folly of the “war on terror.” They may want to shift the emphasis of this war to Afghanistan rather than Iraq, but this is a difference in strategy, not policy. By clinging to Iraq and expanding the war in Afghanistan, the poison will continue in deadly doses. These wars of occupation are doomed to failure. We cannot afford them. The rash of home foreclosures, the mounting job losses, the collapse of banks and the financial services industry, the poverty that is ripping apart the working class, our crumbling infrastructure and the killing of hapless Afghans in wedding parties and Iraqis by our iron fragmentation bombs are neatly interwoven. These events form a perfect circle. The costly forms of death we dispense on one side of the globe are hollowing us out from the inside at home.

The “war on terror” is an absurd war against a tactic. It posits the idea of perpetual, or what is now called “generational,” war. It has no discernable end. There is no way to define victory. It is, in metaphysical terms, a war against evil, and evil, as any good seminarian can tell you, will always be with us. The most destructive evils, however, are not those that are externalized. The most destructive are those that are internal. These hidden evils, often defined as virtues, are unleashed by our hubris, self-delusion and ignorance. Evil masquerading as good is evil in its deadliest form.

The decline of American empire began long before the current economic meltdown or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It began before the first Gulf War or Ronald Reagan. It began when we shifted, in the words of the historian Charles Maier, from an “empire of production” to an “empire of consumption.” By the end of the Vietnam War, when the costs of the war ate away at Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and domestic oil production began its steady, inexorable decline, we saw our country transformed from one that primarily produced to one that primarily consumed. We started borrowing to maintain a lifestyle we could no longer afford.We began to use force, especially in the Middle East, to feed our insatiable demand for cheap oil. The years after World War II, when the United States accounted for one-third of world exports and half of the world’s manufacturing, gave way to huge trade imbalances, outsourced jobs, rusting hulks of abandoned factories, stagnant wages and personal and public debts that most of us cannot repay.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081117_americas_w...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mark D. Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
120. If You Want To Know Why
Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 04:06 PM by Mark D.
It's rather simple. Before the 'war' (occupation), and before 9/11. Major energy companies wanted a pipeline through Afghanistan. Above them were the larger banker affiliated companies like Royal Dutch Shell (Rothschild) and Exxon Mobil (Rockefeller) and financial involvement in those companies by the family that's good friends with both and the biggest baking power in America, MORGAN.

The Taliban, which ruled, wanted a bigger cut of the profits from such a pipeline than the big energy folks wanted to give. It's about money, it always has been. Iraq the same. Sure, also partly about oil, but they sell oil for what? Money. Profit. Banker backed big energy. Bankers also finance the huge debt those wars create, and war is their most profitable business venture.

Oh. The Taliban also knocked down the Opium trade in Afghanistan by like 80%. A nice side-effect of the occupation is bringing it back again to where they're the biggest producer of it now. Opium is a pharmaceutical. The source for Heroine (originally created by Bayer). Bayer also created Methadone, the top 'treatment' for Heroine addiction. Again, profit from both sides of the 'battle'.

How is this related? During WW2, Bayer and BASF combined to form IG Farben. The top supplier of chemical weapons to the Nazis. The bigger banker in the pharma business at the time? JD Rockefeller II. His Chase bank financed the Third Reich. Chase is located next to the NY Federal Reserve. Chase is the top bank utilized by the UN. You get the idea. Google IG Farben if you get the chance.

What do you see on Wiki? Look familiar? It's a handicapped sticker image of a disabled person in a wheelchair, in a laboratory flask. We knew how the Nazi's experimented on humans, and especially the less fortunate. We have that today. We have 'drugs' to treat but almost never cure. What was the last disease they really cured? Note the commercials with the list of side effects.

The same big companies, Bayer, Dow, Monsanto, that often make pesticides and other frequently used carcinogenic chemicals also make chemotherapy. The side effect of many types of chemo is cancer. The idea is continual profit. Don't cure disease, treat it. Their goal is to make cancer a manageable or chronic type disease. You get it, you get treatment for life, if you want to stay alive.

I digressed a bit, but it goes back to what the big oil power, Rockefeller, has for its second most profitable line of business. Pharmaceuticals. The two biggest beneficiaries of the Afghan occupation? Big Oil and Opium (Big Pharma). Look who profited from it. Look who never gets mentioned for that role and profit in the MSM owned by the same elite (Rothschild / GE - Morgan).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
135. Kicking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
141. kick. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamHenryMee Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
189. Russian experience in Afghanistan and Why we don't torture
Once again a great blog. I saw a replay of an amazing television program by PBS that really brings a realism to our situation in Iraq---maybe even more so than our past comparisons to Vietnam. The chilling part of this all is Senator John McCain’s comment to a question about us staying in Iraq for 50 years and his retort was that it might be more like 100 years and he would back that occupation. LATER WHEN QUESTIONED HE SAID 1,000 YEARS or until the end of global climate change (imagine this at $10 billion dollars a month). The 63 years comes from our occupation of Japan and Germany and the 50 years for Korea. 100 years if you fast forward it would leave us like a busted up Soviet Union with rich states like Texas seceding from the union and everyone in a depression.

Anyway back to the PBS TV program---about the Soviet Union’s preemptive invasion and subsequent ten year occupation of Afghanistan. A country with a much larger military, slightly larger in population, with more natural resources and smaller in economy than the United States. Here we are in recession after just six years—wait until ten years of Iraq occupation like the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan!!!!!!!

From the PBS series “The People’s Century” Episode: “Guerilla Wars”-----
Despite their small numbers, guerrilla movements defeat larger, more sophisticated military forces in Cuba, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. In addition to using the natural terrain to their advantage, the movements' strong political philosophies inspire the loyalty of peasants.
Unit Themes and Topics:
the Cuban Revolution
geography
guerrilla warfare
human endurance
the Soviet war in Afghanistan
the Vietnam War
The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 after losing 15,000 killed and 35,000 wounded.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan_...
Started on December 25, 1979. CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980. The force that entered Afghanistan, in addition to the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, was under command of the 40th Army and consisted of the 108th and 5th Guards Motor Rifle Divisions, the 860th Separate Motor Rifle Regiment, the 56th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade, the 36th Mixed Air Corps. Later on the 201st and 58th Motor Rifle Divisions also entered the country, along with other smaller units. Soviet force was comprised of around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFV. In the second week alone, Soviet aircraft had made a total of 4,000 flights into Kabul. The Soviet force rose with the arrival of the two later divisions to over 100,000. Under Soviet guidance, the DRA (?) armed forces were built up to an official strength of 302,000 in 1986. To minimize the risk of a coup d'état, they were divided into different branches, each modeled on its Soviet counterpart. The ministry of defense forces numbered 132,000, the ministry of interior 70,000 and the ministry of state security (KHAD) 80,000. However, these were theoretical figures: in reality each service was plagued with desertions, the army alone suffering 32,000 per year.

Official Soviet personnel strengths and casualties
Between December 25, 1979 and February 15, 1989 a total of 620,000 soldiers served with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000-104,000 force at one time ), 525,000 in the Army, 90,000 with border troops and other KGB sub-units, 5,000 in independent formations of MVD Internal Troops and police. A further 21,000 personnel were with the Soviet troop contingent over the same period doing various white collar or manual jobs.
The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier and internal security troops came to 14,453. Soviet Army formations, units and HQ elements lost 13,833, KGB sub units lost 572, MVD formations lost 28 and other ministries and departments lost 20 men. During this period 417 servicemen were missing in action or taken prisoner; 119 of these were later freed, of whom 97 returned to the USSR and 22 went to other countries.
There were 469,685 sick and wounded, of whom 53,753 or 11.44 percent, were wounded, injured or sustained concussion and 415,932 (88.56 percent) fell sick. A high proportion of casualties were those who fell ill. This was because of local climatic and sanitary conditions, which were such that acute infections spread rapidly among the troops. There were 115,308 cases of infectious Hepatitis, 31,080 of Typhoid fever and 140,665 of other diseases. Of the 11,654 who were discharged from the army after being wounded, maimed or contracting serious diseases, 92 percent, or 10,751 men were left disabled.
Material losses were as follows:
118 aircraft
333 helicopters
147 tanks
1,314 Armored personnel carrier
433 artillery guns and mortars
1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
510 engineering vehicles
11,369 trucks and petrol tankers
Over 1 million Afghans were killed. 5 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, 1/3 of the prewar population of the country. Another 2 million Afghans were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, one out of two refugees in the world was an Afghan. Along with fatalities were 1.2 million Afghans disabled - both Mujahideen and noncombatants -and 3 million maimed or wounded - primarily noncombatants.

The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 after losing 15,000 killed and 35,000 wounded.
This is taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan_...
We are at that 35,000 wounded figure now in Iraq.

The war started on December 25, 1979. CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980. The Soviet force was comprised of around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFV; then rose with the arrival of two more divisions to over 100,000. Under Soviet guidance, the Afghan armed forces were built up to an official strength of 302,000 in 1986. We once had that number in the new Iraqi Army. The Afghanistan armed forces were plagued with desertions, the army alone suffering 32,000 per year. Sounds familiar?

Soviet material losses were as follows: 118 aircraft, 333 helicopters, 147 tanks (each one of ours is a billion dollars and we have lost more), 1,314 Armored personnel carriers, 11,369 trucks and petrol tankers. Over 1 million Afghans were killed (over 1 million Iraqis have been killed). 5 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, 1/3 of the prewar population of the country, and another 2 million Afghans were displaced within the country (similar to Iraq).

The true cost of war/occupation in Iraq are the above. But we also have the $9 billion dollars in cash sent on pallets that went unaccounted for. The last two years of reports from the GAO have unearthed massive contractual fraud, war profiteering, overcharging, and defective materials provided by Halliburton for which Dick Cheney is still accumulating stock options. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), Downing Street Memo, the oil maps of Iraq at Cheney’s Task Force in 2001, and the FISA requests to the Telecom companies in 2001; all show the war was preplanned before 9-11. Any way you slice it---it stinks like Watergate or Teapot Dome Scandal.


TORTURE:
In the founding of this country, our commanding general in the revolution, George Washington,
was approached by his officers who asked for permission to torture British prisoners. The British used torture-to-the-death for both soldiers and civilians---even women. They were particularly gruesome in their treatment of prisoners and often piled on thousands into prison ships in New York harbor---almost no one survived being a prisoner. They literally "rotted to death." Our officers wanted something even worse as a revenge. To make a political statement to the British slugs. Washington decided that a country founded on freedom was better than its enemies and we would not torture. In fact, we would befriend the prisoners and give them the same food and drink that our own soldiers had. Even though we had little to spare. This made it easy for the Hessians to surrender at Trenton in 1776. Had they fought the British, who tortured, they would have had to fight to the death instead.

In all of our wars, this practice saved much bloodshed. Wars ended earlier. We took the morally right and just position.

In World War II, we were challenged again by the Japanese whose cultural practices could not understand or accept surrender. Yet, we did not torture and held those accountable who did torture through the International Courts. The Japanese used waterboarding against Americans. Many times Americans guess what their captors wanted to hear and they made up information to give them (official US military after-action accounts). So how effective is torture?

Nations around the world adopted our practices. To torture now, although convenient---would jeopardize our moral standing in the world. We broke the vicious Japanese and Germans with kindness at their trials. They realized a compassionate democracy was more powerful than any dictatorship or religion. It might take longer but it would ultimately prevail and be morally right.

John McCain in his failed campaign demonstrated he was a soldier at heart and incapable of viewing war as a citizen like George Washington said a President should (thus the new role of "commander in chief" is different than the "commanding general" role General Washington played). McCain was really trying to re-fight the War in Vietnam and win it. A war that was un-winnable as it became a jungle guerrilla war. An un-winnable "occupation" as the Iraq War has become. McCain cannot let go of his past to accept the future. He cannot accept the fact that we have lost the war in Vietnam just as the Soviets lost the ten year war in Afghanistan (1979-1989). We have won the Iraq War and lost the occupation of Iraq. We lost it when the President and his Administration knowingly lied us into the war---the Iraq people know these facts whether or not the American People choose to believe it or not. We lost this occupation when the troop strength was reduced and when arms were not secured. We lost it when our contracts went only to Bush campaign contributors and huge cost overruns and $9 Billion dollars in missing cash on pallets went unaccounted for. McCain oversaw this and said nothing. This is what also happened in Vietnam so maybe he was use to it. The military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us against profited immensely while the nation borne the costs of lives and billions that the Vietnam War cost us. Those complicit in the torture scandal (Even McCain?) and the degradation of the American Military should now be held publicly accountable. Or Bush can accept all blame in a civil suit against his family's assets to be seized and set up a fund for wounded U.S. Soldiers. This is the Bush LEGACY.

Thanks for reading this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
190. a kick
for those not lucky enough to read this excellent post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #190
191. and a plummet
Doesn't it feel good to have your man-keeping-you-down fantasies stroked so succinctly on a Sunday morning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #191
192. you don't make yourself look too intelligent.
this is a forum. it's not for acting tuffer and more superior than you really are out in the real world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I814U Donating Member (65 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-09 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
194. So how do we get Obama to reveal the truth?
We elected Obama to end these disastrous wars, to bring out the truth and healing to a world all but ruined by the neocons (I can't blame Bush, I don't think he has the requisite synaptic structure to conceive of, much less execute, such a plan).

I'm afraid I don't have much faith with the WH being packed with Clinton apparatchiks. Clinton's DOJ once issued an indictment against UBL even going so far linking him to Saddam Hussein. Now with Hillary taking over Foggy Bottom I fear the bottom will only get foggier. Will she reverse US policy on UBL that has been in place for almost 15 years in solidarity with Obama or will she protect Bill--and by extension--the neocons?

Here are the questions in my mind:

* Do we simply pull out the troops and say, "Sorry, wrong house" or do we owe the Iraqis and Afghanis reparations and the Hague a few dozen heads on sticks?

* Will Obama rock the boat?

* What if he doesn't want to rock the boat, choosing to defy we who elected him in favor of not fighting the entrenched crooks and liars?

* What's the worst thing we can do if Obama allows the lies to remain lies: threaten to not vote for him in 2012 thus handing the country back to the rethuglicans?

* If he doesn't expose the criminals and their crimes offering a full explanation does he become party to the rime by aiding and abetting the cover-up?

* How do we prod/help Obama to get this done?

We have all the answers and evidence we need; what we lack are practical courses of action. And don't think just because Bush is leaving the WH the world will suddenly be free of criminal incursions because I'm sure the bombs will still be raining on Gaza 15 days from now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-09 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #194
195. I suggesting hiding and watching.
It's worked so well for the Truth Movement before now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I814U Donating Member (65 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #195
196. You know what you get when you hide and watch criminals?
More crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC