More conspiracy theories!

[genius33 0]

I like how everything I've said has been no-sold.

are you sure it wasn't no-showed?

[Guest MikeSC]

In your opinion Jingus. It's not as farfetched as you think it is.

 

Who profitted most from this war?

Ah yes, the economic disaster that 9/11 triggered was SUCH a huge benefit for Bush.

Who got himself a second term as president?

Because doing something AFTER EIGHT MONTHS IN OFFICE is always the way people prepare for a re-election in NEARLY FOUR YEARS.

Who made us the most hated nation in world?

A man with a spine?

Who led us to a war in Iraq, when there was no reason to enter Iraq?

We fought Germany in World War II. There was less of a need to do that, using your logic.

Who didn't catch Osama?

Yes, Bush and Osama are in cahoots. Ya caught him.

What export are we now mining out of Iraq and Afganistan not to mention out funding to build a pipline for oil through afganistan?

You mean the same export that we could have mined out of Iraq for years (like the rest of the world did), but opted not to?

 

You mean that stuff?

What is afganistan's cash crop now that we set them "free"?

 

Do You know the answer to any of those questions?

 

The only way the american people would support another war in the middle east is if they "attacked" us first. And apparently thats what "happened". 

So President Bush decided to invent a costly war?

 

I suppose the WTC bombing in 1993 was the first part of his plan.

Ditto the Khobar Towers.

Ditto the embassy bombings in Africa.

Ditto the USS Cole bombing.

 

That Bush --- he's DIABOLICAL!

I'm not here to argue details about it, i'm just saying try not to be so blind. You can say it's a ridiculous claim, but have you any evidence to prove it false? NO

At least Evidence would be more powerful proof than a "He wouldn't do that!" attitude.

Do you recognize the sheer level of evil somebody would have to have to sentence thousands of people to die?

 

And how come NOBODY has managed to uncover this conspiracy?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

So a friend of mine may be right about Bush planning it all? I thought he was insane.

No, he is.

 

It's just the sad reality that we live in a country where there are enough dumb fucks who would believe the absolute worst about someone, no matter how incredibly illogical and improbable it may be, simply because they disagree with that individual politically and philosophically.

 

And apparently we have a few of those type of people on this board. You learn to deal with it. Like by taking up liquor or chain smoking an entire pack of cigarettes just to take the edge off of dealing with these folks.

You must NEVER stop questioning events of this magnitude. The real sad reality is that people immediately dismiss this sort of thing as liberal propaganda and don't really look into it (thats not a statement directed at anyone in particular, because I know a lot of you do your research) In this instance, I don't buy in, but it happens all the time, this bullshit logic. If you question the legality of affirmative action, you're a racist, if you support the war you're a redneck - that sort of thing. I see it more coming from conservatives than anyone lately, though. Politics have become SO partisan that if you question the President you're just a bitter liberal. Probably not that pertinant to the thread, but I felt like bitching.

How about this?

 

I can spin a FAR more plausible theory that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and allowed it to happen.

 

Would that make the case LESS friggin' insane?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Well guess what, he's the motherfuckin', fuckin' one who calls the shots.  So deal with it for three more years, hippie.

You shouldnt be posting that. You should be in Iraq if you support him so much.

 

If everyone who hates Bush is a hippie.

Then everyone who supports Bush should join the military.

I'm not a cop.

 

I suppose that means I'm free to kill, maim, and rape.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I love how some of the same people who claim Bush came up with this master conspiracy cover-up plan are the same ones who claim Bush couldn't tie his shoes in the morning without supervision.

 

He's either one or the other people. Either amazingly intellgient and able to convince the military to allow him to destroy part of the Pentagon and was able to form this elaborate cover up plot to fly two planes into the towers. OR he is a moron who needs more directions to cross the road than the chicken.

Straw-man argument. Is it not possible that Bush himself may not be all that smart but he is surrounded by some brilliant minds? Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz clearly know the score, having signed the PNAC declaration on 9/11/00.

 

Let's face it: planned or not, 9/11 has provided Bush's presidency with a direction, provided the man himself with an image as a war president, and has ensured political wins for countless Republican officeholders at all levels of government who have taken up the causes of 'homeland security' for their constituencies. The 'war on terror' has provided Bush's administration with a way to improve the government's powers to spy on its citizens and to create a stronger Secret Service that is more trusted by Americans (in the name of the Department of Homeland Security).

 

Terror is portrayed today as the Soviets were depicted during Reagan: an all-purpose, omnipotent bogeyman lurking in the shadows ready to strike at any given moment. It can only be combated through ill-defined 'resolve,' unceasing alertness, and strict toeing of the Republican party line. Only a traitor would do otherwise.

Hmm, so Clinton was behind the OKC bombing using this logic?

 

I mean, at the point of the bombing, Clinton was borderline impotent behind the Republican juggernaut that took over the Congress.

 

Funny the massive turn in popularity he received following that.

-=Mike

...See how easy moronic conspiracies are to spin?

[Guest MikeSC]

I've always said Bush was deceptively intelligent, his only shortcoming being an incredible ability to fuck up the verbalizations of his ideas a lot. Even then, "a lot" is 2% of the time. I personally want to see a college dropout President one day, or one who just plain graduated high school. There's no educational requirements, after all. If they illustrate a better grasp of things and better ideas than the "educated" ones, I'm all for whoever it is.

Well, you had Truman.

-=Mike

[Slickster 0]

I love how some of the same people who claim Bush came up with this master conspiracy cover-up plan are the same ones who claim Bush couldn't tie his shoes in the morning without supervision.

 

He's either one or the other people. Either amazingly intellgient and able to convince the military to allow him to destroy part of the Pentagon and was able to form this elaborate cover up plot to fly two planes into the towers. OR he is a moron who needs more directions to cross the road than the chicken.

Straw-man argument. Is it not possible that Bush himself may not be all that smart but he is surrounded by some brilliant minds? Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz clearly know the score, having signed the PNAC declaration on 9/11/00.

 

Let's face it: planned or not, 9/11 has provided Bush's presidency with a direction, provided the man himself with an image as a war president, and has ensured political wins for countless Republican officeholders at all levels of government who have taken up the causes of 'homeland security' for their constituencies. The 'war on terror' has provided Bush's administration with a way to improve the government's powers to spy on its citizens and to create a stronger Secret Service that is more trusted by Americans (in the name of the Department of Homeland Security).

 

Terror is portrayed today as the Soviets were depicted during Reagan: an all-purpose, omnipotent bogeyman lurking in the shadows ready to strike at any given moment. It can only be combated through ill-defined 'resolve,' unceasing alertness, and strict toeing of the Republican party line. Only a traitor would do otherwise.

Hmm, so Clinton was behind the OKC bombing using this logic?

 

I mean, at the point of the bombing, Clinton was borderline impotent behind the Republican juggernaut that took over the Congress.

 

Funny the massive turn in popularity he received following that.

-=Mike

...See how easy moronic conspiracies are to spin?

Not so. McVeigh was a white loner from the heartland, not a fearsome mastermind of an international terrorist network. He was caught quickly, tried, convicted, and executed. There were no threats of copycat bombings, no unifying calls for unbridled patriotism. Yes, Clinton got an incidental boost in popularity, but the OKC bombing didn't lead to a long-term foreign/domestic policy shift or a long reign of dominance by the Democrats.

[Guest MikeSC]

I love how some of the same people who claim Bush came up with this master conspiracy cover-up plan are the same ones who claim Bush couldn't tie his shoes in the morning without supervision.

 

He's either one or the other people. Either amazingly intellgient and able to convince the military to allow him to destroy part of the Pentagon and was able to form this elaborate cover up plot to fly two planes into the towers. OR he is a moron who needs more directions to cross the road than the chicken.

Straw-man argument. Is it not possible that Bush himself may not be all that smart but he is surrounded by some brilliant minds? Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz clearly know the score, having signed the PNAC declaration on 9/11/00.

 

Let's face it: planned or not, 9/11 has provided Bush's presidency with a direction, provided the man himself with an image as a war president, and has ensured political wins for countless Republican officeholders at all levels of government who have taken up the causes of 'homeland security' for their constituencies. The 'war on terror' has provided Bush's administration with a way to improve the government's powers to spy on its citizens and to create a stronger Secret Service that is more trusted by Americans (in the name of the Department of Homeland Security).

 

Terror is portrayed today as the Soviets were depicted during Reagan: an all-purpose, omnipotent bogeyman lurking in the shadows ready to strike at any given moment. It can only be combated through ill-defined 'resolve,' unceasing alertness, and strict toeing of the Republican party line. Only a traitor would do otherwise.

Hmm, so Clinton was behind the OKC bombing using this logic?

 

I mean, at the point of the bombing, Clinton was borderline impotent behind the Republican juggernaut that took over the Congress.

 

Funny the massive turn in popularity he received following that.

-=Mike

...See how easy moronic conspiracies are to spin?

Not so. McVeigh was a white loner from the heartland, not a fearsome mastermind of an international terrorist network. He was caught quickly, tried, convicted, and executed.

Did you miss the "right-wing militia" bogeyman in full effect until 1996? The press was happy to refer to the GOP takeover as a temper tantrum by angry white guys to begin with --- this only made it better for him.

There were no threats of copycat bombings, no unifying calls for unbridled patriotism. Yes, Clinton got an incidental boost in popularity, but the OKC bombing didn't lead to a long-term foreign/domestic policy shift or a long reign of dominance by the Democrats.

No, it put the uber-successful conservative talk radio that had spearheaded the thorough thrashing of the Dems in 1994 on defense and opened a hole for air for Clinton.

-=Mike

[Carnival 0]

I usually get no-sold in CE, so I viciously continue the cycle on others whenever possible.

 

QUOTE (Kotzenjunge @ May 3 2005, 01:42 AM)

There's nothing wrong with figuring out how a fantasy situation would play out and saying why people think they way they do in a neutral manner. Not everything has to be combatitive

 

Funny how nobody else gets this.

I do get it. But you didn't say "What if Bush was behind it?" You said "I believe Bush might've been behind it". There's a world of difference between the two statements.

 

 

 

Oh, it took me for-goddamn-ever to find it, but here is the conspiracy thread I mentioned. And here's another one I forgot about.

Again i said i think he MIGHT have something to do with it. I'm not sure what i think now. I need to do some more reading. Thats what those links are for. Hopefully in those theads are some links to something that disproves some conspiracies. I couldn't find anything on snopes.com. I would like to see the Purdue study too.

[Carnival 0]

We fought Germany in World War II. There was less of a need to do that, using your logic.

 

I must have missed it when Iraq invaded every country in Europe, then publicly claimed the US is next.

 

You mean the same export that we could have mined out of Iraq for years (like the rest of the world did), but opted not to?

 

You mean that stuff?

 

But now, it's free. And it's 100% profit baby.

 

Do you recognize the sheer level of evil somebody would have to have to sentence thousands of people to die?

 

And how come NOBODY has managed to uncover this conspiracy?

 

Yes he would be evil beyond evil if this was true. I would say that the only way this theory would work, is if someone ABOVE Bush planned it. And has had it planned for many years. Of course that would mean the Illuminati/Skull & Bones. Believing in that is like religion. It's purely faith based.

 

Nobody has uncovered it yet. Nor has the government provided the public with sufficient answers to quiet the public.

 

I'm not a cop.

 

I suppose that means I'm free to kill, maim, and rape.

-=Mike

 

i was going by his logic...obviously. so by that logic, to answer your question. NO, because he was sterotyping me as a hippie, much like Bush supporters are stereotyped as rednecks, so i made a stereotypical comment by saying, if you support the war then you should be in it.

 

Obviously it's possible to support the war, but not be stupid enough to go die.

 

But your comment makes NO SENSE, because i don't think everyone who is not a cop is stereotyped as being a murderer or a rapist. I fail to see the connection between what i said...and what you said. But most of the time your just talking to yourself anyways..........*cough*5 posts in a row*cough*

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Nor has the government provided the public with sufficient answers to quiet the public.

 

The general public is quiet.

 

Wackjobs who think that the US government is around ONLY to make the world a horrible place won't shut up about it, though.

[Jingus 0]

I once dissected an Illuminati conspiracy post too, cic. I'm too lazy to hunt down the links.

[Carnival 0]

Nor has the government provided the public with sufficient answers to quiet the public.

 

The general public is quiet.

 

Wackjobs who think that the US government is around ONLY to make the world a horrible place won't shut up about it, though.

thats why people demanded a huge investigation.

 

9/11 commision, ever heard of it?

 

Then we find out people just lied to the commision. NORAD lies to the commision. The commision does answer anything, so it was a big waste of time and the people just stop caring. So the government pretty much gave us the run around. Then released it in a book. Then made some money!

 

If the goverment didn't purposly fuck around with 9/11 commision then they must just be dumb founded as to how this attack happened.

 

And about the illuminati....i don't know of any proof of the illuminati...also i know nothing of how you could dissprove it. It's like disproving god, which i doubt you are good enough to do. All i have to say to any non-illuminati statement is...they are so secretive thats why. But the only way this could have been a government planned thing is with something like the illuminati planning it. which right now i doubt the existence of such a group. I do believe in the Stone Cutters however.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I had heard of the 9/11 commission, but it seemed to me that that was more of a "explain to us how these people managed to do this" as opposed to "I think Bush did it, prove me wrong."

 

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the entire public isn't demanding answers. Most people, it seems, are content with the answers they were already given.

[Carnival 0]

I'd say most are content at least, you right. Thats after the 9/11 commission blunder. Before it was less i'm sure.

 

And your right the commission was to give answers on how the events happened and why. Well they pretty much came up inconclusive and said I don't know. Then they said there was nothing Bush could have done to prevent it. they blamed a lapse of intelligence. among other variables.

 

To me the commission did nothing but screw around waste time and money to give us a very lame answer. I think it was just to appease the people who kept asking why.

[Vyce 0]

I had heard of the 9/11 commission, but it seemed to me that that was more of a "explain to us how these people managed to do this" as opposed to "I think Bush did it, prove me wrong."

This is the best summary of Carnival's argument that's been written.

 

Just pure bias that flies against the face of all that is logical. And common sense gets no sold somewhere along the way.

[Guest MikeSC]

We fought Germany in World War II. There was less of a need to do that, using your logic.

I must have missed it when Iraq invaded every country in Europe, then publicly claimed the US is next.

Iraq sponsored terrorism in multiple countries, attempted to assassinate a former President, and repeatedly violated the terms of the ceasefire they signed in 1991.

 

Hell, Hitler stated he didn't want us involved, period.

 

Of course, I support our attacking Germany because you couldn't deal with the problems in the world WITHOUT attacking Germany.

You mean the same export that we could have mined out of Iraq for years (like the rest of the world did), but opted not to?

 

You mean that stuff?

But now, it's free. And it's 100% profit baby.

Read up on the Oil-For-Food Scandal.

 

We could've had it for MUCH less than we're paying now if we opted to.

Do you recognize the sheer level of evil somebody would have to have to sentence thousands of people to die?

 

And how come NOBODY has managed to uncover this conspiracy?

Yes he would be evil beyond evil if this was true. I would say that the only way this theory would work, is if someone ABOVE Bush planned it.

You see that big chasm right in front of you?

 

You're walking over a cliff here.

And has had it planned for many years. Of course that would mean the Illuminati/Skull & Bones. Believing in that is like religion. It's purely faith based.

And there you go, falling off the cliff.

Nobody has uncovered it yet. Nor has the government provided the public with sufficient answers to quiet the public.

Some idiots believe the moon landing is fake. Some idiots believe FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen.

 

Some people WANT to believe moronic conspiracy theories. And there isn't a hell of a lot that can be done to fix that.

I'm not a cop.

 

I suppose that means I'm free to kill, maim, and rape.

-=Mike

i was going by his logic...obviously. so by that logic, to answer your question. NO, because he was sterotyping me as a hippie, much like Bush supporters are stereotyped as rednecks, so i made a stereotypical comment by saying, if you support the war then you should be in it.

So it's OK for you to make idiotic sterotypes, but not for others?

 

Got it.

But your comment makes NO SENSE, because i don't think everyone who is not a cop is stereotyped as being a murderer or a rapist.

Nor is everybody not in the military portrayed as being anti-military.

 

But that is a nice red herring ya got there.

I fail to see the connection between what i said...and what you said. But most of the time your just talking to yourself anyways..........*cough*5 posts in a row*cough*

At least when I "Talk to myself", it makes something resembling coherent sense.

 

A guy who is pulling out "Skull & Crossbones were behind 9/11" conspiracy theories really might want to avoid shedding further light on his inane theories.

thats why people demanded a huge investigation.

 

9/11 commision, ever heard of it?

Wanting to know what happened is not quite the same thing as "OMG! BUSH DID IT!"

Then we find out people just lied to the commision. NORAD lies to the commision. The commision does answer anything, so it was a big waste of time and the people just stop caring. So the government pretty much gave us the run around. Then released it in a book. Then made some money!

Care to reveal these NORAD lies?

If the goverment didn't purposly fuck around with 9/11 commision then they must just be dumb founded as to how this attack happened.

Yeah, that's pretty much the case.

And about the illuminati....i don't know of any proof of the illuminati...also i know nothing of how you could dissprove it.

Not our job to prove it.

But the only way this could have been a government planned thing is with something like the illuminati planning it. which right now i doubt the existence of such a group. I do believe in the Stone Cutters however.

You REALLY need to stop digging deeper. You've already gone through the bottom of the barrel.

And your right the commission was to give answers on how the events happened and why. Well they pretty much came up inconclusive and said I don't know. Then they said there was nothing Bush could have done to prevent it. they blamed a lapse of intelligence. among other variables.

 

To me the commission did nothing but screw around waste time and money to give us a very lame answer. I think it was just to appease the people who kept asking why.

Because real answers aren't always the happiest answers.

 

I love that you believe that Bush can, somehow, put into place a massive conspiracy within 8 months of getting in office.

-=Mike

[tominator89 0]

I have a quick question: Has any conspiracy theory ever been found to actually be true? Like, people question stuff, become full of hype, and it turns out that they were right?

[Guest MikeSC]

I have a quick question: Has any conspiracy theory ever been found to actually be true? Like, people question stuff, become full of hype, and it turns out that they were right?

There was a conspiracy involving one of the slavery cases --- can't remember which one (I think Dred Scott) --- where the President convinced a Justice from a non-Southern state to side with the majority.

 

That turned out to be the case.

-=Mike

...Other than that --- no, not really...

[Vern Gagne 0]

One conspiracy that doesn't get much attention is the one that says Great Britian let the Colonies gain their independence, and they wanted to make us the guinea pig for a new form of gov't.

[Slickster 0]

I love that you believe that Bush can, somehow, put into place a massive conspiracy within 8 months of getting in office.

        -=Mike

Could anyone create this conspiracy and set it up in 8 months? No. Could someone plan it for years before getting power and bring it to fruition in their first 8 months? Yes.

 

Bear in mind that the PNAC was signed on 9/10/2000 by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Many of the objectives espoused by the PNAC have indeed been met due to the world changes caused directly by 9/11.

 

Mike, with the system set in place right now, the Republicans are in full control of all elected parts of the federal government. Since 2001, the main public agenda for the US government has been to protect America from terror. To that end, the government has been able to enact laws like PATRIOTs I and II (among countless other state/federal laws) which have provided them a greater degree of freedom in their operations while also freeing them from public scrutiny (because we're defending freedom, dammit!).

 

The 9/11 Commission raised more questions than answers, the closer sharing of information between departments is not happening, the Osama bogeyman is still out there somewhere, the government can raise the terror alert level (and national fear) solely at their own discretion without answering to anyone. We're at war in what appears to be an endless struggle against a limitless number of faceless 'enemies of freedom' at home and abroad. This is a formula for Republican dominance.

[The Czech Republic 0]

But Bush is 2 st00pid to no entrepreneuship is French! How can he orchestrate an attack on his nation's largest city?

[Styles 0]

I love that you believe that Bush can, somehow, put into place a massive conspiracy within 8 months of getting in office.

        -=Mike

Could anyone create this conspiracy and set it up in 8 months? No. Could someone plan it for years before getting power and bring it to fruition in their first 8 months? Yes.

 

Bear in mind that the PNAC was signed on 9/10/2000 by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Many of the objectives espoused by the PNAC have indeed been met due to the world changes caused directly by 9/11.

 

Mike, with the system set in place right now, the Republicans are in full control of all elected parts of the federal government. Since 2001, the main public agenda for the US government has been to protect America from terror. To that end, the government has been able to enact laws like PATRIOTs I and II (among countless other state/federal laws) which have provided them a greater degree of freedom in their operations while also freeing them from public scrutiny (because we're defending freedom, dammit!).

 

The 9/11 Commission raised more questions than answers, the closer sharing of information between departments is not happening, the Osama bogeyman is still out there somewhere, the government can raise the terror alert level (and national fear) solely at their own discretion without answering to anyone. We're at war in what appears to be an endless struggle against a limitless number of faceless 'enemies of freedom' at home and abroad. This is a formula for Republican dominance.

Is it REALLY that hard to believe that the Islamic terrorist threat is real? That they really do want to kill us for numerous perverse ideological reasons, that they noticed our lack of response to smaller attacks in the past giving them the confidence to execute the large scale attack they wanted, and that in response the government has enacted laws to help better protect us from further attacks and that we are currently at war abroad to combat those forces who are actively seeking to plan out and excute more attacks with the further hope that democracy and stability in the region will wipe out the ideology that causes the threat? Does it HAVE to be some evil plan for oil/power/money/control whatever?!

[Guest MikeSC]

I love that you believe that Bush can, somehow, put into place a massive conspiracy within 8 months of getting in office.

        -=Mike

Could anyone create this conspiracy and set it up in 8 months? No. Could someone plan it for years before getting power and bring it to fruition in their first 8 months? Yes.

 

Bear in mind that the PNAC was signed on 9/10/2000 by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Many of the objectives espoused by the PNAC have indeed been met due to the world changes caused directly by 9/11.

So, it is illogical that a conspiracy can be put in place within 8 months --- but one year is enough time to put into place a very in-depth conspiracy that nobody can actually find any real proof of, outside of the fact that a group was WARNING about this problem?

Mike, with the system set in place right now, the Republicans are in full control of all elected parts of the federal government. Since 2001, the main public agenda for the US government has been to protect America from terror.

It doesn't quite explain how the GOP lost the Senate in 2001 when Jeffords turned. You'd think they'd have planned for that better.

 

I'll also give you a heads-up --- if Gore won, 9/11 would have still happened.

To that end, the government has been able to enact laws like PATRIOTs I and II (among countless other state/federal laws) which have provided them a greater degree of freedom in their operations while also freeing them from public scrutiny (because we're defending freedom, dammit!).

Yet the biggest assault on free speech has been CFR, not the PATRIOT Act. Ditto the crackdown on indecency in the media.

The 9/11 Commission raised more questions than answers, the closer sharing of information between departments is not happening

It actually is happening since they tore down the wall set up BY ONE OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS back in the 90's (Jamie Gorelick).

the Osama bogeyman is still out there somewhere, the government can raise the terror alert level (and national fear) solely at their own discretion without answering to anyone.

The same gov't blamed for not running with exceptionally nebulous reports before 9/11? Seems to be a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't scenario.

We're at war in what appears to be an endless struggle against a limitless number of faceless 'enemies of freedom' at home and abroad. This is a formula for Republican dominance.

We had the same situation in place in the 1940's.

 

Didn't make Hitler part of a gigantic liberal conspiracy here in the US.

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

But Bush is 2 st00pid to no entrepreneuship is French! How can he orchestrate an attack on his nation's largest city?

Oh, stop with the bullshit elitism. Either make a real post and contribute or keep being an unsolicited voice from the Right. At least Mike writes intelligent elitist posts.

 

I just don't understand why some people get so pissed off at other people discussing the possibility of foul play. If it's all as we've been told, no harm in talking about it. It's just like retroactive fantasy booking, but using massive real world events. Geez.

 

EDIT: And Truman rocked.

[Vyce 0]

I love that you believe that Bush can, somehow, put into place a massive conspiracy within 8 months of getting in office.

        -=Mike

Could anyone create this conspiracy and set it up in 8 months? No. Could someone plan it for years before getting power and bring it to fruition in their first 8 months? Yes.

 

Bear in mind that the PNAC was signed on 9/10/2000 by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Many of the objectives espoused by the PNAC have indeed been met due to the world changes caused directly by 9/11.

 

Mike, with the system set in place right now, the Republicans are in full control of all elected parts of the federal government. Since 2001, the main public agenda for the US government has been to protect America from terror. To that end, the government has been able to enact laws like PATRIOTs I and II (among countless other state/federal laws) which have provided them a greater degree of freedom in their operations while also freeing them from public scrutiny (because we're defending freedom, dammit!).

 

The 9/11 Commission raised more questions than answers, the closer sharing of information between departments is not happening, the Osama bogeyman is still out there somewhere, the government can raise the terror alert level (and national fear) solely at their own discretion without answering to anyone. We're at war in what appears to be an endless struggle against a limitless number of faceless 'enemies of freedom' at home and abroad. This is a formula for Republican dominance.

Is it REALLY that hard to believe that the Islamic terrorist threat is real? That they really do want to kill us for numerous perverse ideological reasons, that they noticed our lack of response to smaller attacks in the past giving them the confidence to execute the large scale attack they wanted, and that in response the government has enacted laws to help better protect us from further attacks and that we are currently at war abroad to combat those forces who are actively seeking to plan out and excute more attacks with the further hope that democracy and stability in the region will wipe out the ideology that causes the threat? Does it HAVE to be some evil plan for oil/power/money/control whatever?!

Slapnuts, you poor, deluded, confused SOB.

 

I think we've proven that all of this is really the work of the Illuminati, the real secret controllers of George W. Bush and most of the civilized world.

 

I mean, Jesus, haven't you read the DaVinci Code? It's ALL in there.

 

I just don't understand why some people get so pissed off at other people discussing the possibility of foul play.

 

Are you being serious? Is this supposed to be rhetorical?

 

People get pissed off because the "hey, what if" conspiracy theories, almost WITHOUT fail, get turned into moronic political ramblings as evidenced by Slickster's "it was all a plot for Republican dominance!" argument here.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I just don't understand why some people get so pissed off at other people discussing the possibility of foul play.

 

Because it's incredibly insulting to Bush, the American government in general, and every single person who died.

 

I think it's akin to me wanting to talk about how you raped your last girlfriend. I mean, I have no proof at all, but I still wanna talk about it - wouldn't you get a little pissed off at someone for insinuating such a thing, even if you knew it was totally false?

 

Also, sometimes I wonder; exactly how much effort would it have taken for Bush to have pulled this off? Like, think about how many people would have to be in on this conspiracy in order for it to work. You'd pretty much need people at every airport checkpoint (to ensure the hijackers got their knives aboard), people on the planes themselves (to call while on the plane and tell people what is going on), all the hijackers, a number of troops (depending on which theory we're looking at), Osama would have to be in on it (they'd need a failsafe to take the blame; what if no one ever took credit?); hell, you'd need to have the people who sell airline tickets in on it according to some of these theories. And of all these people, NONE of them have every said anything. Yeah, seems really likely to me.

 

Why is it more belivable, to some people, that Bush murdered thousands of his own countrymen in order to consolidate power through the most eloborate conspiracy ever concieved, as opposed to some wackjob who hates the US coming up with an elaborate conspiracy to make the US suffer?

[Carnival 0]

Mike, you've misunderstood my post, or I didn't make it clear enough.

 

I agree with you that Bush could not have planned the attacks in that short time. the only way the conspiracy would pan out is if the illuminati planned it.

 

And like i said thinking the illuminati is real is like hard to do, cuz there isn't mcuh if anything to back that up.

 

I never said I think the illuminati is real. Your post implies that i did. I'm not saying they don't exist either.

 

I was saying hypothetically that for the conspiracy to be true, the illuminati would have to be real and they would have had to plan it.

 

Hell, Hitler stated he didn't want us involved, period.

 

But we already knew that he wanted to come after us, after he conquered Europe and Asia. Of course he said he didn't want anything to do with us, cuz he planning to sneak attack us. Of course he wouldn't want to announce it.

 

We could've had it for MUCH less than we're paying now if we opted to.

 

who says we are paying at all?

 

So it's OK for you to make idiotic sterotypes, but not for others?

 

again you don't understand, i was using his idiots logic by.....nevermind...it's not important...swoosh*does flying over head motion*

 

Care to reveal these NORAD lies?

 

Senator...mark dayton??? i think, was complaining about these lies on cspan. he said NORAD's statements about the times the goverment was notified about the planes being of course were false. he said it differed from the factual information by about 15-20 mins. I know it's minor. But if they would falsify that info, why should you believe anything they say.

 

As an added statement I do not think just discussing this is disrespectful to anyone, especially the victims. It's not like anyone is mocking the fact that they died. I think to not question this and to just dismiss it as just a terrorist attack is more disrespectful. Questioning it at least means you are thinking about it. Not one conspiracy nut is laughing at the dead. They wouldn't question it if they didn't think it was a tragedy and didn't care about those who lost their lives.

 

and just so i'm not misunderstood again. I'm not saying anyone here is being disrespectful about it. I'm just saying that forgetting about it would be more disrespectful than questioning it.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I just don't understand why some people get so pissed off at other people discussing the possibility of foul play.

 

Because it's incredibly insulting to Bush, the American government in general, and every single person who died.

There's no disrespect whatsoever to those who died by discussing this stuff, unless you went extreme with it and portrayed them as martyrs on the altar of freedom versus terrorism or some equally grandstanding bullshit that isn't applicable whether you're talking about the theories or real-life events or whatever.

 

I think it's akin to me wanting to talk about how you raped your last girlfriend. I mean, I have no proof at all, but I still wanna talk about it - wouldn't you get a little pissed off at someone for insinuating such a thing, even if you knew it was totally false?

 

Not really. Annoyance perhaps, but not enough to dissect posts line by line multiple times in a row.

 

Why is it more belivable, to some people, that Bush murdered thousands of his own countrymen in order to consolidate power through the most eloborate conspiracy ever concieved, as opposed to some wackjob who hates the US coming up with an elaborate conspiracy to make the US suffer?

 

I don't see how making up what amounts to fiction in a book makes anyone suffer. Conjecture never hurt anyone, and it's entertaining to come up with stuff like this. "It's entertaining to think about your own government killing thousands of its own people?" will be the response to this, and yes, it is. Just like it's entertaining to think about how one of our country's greatest leaders was assassinated, how another great leader could have previously known about an attack on a naval base that sent us into a global conflict, and the possibility of a Jewish worldwide spy ring intent on taking over the world. It's stuff that's a creative exercise at most. No worse than if I asked you what you thought about the moon landing being real or fake. I don't see people getting righteously pissed about others saying that was fake. Yes, I'm comparing that to this because it's the same thing at the base level.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I don't see people getting righteously pissed about others saying that was fake.

 

I have. Dutch once flipped on me because I asked him who filmed the moon landing.

 

And no, maybe it's not a disrespect to the dead, but it is to a lot of other, still living.

 

Anyway, I see the point you're trying to make, and to an extent I do agree; I just can't see how you'd be surprised that people who get riled up about anything political are getting riled up because people are insinuating that the president is a murderer.

 

Not really. Annoyance perhaps, but not enough to dissect posts line by line multiple times in a row.

 

Oh come on.

 

People around here do that when they're in a GOOD mood.