9-11 Conspiracy

Good talking to you again too. Hope all is well with you and your family.And like I told, Straggler, if we were hanging out drinking a few beers we'd agree on a lot more than you think, but it's fun to antagonize a debate every now and then so, you know, it's all in good fun. I can agree with that, but I'd also add that the Muslims who are sympathetic to the west, like Americans with Bush/Cheney, are those who stand to gain from siding with the west. In the case of the Muslims it may be those of a more moderate opinion who don't hold so strict to Islamic rule, see the financial benefits to siding with the west (I hope it's not 'cause their envious of our culture) and would support western ideologies. Yes, but these opinions don't necessarily mean that they support the west. They're just tired of the fighting, so I think OBL himself could still be held in high regards, even by those who want the fighting to stop. Not all of course, maybe not even most, but some I would imagine fall under this catagory.Basically, they hate the west, can appreciate the cause that OBL is fighting for, but simply wish for the fighting to end. Fair enough, I'll agree with that. In fact, if I recall correctly, it's been most the religous figures in the Muslim faith that usually have the problem with capitalism. Well, at least they're not currently treated as second class citizens, like the Palestinian are. Israel is a representative of the US and of modern culture, their current treatment of the Palestinians doesn't set, or elevate them to, this standard.Israel is an oppressive nation, currently, under it's current government. If the US was really a nation that helps the weak, we would not allow this.However, instead of that, we continue to fund their illegal wars, their occupation and military control.From Amnesty International: Source

quote:

---

"Legally and morally, this U.S. arms shipment should have been halted by the Obama administration given the evidence of war crimes resulting from military equipment and munitions of this kind used by the Israeli forces," said Brian Wood, arms control campaign manager for Amnesty International. "Arms supplies in these circumstances are contrary to provisions in U.S. law."

---

The bias move then, if the Palestinians fight back, or elect a hardcore, BIG balls political party like Hamas, is to consider them terrorist. In my opinion, the US needs to stop funding these wars. Take control of Israel and try to find peace with the Palestinians, and equally share the country. BOTH sides need to be charged with the war crimes they commited, bringing fair, and balanced justice to the region. Agreed.However... I think we may be shocked to find out that the "extremist", in their eyes, are us, the US military. Their fellow Muslims who are fighting us, even though they may not agree with them fighting and just want things to stop, are not "extremist", they're simply strong willed Muslim who are willing to fight for their land. Something some of the ones who aren't fighting wish they had the courage to do. We can't so long as we are the biggest supporters of oppression and inequality in the eyes of the Muslim world. I direct you again to Amnesty Internationals article:

quote:

---

this U.S. arms shipment should have been halted by the Obama administration given the evidence of war crimes resulting from military equipment and munitions of this kind used by the Israeli forces

---

I agree!And the guy who came from an oil family, who was elected as chief executive officer of the US, did everything in his power to get himself, and "his friends", onto that piece of property - even knowingly allow information about an attack to go unregarded, and set up distractions to throw off NORAD/FAA/Air traffic controlers. Now hows that for a fuck'n conspiracy theory? ...or, get my head blown off from a moving convertible trying. - OniEdited by onifre, : added "currently" to second class citizens

Not what I meant at all.I meant the overall US agenda. Individual soldiers have my full respect. I'll read it when I get a chance, thanks. That goes further than I meant. Presidents can declare war, but who knows why they're doing it. Bush, in my opinion, did it because of his ties to oil and the desire to control it - more or less.Who cares who is leading them into battle when the motives are greed? Curiously, what got the US into WWII? Wasn't it also a single act of "terrorism"? Kuwaiti oil is a good cause to send troops into harms way? There is only a need for a military when you are a nation like ours that proliferates tyranny, oppression and global hegemony. How badass is Canada's military? Swedens? etc.The need for a military, especially one as big as ours, is another one of the illusions drilled into our heads, promoted through fear tactics, and is insulting to free thinkers, IMO. Again, I'm not refering to individual servicemen.When I say the Defense Industry I mean the manufacturers of the weapons, fighterjets, munisions, tanks, guns, bullets, missiles, etc. In other words, the Nike of the military defense program. Those guys need war, I don't think that's a big mystery. They would be out of a job with out war, wouldn't they?- Oni

Well, this may be how you've interpreted it, but I'm not making a case for neither side to be of a "gospel" quality.Plus, that wasn't my point per se, that was just a point that I quoted.One of the 3 sides, or 2, or all 3, are involved in some sort of cover-up. The NORAD timelines where what NORAD claimed was right for 2-3 years. We must keep that in mind, they did not deviate from those timelines until after the FAA tapes and the NORAD tapes were brought to light.I'll accept your point that they were just covering up their mistakes, fine, but they lied to Congress, to the Commission, and to the general public for 2-3 years, is that not enough to declair that they commited perjury? The evidence was provided by you. NORAD gave their timline 9/18/01, the 911 Commssions final report was, I believe, on 5/27/04, more or less.Do the math.During that time NORAD never said "hey, we might be off on our timelines", they stuck to their guns about the original timelines. The overall end result was the convenient part. It showed what they wanted it to show, IMO. They had their own tapes, they had access to it, HOWEVER, they never deviated from the timelines they gave on 9/18/01.Why, only after they Commissions final review, do they then accept that they were, as you say, "wrong" about the timelines?There was planty of time to review everything the Commission was reviewing and give the right timelines on their own. But they didn't, for 2-3 years they held to the timelines they gave on 9/18 and that's what I question...why? So what, you're breaking up with me? ...Ok, ok, I get it. My point exactly Dr. If they had the tapes, for 2- years, why would they stick to their original timelines? Didn't anyone think of listening to the tapes? Why did the Commission have to do it, 3 years later? It's not just an issue of 19 minutes, but I'm not going back through these posts to try and desipher all of the timelines again.Here's the real issue:NORAD lied to Congress, the Commission and to the public, IMO. Of course most don't view it as a lie, just as a simple screw up.I do see it as a lie however, because they had the tapes, they had access to all the evidence, and for 2-3 years they stuck to the original timelines.However, my point, that NORAD lied, falls apart IF NORAD wasn't lying about those timelines, and was forced to change their original timelines for reasons that are beyond my knowledge.Not that this is a fact, but that type of senario releases NORAD from being the guilty party, and we would then have to shift focus onto who directed the final report to say what it said, and WHY, having access to the tapes, did NORAD stick to the original timlines?Given that NORAD held to those timelines, I would say that NORAD's timelines are the correct ones. Keep in mind, we're not talking about a guy with a note pad writing this stuff down as it happened, those timelines were real time recorded using sophisticated equipment, so why exactly did they confuse the timelines?But lets say they did, some how, fuck up the timelines, it still leaves the question of why, having access to the tape, did they lie.It suggests to me, that the screw ups where part of a deliberatly placed confusion involving war-games and Cheney. Being at the helm of the war-games and NORAD that day, IMO, makes Cheney involved in some way. How involved, I don't know.I will admit, before you call me on this, that I am swinging in the dark with that above opinion.- OniEdited by onifre, : cleaned up final comments

Thanks for the link, xong. I don't doubt that racism still exists for them, and many other, if not all, minorities.But I don't feel they're treated as "second class" citizens in day to day activities, such as buying a car, or an apartment, etc.Hell, every time I leave one of their casinos having lost my ass on No-Limit Hold'em I feel like the second class citizens.- Oni

Oh, I agree, to a certain extent, that our part in the war was helpful. I doubt that our allies needed us to win, though.But we could have gone into the war before Pearl Harbor, but we didn't, we went in after Pearl Harbor, making that single act of "terrorism" the reason why we went in. That, coupled with WWII propaganda, got the US public behind the war. The propaganda was pushed by President Roosevelt, and the Defense Industry.Here's a great essay on it: WWII Propaganda

quote:

---

Propaganda in the U.S. During WWII

​

We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy's side of the front is always propaganda, and what is said on our side of the front is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for peace.1 This essay offers a brief introduction to the propaganda used in the United States between 1941-1945. The main goal of propaganda during World War II was manipulation of public opinion. The manipulation of the American public’s emotions was sometimes subtle, as in Norman Rockwell’s The Four Freedoms, and often explicit as in Walt Disney’s The Fuhrer’s Face. This essay examines movies, posters, and pictures of the war and within each of these formats explores race, religion, and gender to analyze the manipulative forces of propaganda. Because the war was so broadly accepted there will a short section of anti-war and peace movement propaganda to represent the minority of people who weren’t spirited for The Good War.

---

Also, Psychological Operations (United States) helps gain the trust of foreign governments, and their citizens. (this is relevant to our discussion of Muslim support for the US).

quote:

---

The purpose of United States psychological operations (PSYOP) is to induce or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to U.S. objectives. It can be used at the strategic, operational, also known as Psychological warfare, level or at the tactical level. Strategic psychological operations are done by government agencies other than the military, except, if delegated to the military, in major wars and at the level of theaters of operations.

​

Psychological operations are a subset of information operations, defined as:

​

Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives. Also called PSYOP. [1]

---

In a sense, yes. But in the propaganda campaign and in the "image of evil" campaign, it's the same tactics used for both. That's a very eloquent way of saying "we didn't want Hussein to get his hands on their oil". A coalition of the "needy", as I like to refer to it. Agreed.But I'm skeptical about it being a conscience decision, rather than a financial one. I've heard many facts to support the latter. Agreed. Cool, I'm all for it. - Oni

Thanks for the info, Theodoric. I also live near a reservation, Miccosukee Indians of Florida.I agree that a case can be made for any minority to be looked at as second class citizens. I'm hispanic, many in my family see themselves treated this way also. But in comparison, in the overall regards to the Native Indians -vs- the Palestinians, I would have to argue that the clear second class citizen would have to be Palestinians, again, specific cases not with standing.Blacks in the US could also make a case for being considered second class citizens, and they do sometimes. But again, it pales in comparison to what the Palestinians endure.But I do see your point, and I hope you see mine in regards to the Palestinians.- Oni

Well, cool. Boricua!Me, too. I'm often confused with Italian. I'm from cuban parents. I was born here in the US, but both of my parents family are from Spain. My dad is almost blonde, my mother however, has beautiful spanish features (straight black hair, dark eyes, pocelain skin) - almost like Cher. My dad, when he got to this country, since he looked American, would only get spoken to in English, which he knew barely any of, except for "yes". I think he agreed to almost everything since that's the only word he knew. But, like you, I'm very under the radar, though.Here in Miami I don't deal as much with the racism, and usually when I travel I don't either, like I said, I'm confused with Italian. However, every now and then, on stage in certain states in the south, I'll do a joke referencing my hispanic background and I can feel the room change their tone.The fun thing for me is to catch Mexicans, or other hispanics, talking crap about me in spanish, then watch their face as I address them in spanish...it's priceless. - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

It's about as hard as shooting a president from a moving convertible in broad day light, then disposing of the only person who could testify. The average citizens just accepts that what he is told in the news by the elected officials is truth, and nothing else can be discussed against what they've said for risk of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist."All you get from the news is "half-truths, anecdotes, jumbled up stories that are manufactured" - you can't signal out one side of doing something that is a standard operating procedure done by the other side.We don't have a fair and balanced news source in the US, we have corporate news that is watered down and controled to maintain the agenda. If nothing else, "conspiracy theorist" try to give an independent account of what took place - at least it's free press. If they're wrong, who cares? Everyones wrong once in a while - including the mainstream news.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Yes, I'm quite serious. The easiest explanation seems to be the easier one to swallow; the veracity has nothing to do with it.I'm not saying people are "drones", people are simply preoccupied with their day to day lives and don't have time to check everything they hear on the news. The easiest thing to do is to listen to the news and accept that it's true. In fact, most people don't have any personal motives to check these stories for truth. Your claim that the conspiracy theories are littered with "half-truths, anecdotes, jumbled up stories that are manufactured" is the same thing that the mainstream media is littered with, so whats the difference? A personal inquiry into the matters is what's usually best, but for the most part people don't have the time or the motivation to do this. Don't trust either side is my point. The thing about mainstream America is that they tend to believe in numerous stories that come from the mainstream news... No, see that's the closed minded point of view. Each individual case can be dealt with without believing anything else about any other story.How many people believe in God but don't take the bible literally? How many do? How many take parts of it literally and other parts not so literal? The point is you can't pigeon-hole people into one type of mind set because peoples beliefs vary.I accept that there is a 911 "cover-up", not a conspiracy. I also accept that there is a JFK "cover-up" not a conspiracy. The details of both can go from the lunatic idea to the minor quibble of a few details. But don't presume that anyone who finds issues with certain parts of a story will just believe any dumb thing said by conspiracy theories. Oh please, look at the history of this country's political and military actions, if you trust what they say then you are as blind to their lies as the people you claim to be conspiracy theorist are. This goes for both sides. You don't know what the government is doing anymore than I do, or anyone else not involved in any top level politics. You sure paint a pretty picture of some fantasy world in which anyone who has a different perspective is automatically labeled a World of Warcraft playing hermit who lives in their mom's basement. I can assure you that I do not fit that bill. But I'll give you a few more chances to guess my background, however, note that when you are done painting a characterization of me, it will be my turn to paint one of you, and I won't play nice. No I am not. I have an issue with a few things about the currently accepted story, again, not everyone that takes issue with mainstream stories is a "conspiracy theorist". Take some time to read all of the previeous posts and reply to the one that you take issue with.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Cool... Oh, I'll admit that conspiracy theorist had a field day with 911, which is also why I usually don't like conspiracy theorist, because they make a mockery out of actual inquiry.Initially, just to have fun with the guys on this site, I began my position with typical conspiracy theory point of views. You'll find that many here are a bit too serious when debating, have fun exploiting that if you want, I usually do.But, since then, Dr. A and I have narrowed down our debate to just the tapes, both from NORAD and the FAA, and I've continued to argue for a cover-up with that specific issue.I also feel that the Bush admin knew about an attack on the US was coming and ignored all of the warnings, for what reason? I don't know. But finding out will be harder than just accepting that it was for some unknown reason, beyond simply saying "they screwed up".I'm doubtful of the timelines, which are correct? The ones that NORAD stuck to for 3 years, or the ones the 911 Commission said was the right one after reviewing all of the tapes? If it's the 911 Commissions timelines then why did NORAD not adjust their original timelines, having access to the same tapes the 911 Commission did?I don't think Bush had something to do with the attacks. I don't think the towers were controlled demo (however, I will say this, there is no full description as to how or why the towers fell the way they did. The report by NIST is crap). I don't think there is a single mastermind behind 911 some where in our government.I do feel that the folks responsible for 911 goes beyond Osama Bin Laden. I feel that more should have been done to find out who financed this attack. I feel nothing was done because the governments who supported OBL and possibily financed the attacks have ties with the Bush family and to our government. No need to show these connections to the American public, I think, was their attitude.The fact is there are no "experts in the field" giving any answers to any of this. The experts dealt with the towers and their collapes (and have not done, to this day, IMO, a good job), not all this other mess. This other mess was taken care off behind the publics eye and then things like the "911 Commissions Report" come out and that's the final verdict. And we must accept it even when it is different from the original reports and when they've omitted information that had relevence to the attacks...such as who financed it.This is just a quick version of where I stand. My original posts were more for fun than anything else. I didn't think anyone would even want to argue any of this, but once I found myself in an actual debate I felt the need to clarify my position and brush off the conspiracy label with a more sensible position.If you'd like to discuss these particulars then cool, but if you want to debate whether Bush orchestrated the attacks, or that the tower were controlled demos ( again, I don't think it was a controlled demo, but I still don't know how they fell that way), or some other typical conspiracy theory, then I won't be game for that. I would have originally, because of boredom, but once it because a legitimate debate then I'd have to drop the conspiracy crap and get serious with the facts.The shitty thing about conspiracy theories, like I said, is that they get made a mockery of. There are a lot of people investigating these issues, but not in a conspiratorial way. Many are just curious and don't believe what has been given to us to believe. Many are simply conducting honest inquiry into the matter, many are just exploiting certain anomilies with no real points to make. But, I think that more needed to be done in the investigating of this tragedy and sadly, the 911 Commissions Report, the NIST's report, the Popular Mechanics reports, FEMA's report, etc, fail miseribly in their attempt to explain. In fact, FEMA's and the NIST's account on the failures of the columns are different. So, even they can't get the stroy right. But we'll deal with all this if you care to debate it.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This seems to be the popular position, perhaps I need to reevaluate the way I'm looking at the issue; everyone seems to support this position that you are advocating. I can agree with that. I guess I over stated that. I simply meant that it wasn't well done. It could have been a lot better. There are many loss ends. But again, I guess I need to reevaluate the way I'm looking at the evidence. I agree with this 100%.I'll also add that if our current support of Israel and lack of support for the ME countries continues, we will not see any change in the way the Muslim world sees the US.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

It seems like I'm the only one viewing it as a lie, rather than simply a mistake.The way I'm looking at is as such: They had the evidence, they had the tapes, they had their original timelines, however, it took the 911 Commission to give all the correct timelines and it seems to me that NORAD could have done that without the Commission. The only other position I can take is that the Commission seeked the huge bugget that the got to do their report and had NORAD given the correct timelines to begin with, they wouldn't have seen dime one.Like I told Devils Advocate, perhaps I simply need to reevaluate the way I'm looking at the evidence.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

No worries GM I got nothing but time , and your post are always worth reading. The only problem I'm having is that NORAD's timelines can't just be wrong because the Commission and tapes said so and that's the end of the questioning. WHY did NORAD get those times wrong? It's not like someone at NORAD is writing down the times in a note pad.So how? How did they get those timelines wrong?This is the only thing that I have not been able to look past, as easy as you guys have.And no, we don't need to implement the entire FAA and NEADS, just the people who gave the final report. A report mind you that was the Bush/Cheney approved version.To you guys this is nothing more than a mistake realized and corrected by the Commission in their final report, and I agree, those are the facts, but how on earth did NORAD get those timelines wrong? It's not some half-ass operation. Even if we agree that they got the timelimes wrong, is there no reason to question why? And they held to those timelines for 3 years, shouldn't that make us question how accurate NORAD takes these time frames during an emergency? Semantics. Anyone that muders in the name of religion, political opinion, race, etc, is a fundamentalist. Religion need not be a factor at all. This is just limited by their budget. If "terrorist" had the funding that the US gives Israel they wouldn't be launching shitty missiles and blowing themselves up. They'd be a "highly organised and professional armed force", as you called the US/UK. Terrorism is one of those words that the UN hasn't wanted to define because (1) no one can agree what terrorism actually is, (2) it would show that the US/UK are terrorist.But they've taken a few stabes at it. Let's see if the US and their current invasion of Iraq, or, Israel and their current oppression of Palestine, fits the definition:

quote:

---

The United Nations states that "The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols. The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Proposed definitions include:

​

1. League of Nations Convention (1937): "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".
2. UN Resolution language (1999):"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed; 2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)
3. Short legal definition proposed by Alex P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992): Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime
4. Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 discusses terrorism and is a primary UN authority for terrorism because it was issued under Chapter VII UN authority.

​

Resolution 1566 refers to it as:

​

criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

​

UN Security Council Resolution 1566
On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

​

The General Assembly resolution 49/60, titled "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism," adopted on December 9, 1994, contains a provision describing terrorism:

​

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

​

According to Antonio Cassese, that provision "sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism."

---

So, according to Antonio Cassese and his approval of these definitions, I would say that the US and Israel are in an "acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."...the only difference is, we don't "see" it as criminal from this side of the fence, but it most certainly is criminal...and you know it. Not if the mistakes and cover-ups are found to be guilded by Bush/Cheney, who have ties with these Saudi oil folks, who have ties with OBL.And the funding of the attacks was never established, and no one is currently looking for it. It has been swept. It's enough.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

What if the "motive" was to invade Iraq, and we know from the Pearl Harbor incident that a single act of terrorism will lead Americans to support a war, wouldn't ignoring a threat from a known Islamic fundamentalist be worth ignoring to ignite a war in the Middel East? How else could we invade that area? A massive terrorist attack did exactly what was needed. Now, I don't think it was known when and where, so lets not go that route.Our troops, due to 911, are now in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have always been in Saudi Arabia, so what country does that place in the middle? - Iran. Plus Israel? Can you say "Total Fuck'n Control". Yes, I do...and why? Because you need the support of the American public, and that's what they got. 911 was the catalist to the Iraq invasion. There was no way anyone was going to support going back to war against Iraq. It's almost a known reason. 911 helped the Bush admin build a campaign against Iraq.You tell me, how else would our government been able to invade Iraq?- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This would not have been enough to get the public behind going to war. In fact, even after 911 there was still apprehention by the genereal public, that's why the Bush admin increased the lies about Saddam and Iraq. So no, I don't think anything other than a massive homebase attack would have gotten the patriotic Americans to invade another country with brown people. Well if we're going to start setting up scenarios, sure, eventually you can come up with a scenario that might ignite a war, but this is irrelevant and seems like guessing at best. The closes example I can find is the attack on the USS. Cole, end result? Nothing.It took the towers to be attacked, and the Pentagon, but I imagine the towers would have been enough, to get us into Afgahnistan...not even the attacks on the USS. Cole did it. So what evidence do you have to support your guess work about other types of means to get the US into Iraq?Also, it seems that a consiracy theory is only good when trying to prove a point, eh? - The US is going to knowingly place a pilot in harms way just to go into Iraq? I don't buy it. That's a very weak arguement.Ignoring an at-home attack from a known Islamic fundie is the best way to go. And they did. And they attacked. And now we're in Iraq, Afgahnistan, and Saudi Arabia...conclusion: Iran is fucked. That's way off. While I'll agree that the middle of the country is usually pro-republican, it's way off from 100%, and mega church supporters. Don't let the media bullshit you about the south. They are still very educated people, not a bunch of dumb country rednecks who worship the every words of Limbaugh and FoxNews. I go through the south a lot, these people are smart, educated in current affairs and understand the current global issues. They get painted a picture of that doesn't accurately discribe them. In fact, I have encountered plenty of atheists throughout the south as well, the media doesn't do them justice.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.