Bush authorized 911 attacks??

Gurgle

Two questions for the experts on the arab world:

1. What is the emergency phone number used in the area, 999? 911?
2. Which way round do they write dates ?

Always seemed a bit too 'american' a message. I was convinced at the time that it had to be domestic terrorists.

(Tin foil hat on, flux capacitor powered up....)

Moriarty

You're of course presuming that they were too thick to think exactly what you just thought.

pickarooney

Gurgle wrote:

Two questions for the experts on the arab world:

1. What is the emergency phone number used in the area, 999? 911?
2. Which way round do they write dates ?

Always seemed a bit too 'american' a message. I was convinced at the time that it had to be domestic terrorists.

(Tin foil hat on, flux capacitor powered up....)

A lot of them don't even use the same calendar.

pwd

When it comes down to it, they already have made decisions which directly cause the deaths of their own citizens (pollution law, gun law, declaration of unnecessary wars), so why is the idea of them doing this any more far-fetched than that?

Moriarty

When it comes down to it, people already eat fatty foods, speed on the roads, don't exercise and pursue generally dangerous lifestyles, so why is the idea of people committing mass suicide far-fetched?

pwd

well it's something people usually do in private...but an awful lot of people do actually kill themselves yes and often those actions you list are motivated by the same sort of [suicidal] impulse,,, especially when they are taken to extremes.
so thanks for supporting my point?

monument

pwd wrote:

The choice of target doesn't make all that much sense from the point of view of Arab terrorists, imo.
The world trade centre was an international institution, rather than a purely American one. There were a great mix of nationalities in it at the time of the event.
It was extremely impolitic to target it.
It aroused the fear and outrage of every country not totally anti-american to a much greater extent than other targets may have.
Would flying into a nuclear power plant not be a more impressive feat for a genuine attack by outsiders? This would be far more destructive wouldn't it? and it would have been targetting America more specifically.
For exactly the same reasons, the choice of target makes perfect sense for the american government.

Fine, come up with conspiracy theories, but don’t start finding plot holes where there are none.

The world trade is seen as a western, colonial, (western) financial institution. Which could cover the choice for “Arab terrorists”.

However, you don’t even need that reason when the target was perfect for ANY group as long as they could take responsibility… removing the towers create a far larger impact on the NY skyline then removing the Empire State building or any other, by knocking one and then the other they caused far greater panic, and had a captive worldwide audience for the second tower. I think my words were something like “what happened there is this a recording” – it was sadly live.

pwd wrote:

I am skeptical of Bush's apparent idiocy. It may be an act by an intelligent man, or the man may be a decoy for the real intelligence running the show. His apparent stupidity can distract critics somewhat from identifying more sinister motives.

Yea, sure. One could even argue that Bush & Co say stupid things because they don’t care and don’t have to…. But it has little to do with proving a conspiracy theory.

pwd wrote:

The US government had more means and oppurtunity for this action than the terrorists alone.

Do know who funded the "Arab terrorists" at their start up point? Go look at some conspiracy theorie webiste

pwd wrote:

For this particular choice of target they had greater motive too.

Covered above - nonsense.

pwd wrote:

The bit where he described america being turned into a presidential dictatorship through a pearl-harbour type event was very interesting though. It is pretty much what happened.

Not is that only nonsense, it’s bs. Maybe the “pearl-harbour type event” has blinded to the fact that the US is pretty much a two party system of little diffrence, and has been for along time. Look at who funds them, and what the two parties’ policies are – there not much difference between the two… something that that other fellow, the third person, who was running for president said – what was his name?

In other words, Manchurian Candidates do not just come from one party!

pwd wrote:

They are very free over there in theory. But they are not really they are controlled in subtler ways than simple laws.

The wrong type of “simple laws”, pilled on top of ‘simple laws’, and even more simple laws can and have allowed any so-called protected freedoms to disappear.

The fact is any conspiracy to take away “freedoms”, is happening at law making level….

“The Liberal Democrats warned that the bill's concentration of 60 million people's individual IT data in a new national ID register - the core proposal - would turn a "nanny state into a big brother state", while a Tory MP, Bill Cash, waved a copy of George Orwell's novel 1984. The register would create "a sea change" in the citizen's relationship with the state.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1378002,00.html

pwd wrote:

Hugely invasive media controlling with fear and bull****.

One sided too? Somebody was describing Ireland’s media in this very way just the other day – in a national newspaper (leftie) column btw.

pwd wrote:

Huge amount of emphasis on personal image being put forward that prevents most of them from developing their own minds. Huge emphasis on group cohesion and group conformity as exemplified by the pep rallies and football games with cheerleaders and stands for school kids even.
There was an article in a recent new scientist showing that when people are afraid they become extremely aggressive towards outsiders (generally foreigners) and more oriented toward their own group. One of the principles of controlling a group and unifying it is to identify a common enemy for the group also. Delusions of morality (if the group says it's ok then it is the right thing to do) and delusions of invulnerability are effects of this kind of mentality.

And, this is something new, which is exclusive to the US?

solas

I don't know about you, but I don't feel particularly comfortable with Jebadiah Bush's "manifest destiny". In fact I didn't sign up for it and I doubt the Iraqi's did either.
But I'm sure Osama thought it would be great.

SkepticOne

pwd wrote:

The choice of target doesn't make all that much sense from the point of view of Arab terrorists, imo.
The world trade centre was an international institution, rather than a purely American one.

The World Trade Center was an office building, not an institution. Maybe you are thinking of the World Trade Organistion.

pwd

monument wrote:

Not is that only nonsense, it’s bs. Maybe the “pearl-harbour type event” has blinded to the fact that the US is pretty much a two party system of little diffrence, and has been for along time. Look at who funds them, and what the two parties’ policies are – there not much difference between the two… something that that other fellow, the third person, who was running for president said – what was his name?

In other words, Manchurian Candidates do not just come from one party!

yeah that was in a simpsons episode ages ago also, but not the point. 911 caused a massive change in people's attitudes generally over there. They became happy to see their country display overt aggression, they became happy to have their privacy and rights compromised. The pearl-harbour type event (it was no quotes are necessary) allowed the government to act in ways that would not have been tolerated otherwise.

The wrong type of “simple laws”, pilled on top of ‘simple laws’, and even more simple laws can and have allowed any so-called protected freedoms to disappear.

The fact is any conspiracy to take away “freedoms”, is happening at law making level….

you probably haven;t been to america if you don;t know what I'm talking about here. They have different alert levels every day,,, fear is advertised the whole time. The media is far mroe ubiquitous and penetrating than elsewhere also.

One sided too? Somebody was describing Ireland’s media in this very way just the other day – in a national newspaper (leftie) column btw.

once again you don't know what I'm on about. It's easy to ignore the media in ireland, or to be seletcive of that which you look at. In america it is always been blasted right at you and always the same crap it seems.

And, this is something new, which is exclusive to the US?

it is present in a far greater extent in the US than else where. it is not particularly new, but it is part of what makes it possible to control them effectively through media/propaganda.