Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tx for posting that, En. Using language 'to avoid reality' is what its all about.

TheSecretSquig wrote:You didn't look very hard did you?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread392312/pg1
http://www.911-strike.com/quantum-path.htm

And for those doubting that the FBI have seised the relevent CCTV...
http://www.rense.com/general67/fbicl.htm

So instead of giving actual sources, you give three very obscure conspiracy theorist websites. Glad you're as deeply connected to reality as flat earth creationists.

TheSecretSquig wrote:

Melissia wrote:

TheSecretSquig wrote:'us' and 'them' is a bit of a muddy line in my humble opinion. After watching various videos such as 'Loose Change'

So you only looked at an amateur conspiracy theorist's video but no rebuttals from people who actually have knowledge about the things he doesn't?

For example:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

And equally, in the above article referencing the Pentagon Plane, some 'Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer' states that "It was absolutely a plane" and goes on to describe various things. Other experts have stated that 'the manouvre performed by the plane was impossible'.

So which is the correct version? If there was conclusive proof then there would be no conspirisy theory. The FBI could proove conclusively that a plane hit the Pentagon by releasing to the public the 2 CCTV recordings of the alledged plane hitting the building from the Gas Station or the Hotel. But within minutes of the attack, both CCTV recordings were seised and have never been released. The only release is a few grainy images which do not show any aircraft of any kind.

I'd recommend you watch a new documentary, The Day the Changed the World: 10 Years On.

I thought this was a pretty good read.

http://chomsky.info/articles/20110906.htm

A couple of decent ideas buried in the original article, but overall I'm not too impressed, and I think he's a bit too fixated on his linguistic thesis. There are legitimate points to be made about the rather Orwellian language sometimes used, about how complicated and difficult to understand this conflict/these conflicts can be, and about the public's attititude towards them, but I don't think the article's author did a very good job making those points.

9/11 is a logical name because it succinctly references the date on which multiple coordinated attacks occurred. Pearl Harbor happened in one place; 9/11 happened on one date in three different places. People also refer to the World Trade Center attacks, but that wasn't the only time the WTC was attacked, so really 9/11 is a more accurate and clear term. 7/7 then follows the same pattern as it's related and subsequent to 9/11.

I can't get behind the ideas put forward about how the current conflicts are labeled and what that reveals about our motivations/intents either. I think the War on Terrorism is a bad name, as Jon Stewart pointed out long ago, because you can't defeat a concept. At least not with bullets. IMO the real reason for the unclear naming is just that the conflict is too complex and multifaceted to easily summarize it as "the war against x".

--------

The Chomsky article's a better one. I can't get behind all of it (like suggesting that there wasn't enough evidence to think that Bin Laden was conclusively guilty), but there's a lot of disturbing food for thought in there.

Mannahnin wrote: I can't get behind all of it (like suggesting that there wasn't enough evidence to think that Bin Laden was conclusively guilty)

Guilty of what though? They can connect him to al qaeda and they have crappy alleged video evidence of him boasting but that's about it.

There wasn't enough evidence connecting him directly to the 9/11 attack according the FBI. That doesn't mean he wasn't a bad dude, an evildor, an extremist, a terrorist, and so on. There's certainly evidence of his involvement in the planning/financing of plenty of terrorist attacks, more than enough to condemn the man.

All the evidence I need that there was no 9/11 conspiracy is that Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe are still walking around, alive and free.

Those loose change guys are grade A asshats.

Crablezworth wrote:I thought this was a pretty good read.

http://chomsky.info/articles/20110906.htm

Chomsky? Really? Please don't tell me you consider him a decent source of info on anything related to US national security or policy.

He's also a Gnome...



Would you trust a Gnome?

Somewhat related: Watched the 'Bin Laden: Shoot to Kill' programme on channel 4 last night.

Fairly interesting.

Surprised big. O went in to Pakistan with a 50% chance of Bin Laden being in the compound.

The risks taken to get him seemed crazy.

Medium of Death wrote:
Surprised big. O went in to Pakistan with a 50% chance of Bin Laden being in the compound.

The risks taken to get him seemed crazy.

Pssht, part of the conspiracy. Bin Laden telepathically contacted Obama to let him know where he was, so that his current form could be destroyed and phase two of the Space Lizard Pope-King's plan to subjugate mankind could begin!

WAKE UP, SHEEPLE.





(Tons and tons of sarcasm intended, just to make things clear.)

Osama Bin Laden in the Abbottabad compound wrote:If you shoot me now, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

CptJake wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:I thought this was a pretty good read.

http://chomsky.info/articles/20110906.htm

Chomsky? Really? Please don't tell me you consider him a decent source of info on anything related to US national security or policy.

I do

CptJake wrote:
Chomsky? Really? Please don't tell me you consider him a decent source of info on anything related to US national security or policy.

Chomsky's information is usually good, he's a brilliant researcher, its his analysis that's bad.

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Chomsky? Really? Please don't tell me you consider him a decent source of info on anything related to US national security or policy.

Chomsky's information is usually good, he's a brilliant researcher, its his analysis that's bad.

Better a gnome tell you than an eldar.

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Chomsky? Really? Please don't tell me you consider him a decent source of info on anything related to US national security or policy.

Chomsky's information is usually good, he's a brilliant researcher, its his analysis that's bad.

This. He's a smart guy, he just also happens to be a hard-boiled ideologue....

What I don't understand is WHY are we STILL hearing about it. It's like the holocaust - we don't need a daily reminder! And other equally horrific things have happened that never seem to garner as much attention.

Is it because America has never been blitz or bombed or attacked on its own soil by a foreign power?

Don't get me wrong, it was tragic, but I'm sick hearing about 9/11 every 5 minutes.

Phototoxin wrote:What I don't understand is WHY are we STILL hearing about it. It's like the holocaust - we don't need a daily reminder! And other equally horrific things have happened that never seem to garner as much attention.

Is it because America has never been blitz or bombed or attacked on its own soil by a foreign power?

Don't get me wrong, it was tragic, but I'm sick hearing about 9/11 every 5 minutes.

It is sort of because America has never really suffered another atrocity (that wasn't committed by other Americans), but I would say it more the result of three things:

1) New York is a huge, huge part of American culture, even more so than Washington, and probably on par with LA. On top of this, the WTC was a hugely important symbol of New York, matched only by the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building. Blowing it up would be like blowing up Big Ben.

2) It was covered by the media in a way that few other terrorist attacks have, and maybe unique in that regard.

3) Let's be honest, for all my native land likes to appear strong, it also likes to whine.

Wait, Pearl Harbour was on American soil, wasn't it? Isn't it part of Hawaii or something?

Albatross wrote:Wait, Pearl Harbour was on American soil, wasn't it? Isn't it part of Hawaii or something?

I don't think I'd call that an atrocity, just an act of war. But yeah, its on O'ahu. Cool place too, lots of war porn, great weather, and girls that may or may not have a future in normal porn.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. It's just the only incident that seems remotely comparable to 9/11, given the 'SURPRISE!' angle...

Albatross wrote:Yeah, I see where you're coming from. It's just the only incident that seems remotely comparable to 9/11, given the 'SURPRISE!' angle...

I mean, realistically, I would either call all loss of life an atrocity, or none of it, I'm not big on the emotional distinction between civilians and soldiers.

For me, it's the shock factor that makes an atrocity - for the victims, witnesses, the wider public... I mean, death is death. Big deal. But when it takes place in such a way as to deeply offend people's sensibilities (expectations?), that's when we seem to label it an atrocity. It's all about perspective - 9/11 was a well-executed, well-planned and spectacularly realised operation against an enemy of insurmountable power, as far as islamic terrorists are concerned. To them it made perfect sense. Hell, if I was in their position, I can't say I wouldn't use similar tactics.

Of course, what we're mostly presented with is that the only possible way for us in the west to feel about 9/11 is that is was a terrible, cowardly act of criminal murder. I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Then again, as a hard-bitten pragmatist, I don't think anyone should be 100% sure about anything that they think or believe!

Albatross wrote:
Of course, what we're mostly presented with is that the only possible way for us in the west to feel about 9/11 is that is was a terrible, cowardly act of criminal murder.

I would, and have, argued that it was actually pretty damn brave.

Albatross wrote:
I don't think anyone should be 100% sure about anything that they think or believe!

Bertrand Russel agrees. Though there are some things I'm certain of.

Oh yeah! Your sig... Forgot about that. My stance is basically just that when the facts change, you either change with them or get left behind. This has led some of my friends to comment that I'm cynical, but then, when I'm a millionaire I can just buy new friends. So screw them.

Never claimed Chomsky wasn't smart. He obviously is. He is also about as biased a source as you can find, descibing himself as an anti-US anarchist type of guy... Though for an actual anarchist his views are extremely leftist.

CptJake wrote:Never claimed Chomsky wasn't smart. He obviously is. He is also about as biased a source as you can find, descibing himself as an anti-US anarchist type of guy... Though for an actual anarchist his views are extremely leftist.

Eh, sort of, he is socially very liberal, but also very libertarian economically/structurally.

But, while he is biased (so is everyone else, meaning that bias is basically irrelevant, same thing I say every time that word is used), his research is still quite good. You just have to filter through the analysis if you don't like it (dislike also being based on bias).

Phototoxin wrote:What I don't understand is WHY are we STILL hearing about it. It's like the holocaust - we don't need a daily reminder! And other equally horrific things have happened that never seem to garner as much attention.

Is it because America has never been blitz or bombed or attacked on its own soil by a foreign power?

Don't get me wrong, it was tragic, but I'm sick hearing about 9/11 every 5 minutes.

*Because it was the worst terrorist attack in the history of mankind, both in loss of life and financial impact.
*The US has been attacked before. We didn't take kindly then either.
British in war of 1812.
Mexican advance in 1846, (followed shortly by a Mexican retreat. )
Pancho Villa in 1915-1916
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Additionally, this specifically targeted civilians which makes it a lot different from the Pearl Harbor attack.

Frazzled wrote:
*The US has been attacked before. We didn't take kindly then either.

Oh, this will be fun.

Frazzled wrote:
British in war of 1812.
Mexican advance in 1846, (followed shortly by a Mexican retreat. )
Pancho Villa in 1915-1916
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Huh.

And that's before asking the question "Who cares?"

CptJake wrote:Additionally, this specifically targeted civilians which makes it a lot different from the Pearl Harbor attack.

Only to people who think that matters? Which seems to be everyone that is an American, and does not want to differentiate between civilians and soldiers unless it favors their civilians.