Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Conspiracies; but governments are so stupid

devoirdevoir Registered User
edited October 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801817.html?hpid=topnews
A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release.

Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.

The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network.

I pulled this from Fark and I think one of the points raised early in the discussion over there regarding this news item is how it affects the whole "Government conspiracy" thing, especially in regards to such classics as "WTC attacks were a government ploy".

Now, I know we've seen (specific to the WTC case) a bunch of government people come out and say that there was incompetence and head-in-the-sand approaches taken leading up to the event, but doesn't the above article reinforce the notion that Government and bureaucracy in today's world means that a conspiracy of the kind described in regards to WTC would be near impossible?

I don't want to turn this into a WTC thread, it was just the most obvious example of the kind of theory thrown around about the American government. It could equally apply to any other national security issue, or hell even alien aircraft.

devoir on
«13

Posts

  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    ....

    Entropy Kid I choose you!

    Wait for it...wait for it.

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • devoirdevoir Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Are you the one that does that with Shinto too? :P

  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I don't think this incompetence proves that it is impossible for the government to conduct conspiracies. There are different levels and offices. But I don't think this has anything to do with government conspiracies at all anyways.

    I'm not sure how you're putting the two together.

    Theft 4 Bread
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    9/11 was not an inside job. Sometimes governments are inept. They may miss things, or they refuse to act on intelligence, even if it's reliable, because they judge that it's unimportant. We hope that these decisions don't have stupid reasons.

    They usually do.

    There is no grand conspiracy, people are just stupid sometimes.

  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    You're wrong. I'm 100% sure Bush & Co. are competent enough to pull off 9/11 and make it look like middle eastern terrorists did it.

    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    You so stole my idea for a good thread.
    Okay, Mayan prophecies, what the hell?

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • Just Like ThatJust Like That Registered User
    edited October 2007
    an_alt wrote: »
    You're wrong. I'm 100% sure Bush & Co. are competent enough to pull off 9/11 and make it look like middle eastern terrorists did it.

    tinfoil.hat.jpg

  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I don't think there is a 9/11 conspiracy, but I can see how through the fuzziness there are people who think there is one.

    It sure doesn't help calm down the 'truthers' when Osama Bin Laden took years to admit that he was behind 9/11 and the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist page for Osama Bin Laden doesn't mention 9/11.

    Theft 4 Bread
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I call it ELM's Grand Fuck Up Theory.

    Basically, any series of steps involving people will result in a cluster of fuck ups which every now and again lead to a grand fuck up. But what bends people's minds is that they can't imagine how that can be.

    Or to summarize: god I hate conspiracy theorists.

  • edited October 2007
    deowolf wrote: »
    ....

    Entropy Kid I choose you!

    Wait for it...wait for it.

    Oh sweet mother of god no.

    Also, even beyond ineptitude, there is a certain barrier that any conspiracy theory must overcome: whistle-blowers. Everyone involved has to carry the secret with them to the grave or it will come out.

    To use an example: The moon-landing conspiracy theory. To fake the moon landing, the government would have to have permanently silenced thousands of people, and the vast majority of them would be people with relatively little (if any) ideological investment in the conspiracy, and no doubt many of them would have had an ideological investment in revealing such a conspiracy. Now, if a conspiracy can be trimmed down to a very small group of highly dedicated individuals, the bar is lower, and conspiracy becomes more plausible.

    Seems like most conspiracy theorists forget this.

  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    an_alt wrote: »
    You're wrong. I'm 100% sure Bush & Co. are competent enough to pull off 9/11 and make it look like middle eastern terrorists did it.

    Why? What about their actions says they could have organized, planned and executed such a grand plan without a single shred of evidence arising after 6-7 years?

    What of the dead on the planes?

  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Im gonna play some devil's advocate.
    an_alt wrote: »
    You're wrong. I'm 100% sure Bush & Co. are competent enough to pull off 9/11 and make it look like middle eastern terrorists did it.

    Why? What about their actions says they could have organized, planned and executed such a grand plan without a single shred of evidence arising after 6-7 years?

    What of the dead on the planes?

    Because anything that may be evidence is brushed aside by people who say that anyone making such claims or presenting cases are crazy, tinfoil-hat-makers.

    And what of the dead?

    Theft 4 Bread
  • Just Like ThatJust Like That Registered User
    edited October 2007
    KungFu wrote: »
    Because anything that may be evidence is brushed aside by people who say that anyone making such claims or presenting cases are crazy, tinfoil-hat-makers.

    Well, if the tinfoil hat fits...

    I'm not saying that conspiracy theorists are always crazy or wrong, but in a case so blindingly obvious as 9/11 it is ridiculous to suggest that no one in the government who was supposedly part of this "plan" would object to killing thousands of American citizens. Surely there would be an easier way to instigate a war with Iraq.

    suilimeA's post summed up the idea pretty well.

  • astrobstrdastrobstrd So full of mercy... Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    KungFu wrote: »
    Im gonna play some devil's advocate.
    an_alt wrote: »
    You're wrong. I'm 100% sure Bush & Co. are competent enough to pull off 9/11 and make it look like middle eastern terrorists did it.

    Why? What about their actions says they could have organized, planned and executed such a grand plan without a single shred of evidence arising after 6-7 years?

    What of the dead on the planes?

    Because anything that may be evidence is brushed aside by people who say that anyone making such claims or presenting cases are crazy, tinfoil-hat-makers.

    And what of the dead?

    99.9% of conspiracy theories are crap imagined by people who imagine much more order and stability than there actually is.

    But every once in a while...

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

  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Tobasco wrote: »
    KungFu wrote: »
    Because anything that may be evidence is brushed aside by people who say that anyone making such claims or presenting cases are crazy, tinfoil-hat-makers.

    Well, if the tinfoil hat fits...

    I'm not saying that conspiracy theorists are always crazy or wrong, but in a case so blindingly obvious as 9/11 it is ridiculous to suggest that no one in the government who was supposedly part of this "plan" would object to killing thousands of American citizens. Surely there would be an easier way to instigate a war with Iraq.

    suilimeA's post summed up the idea pretty well.

    Yeah, because government agencies such as the CIA or the FBI have never been able to keep anything secret over the years. . .

    And really, there wouldn't have to be a large number of people 'in' on the conspiracy to help plane hijackers crash into a building.

    Theft 4 Bread
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    "9/11" -- that is, the failure of the US government to prevent the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 -- was a "conspiracy", but only in that the Bush Administration purposely used it to advance PNAC's neoconservative agenda. It was pretty easy, too; all they had to do was hear it was going to happen, and then not do anything to stop it, and then inflict a few minor abuses of power to cover up their inaction. Which is what they did. And the secret was already out for many of us about three days later, when Bush swore revenge against specific countries that he and Cheney and his PNAC cronies had been eyeing for many years prior. It pains me to see this idiotic discussion continue: the answers to everyone's questions are easily found, and they are not very complicated.

  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    But the operations those agencies have been able to keep secret have been minor, minor operations, and all for more definite beneficial purposes. Like the operation where they acted as a Hollywood film crew in order to save a hostage in Afghanistan, or somewhere.

    You'd have to keep a significantly larger portion of people quiet about an operation which drove faux 747's into the towers. And this operation was most definitely not for beneficial purposes.

    And what of the dead? The planes were real, as were the pilots. For this operation to have been government, all flight controllers would have to have been in on it, as well as pilots, and all who operated the place where those real planes landed. Then they would have had to kill all the passengers, as well as the pilots if they weren't in on it. And I suppose the just went down the line, killing everyone who wouldn't call a loved one and give a fake goodbye.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    astrobstrd wrote: »
    KungFu wrote: »
    Im gonna play some devil's advocate.
    an_alt wrote: »
    You're wrong. I'm 100% sure Bush & Co. are competent enough to pull off 9/11 and make it look like middle eastern terrorists did it.

    Why? What about their actions says they could have organized, planned and executed such a grand plan without a single shred of evidence arising after 6-7 years?

    What of the dead on the planes?

    Because anything that may be evidence is brushed aside by people who say that anyone making such claims or presenting cases are crazy, tinfoil-hat-makers.

    And what of the dead?

    99.9% of conspiracy theories are crap imagined by people who imagine much more order and stability than there actually is.

    But every once in a while...

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

    But when shit like MKUltra (or, my favorite, Operation Midnight Climax) goes down, we have actual evidence, not stupid bullshit like "olol I don't know how teh phyzzicks work and the building that got hit last fell down first so clearly bush and teh jews did it!!1"

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    But the operations those agencies have been able to keep secret have been minor, minor operations, and all for more definite beneficial purposes. Like the operation where they acted as a Hollywood film crew in order to save a hostage in Afghanistan, or somewhere.

    You'd have to keep a significantly larger portion of people quiet about an operation which drove faux 747's into the towers. And this operation was most definitely not for beneficial purposes.

    And what of the dead? The planes were real, as were the pilots. For this operation to have been government, all flight controllers would have to have been in on it, as well as pilots, and all who operated the place where those real planes landed. Then they would have had to kill all the passengers, as well as the pilots if they weren't in on it. And I suppose the just went down the line, killing everyone who wouldn't call a loved one and give a fake goodbye.

    Well said.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    What about accusations that the US government doesn't want South Korea and North Korea to rejoin and purposefully sabotages negotiations? North Korea might have their sniper towers and hollow cities but there's still a big wall dug into the ground in South Korea and plenty of land mines along the DMZ's border. You might say, "Wait! North Korea just agreed to dismantle its nuke program after successful negotiations with the US, SK, and Russia." Well sure, but if it's that easy to buy off North Korea, why hasn't the Korean War ended - we're at a ceasefire with NK; there never was a peace treaty. That's just bizarre. Mighty America can't get a peace treaty signed in under 50 years?

    Who gains from a divided Korea besides Kim Jong Il?

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • Locutus ZeroLocutus Zero Registered User
    edited October 2007
    See the conspiracy episodes of South Park and Bullshit!.

    Conspiracy theorists have trouble with the idea that something as terrible as killing a president or blowing up a building can be done by 1 or a handful of people. Surely you can't just wake up one morning and walk to a building and aim a gun at a president and pull the trigger. It must take more than that.

    Locutus+Zero.png
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What about accusations that the US government doesn't want South Korea and North Korea to rejoin and purposefully sabotages negotiations? North Korea might have their sniper towers and hollow cities but there's still a big wall dug into the ground in South Korea and plenty of land mines along the DMZ's border. You might say, "Wait! North Korea just agreed to dismantle its nuke program after successful negotiations with the US, SK, and Russia." Well sure, but if it's that easy to buy off North Korea, why hasn't the Korean War ended - we're at a ceasefire with NK; there never was a peace treaty. That's just bizarre. Mighty America can't get a peace treaty signed in under 50 years?

    Who gains from a divided Korea besides Kim Jong Il?

    Wait, I really want to hear the logical process that goes from "the only one who benefits from a divided Korea is Kim Jong Il" to "The US must be sabatoging the negotiations!"

    I mean, isn't the logical conclusion that, y'know, North Korea is sabatoging the negotiations? Maybe it's just me.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    Western doctors keep us sick for profit! Only alternative medicine is honest!

    Also - I'd like to prosecute practitioners of chiropractic adjustment, reikki and homeopathy.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Western doctors keep us sick for profit! Only alternative medicine is honest!

    Also - I'd like to prosecute practitioners of chiropractic adjustment, reikki and homeopathy.

    Not all chiropractors are crazy, and a friend of mine practices reiki just as a massage method without any wacky pseudoscience bullshit.

    Homeopathy is a load of crap no matter what way you slice it, though.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Just Like ThatJust Like That Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Western doctors keep us sick for profit! Only alternative medicine is honest!

    Like, totally dude. Only this guy with a history of fraudulent activities knows the real answers

    0975599518.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

  • edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Western doctors keep us sick for profit! Only alternative medicine is honest!

    Also - I'd like to prosecute practitioners of chiropractic adjustment, reikki and homeopathy.

    But...but...you're a hippy, Shinto.

    @Azio -- honestly, what you say doesn't sound terribly far-fetched to me.

    The problem is that it is, almost surely impossible to prove. Why weaken your argument by making inflammatory claims when the level of sheer incompetence and corruption which provably happened is damning enough? Hijackers being let into the country despite expired visas and being on terrorist watch lists merely because they were paid for by the Saudi Royal Family (or, rather, members of it, because it's hardly a unified body)? That's some corrupt bullshit that allowed these attacks to happen. Same goes for top-down orders to freeze investigations into funding sources for al-Qaeda when those investigations got too close to some of the Bush family's buddies, including the Saudi Royal Family and the bin-Ladens (oh man, I can hardly remember the details of the incestuous relationship between the Bushes and the bin-Ladens, but they have strong monetary ties. I need to dig up The War On Freedom again).

    Same goes for allowing some of the hijackers to learn how to fly at secure U.S. military installations, again, merely because they were bankrolled by some Saudis.

    Does this add up to suspicion of perhaps purposeful inaction? Maybe so, but you can't prove it, but it does provably add up to incompetence and corruption of the Bush administration leading directly to the deaths of 3,000 Americans and that's frankly enough.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    suilimeA wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Western doctors keep us sick for profit! Only alternative medicine is honest!

    Also - I'd like to prosecute practitioners of chiropractic adjustment, reikki and homeopathy.

    But...but...you're a hippy, Shinto.

    @Azio -- honestly, what you say doesn't sound terribly far-fetched to me.

    The problem is that it is, almost surely impossible to prove. Why weaken your argument by making inflammatory claims when the level of sheer incompetence and corruption which provably happened is damning enough? Hijackers being let into the country despite expired visas and being on terrorist watch lists merely because they were paid for by the Saudi Royal Family (or, rather, members of it, because it's hardly a unified body)? That's some corrupt bullshit that allowed these attacks to happen. Same goes for top-down orders to freeze investigations into funding sources for al-Qaeda when those investigations got too close to some of the Bush family's buddies, including the Saudi Royal Family and the bin-Ladens (oh man, I can hardly remember the details of the incestuous relationship between the Bushes and the bin-Ladens, but they have strong monetary ties. I need to dig up The War On Freedom again).

    Same goes for allowing some of the hijackers to learn how to fly at secure U.S. military installations, again, merely because they were bankrolled by some Saudis.

    Does this add up to suspicion of perhaps purposeful inaction? Maybe so, but you can't prove it, but it does provably add up to incompetence and corruption of the Bush administration leading directly to the deaths of 3,000 Americans and that's frankly enough.
    What is more likely:

    • Bush and co. planned to purposefully fail to act to prevent 9/11 so that they could take advantage of the flag-waiving aftermath, or

    • Bush and co legitimately failed to prevent 9/11 and then took advantage of the flag-waiving aftermath.

    Option B requires less assumptions and seems the simpler explanation. There are plenty of cases in history of people turning legitimate fuck ups and tragedies into political advantages.

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Western doctors keep us sick for profit! Only alternative medicine is honest!

    Also - I'd like to prosecute practitioners of chiropractic adjustment, reikki and homeopathy.

    But...but...you're a hippy, Shinto.

    @Azio -- honestly, what you say doesn't sound terribly far-fetched to me.

    The problem is that it is, almost surely impossible to prove. Why weaken your argument by making inflammatory claims when the level of sheer incompetence and corruption which provably happened is damning enough? Hijackers being let into the country despite expired visas and being on terrorist watch lists merely because they were paid for by the Saudi Royal Family (or, rather, members of it, because it's hardly a unified body)? That's some corrupt bullshit that allowed these attacks to happen. Same goes for top-down orders to freeze investigations into funding sources for al-Qaeda when those investigations got too close to some of the Bush family's buddies, including the Saudi Royal Family and the bin-Ladens (oh man, I can hardly remember the details of the incestuous relationship between the Bushes and the bin-Ladens, but they have strong monetary ties. I need to dig up The War On Freedom again).

    Same goes for allowing some of the hijackers to learn how to fly at secure U.S. military installations, again, merely because they were bankrolled by some Saudis.

    Does this add up to suspicion of perhaps purposeful inaction? Maybe so, but you can't prove it, but it does provably add up to incompetence and corruption of the Bush administration leading directly to the deaths of 3,000 Americans and that's frankly enough.
    What is more likely:

    • Bush and co. planned to purposefully fail to act to prevent 9/11 so that they could take advantage of the flag-waiving aftermath, or

    • Bush and co legitimately failed to prevent 9/11 and then took advantage of the flag-waiving aftermath.

    Option B requires less assumptions and seems the simpler explanation. There are plenty of cases in history of people turning legitimate fuck ups and tragedies into political advantages.
    That whole "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In America" briefing thing kind of takes the "legitimately" out of Option B.

    In any case, those two bullet points really are the only logical explanations, and arguments can be made for and against both. Silly conspiracy theories about how Bush was an instrument to the actual attacks are just that, silly conspiracy theories, and it just gets sillier from there, with planned demolitions and missiles that look like 767s.

  • edited October 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Western doctors keep us sick for profit! Only alternative medicine is honest!

    Also - I'd like to prosecute practitioners of chiropractic adjustment, reikki and homeopathy.

    But...but...you're a hippy, Shinto.

    @Azio -- honestly, what you say doesn't sound terribly far-fetched to me.

    The problem is that it is, almost surely impossible to prove. Why weaken your argument by making inflammatory claims when the level of sheer incompetence and corruption which provably happened is damning enough? Hijackers being let into the country despite expired visas and being on terrorist watch lists merely because they were paid for by the Saudi Royal Family (or, rather, members of it, because it's hardly a unified body)? That's some corrupt bullshit that allowed these attacks to happen. Same goes for top-down orders to freeze investigations into funding sources for al-Qaeda when those investigations got too close to some of the Bush family's buddies, including the Saudi Royal Family and the bin-Ladens (oh man, I can hardly remember the details of the incestuous relationship between the Bushes and the bin-Ladens, but they have strong monetary ties. I need to dig up The War On Freedom again).

    Same goes for allowing some of the hijackers to learn how to fly at secure U.S. military installations, again, merely because they were bankrolled by some Saudis.

    Does this add up to suspicion of perhaps purposeful inaction? Maybe so, but you can't prove it, but it does provably add up to incompetence and corruption of the Bush administration leading directly to the deaths of 3,000 Americans and that's frankly enough.
    What is more likely:

    • Bush and co. planned to purposefully fail to act to prevent 9/11 so that they could take advantage of the flag-waiving aftermath, or

    • Bush and co legitimately failed to prevent 9/11 and then took advantage of the flag-waiving aftermath.

    Option B requires less assumptions and seems the simpler explanation. There are plenty of cases in history of people turning legitimate fuck ups and tragedies into political advantages.
    That whole "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In America" briefing thing kind of takes the "legitimately" out of Option B.

    While it's my inclination to agree with you Azio, again, it comes down to provability. Maybe it'll come out some day, Gulf of Tonkin style, but until then stick with what you can prove.

  • BrynjBrynj Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Western doctors keep us sick for profit! Only alternative medicine is honest!

    Also - I'd like to prosecute practitioners of chiropractic adjustment, reikki and homeopathy.

    But...but...you're a hippy, Shinto.

    @Azio -- honestly, what you say doesn't sound terribly far-fetched to me.

    The problem is that it is, almost surely impossible to prove. Why weaken your argument by making inflammatory claims when the level of sheer incompetence and corruption which provably happened is damning enough? Hijackers being let into the country despite expired visas and being on terrorist watch lists merely because they were paid for by the Saudi Royal Family (or, rather, members of it, because it's hardly a unified body)? That's some corrupt bullshit that allowed these attacks to happen. Same goes for top-down orders to freeze investigations into funding sources for al-Qaeda when those investigations got too close to some of the Bush family's buddies, including the Saudi Royal Family and the bin-Ladens (oh man, I can hardly remember the details of the incestuous relationship between the Bushes and the bin-Ladens, but they have strong monetary ties. I need to dig up The War On Freedom again).

    Same goes for allowing some of the hijackers to learn how to fly at secure U.S. military installations, again, merely because they were bankrolled by some Saudis.

    Does this add up to suspicion of perhaps purposeful inaction? Maybe so, but you can't prove it, but it does provably add up to incompetence and corruption of the Bush administration leading directly to the deaths of 3,000 Americans and that's frankly enough.
    What is more likely:

    • Bush and co. planned to purposefully fail to act to prevent 9/11 so that they could take advantage of the flag-waiving aftermath, or

    • Bush and co legitimately failed to prevent 9/11 and then took advantage of the flag-waiving aftermath.

    Option B requires less assumptions and seems the simpler explanation. There are plenty of cases in history of people turning legitimate fuck ups and tragedies into political advantages.
    That whole "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In America" briefing thing kind of takes the "legitimately" out of Option B.

    Just a quick point, the briefing regarding Bin Laden attacking the US was a broad description. Even if we knew how the attack was going to be carried out like it was what could have been done. I mean, even now after 9/11, pundits and the public still can't agree on the no fly list and even when its in effect it grounds more ex-rock singers than terrorists. You think that program was going to fly PRE-9/11, not a chance.
    Hijackers being let into the country despite expired visas and being on terrorist watch lists merely because they were paid for by the Saudi Royal Family (or, rather, members of it, because it's hardly a unified body)? That's some corrupt bullshit that allowed these attacks to happen.

    Both Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi were on FBI terrorist alert lists and both entered the country before Bush even took office, in 2000 and 1999 respectively.

    I don't care for Bush for a lot of reasons, some that are expressed on these boards, some not, but to suggest Bush either a)planned the attack or b) purposely let the plan go through to score points after the fact are grasping at straws. The former adminstration would have to been in on it as well, and what sense does that make?!

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • edited October 2007
    Brynj wrote: »
    I don't care for Bush for a lot of reasons, some that are expressed on these boards, some not, but to suggest Bush either a)planned the attack or b) purposely let the plan go through to score points after the fact are grasping at straws. The former adminstration would have to been in on it as well, and what sense does that make?!

    Skull and Bones!

  • BrynjBrynj Registered User
    edited October 2007
    suilimeA wrote: »
    Brynj wrote: »
    I don't care for Bush for a lot of reasons, some that are expressed on these boards, some not, but to suggest Bush either a)planned the attack or b) purposely let the plan go through to score points after the fact are grasping at straws. The former adminstration would have to been in on it as well, and what sense does that make?!

    Skull and Bones!

    Which is exactly why I don't vote.

    CHOICE IS AN ILLUSION! :)

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • devoirdevoir Registered User
    edited October 2007
    This has been an interesting thread.

    I think if anything the politicians and policy makers at the centre of key US foreign and internal policy at the start of the 21st Century are just opportunists, plain and simple. Not super cunning, not super insidious, just opportunists. They wouldn't (in my opinion) have purposefully let the attacks happen, but they'll be damned if they don't try to make the most of it once it had.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Daedalus wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What about accusations that the US government doesn't want South Korea and North Korea to rejoin and purposefully sabotages negotiations? North Korea might have their sniper towers and hollow cities but there's still a big wall dug into the ground in South Korea and plenty of land mines along the DMZ's border. You might say, "Wait! North Korea just agreed to dismantle its nuke program after successful negotiations with the US, SK, and Russia." Well sure, but if it's that easy to buy off North Korea, why hasn't the Korean War ended - we're at a ceasefire with NK; there never was a peace treaty. That's just bizarre. Mighty America can't get a peace treaty signed in under 50 years?

    Who gains from a divided Korea besides Kim Jong Il?

    Wait, I really want to hear the logical process that goes from "the only one who benefits from a divided Korea is Kim Jong Il" to "The US must be sabatoging the negotiations!"

    I mean, isn't the logical conclusion that, y'know, North Korea is sabatoging the negotiations? Maybe it's just me.

    Yes, but you also have to remember there hasn't been a military coup in North Korea, either. The brainwashing indoctrination and patriotism can't be that strong - how is it a military leader hasn't stepped up and whipped Kim Jong Il's ass and reversed his policies? Stalinist regimes aren't known for being honest. Those generals and such must know there's a delicate relationship between Chairman Kim and the US and any hint of instability will disrupt the relationship.

    NK is being paid in aid to be crazy. The US now gets a foot in the door; NK is starting to become dependent on foreign aid. A poor NK means a gateway into China should WW3 ever start. Maybe there wouldn't many excuses to keep military bases in SK if NK didn't act crazy ... as soon as Korea is unified, 'Yankee Go Home!' will follow. Well, much more than usual. D:

    The other guess I've heard is America and South Korea are trying to be nice and our side is postponing reunification just so we can get our figures straight - we don't want to just absorb NK's economy and military like West Germany sucked in and assimilated East Germany. So we have to take it slow and plan.

    I like the crazy first theory better.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    devoir wrote: »
    This has been an interesting thread.

    I think if anything the politicians and policy makers at the centre of key US foreign and internal policy at the start of the 21st Century are just opportunists, plain and simple. Not super cunning, not super insidious, just opportunists. They wouldn't (in my opinion) have purposefully let the attacks happen, but they'll be damned if they don't try to make the most of it once it had.

    Wasn't that a minor plot point for the James Bond movie Die Another Day? 'We made a list of who profited from 9/11 ...'

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What about accusations that the US government doesn't want South Korea and North Korea to rejoin and purposefully sabotages negotiations? North Korea might have their sniper towers and hollow cities but there's still a big wall dug into the ground in South Korea and plenty of land mines along the DMZ's border. You might say, "Wait! North Korea just agreed to dismantle its nuke program after successful negotiations with the US, SK, and Russia." Well sure, but if it's that easy to buy off North Korea, why hasn't the Korean War ended - we're at a ceasefire with NK; there never was a peace treaty. That's just bizarre. Mighty America can't get a peace treaty signed in under 50 years?

    Who gains from a divided Korea besides Kim Jong Il?

    Wait, I really want to hear the logical process that goes from "the only one who benefits from a divided Korea is Kim Jong Il" to "The US must be sabatoging the negotiations!"

    I mean, isn't the logical conclusion that, y'know, North Korea is sabatoging the negotiations? Maybe it's just me.

    Yes, but you also have to remember there hasn't been a military coup in North Korea, either. The brainwashing indoctrination and patriotism can't be that strong - how is it a military leader hasn't stepped up and whipped Kim Jong Il's ass and reversed his policies? Stalinist regimes aren't known for being honest. Those generals and such must know there's a delicate relationship between Chairman Kim and the US and any hint of instability will disrupt the relationship.

    NK is being paid in aid to be crazy. The US now gets a foot in the door; NK is starting to become dependent on foreign aid. A poor NK means a gateway into China should WW3 ever start. Maybe there wouldn't many excuses to keep military bases in SK if NK didn't act crazy ... as soon as Korea is unified, 'Yankee Go Home!' will follow. Well, much more than usual. D:

    The other guess I've heard is America and South Korea are trying to be nice and our side is postponing reunification just so we can get our figures straight - we don't want to just absorb NK's economy and military like West Germany sucked in and assimilated East Germany. So we have to take it slow and plan.

    I like the crazy first theory better.

    We don't really need a gateway into China if there's another world war because let's face it, there'll be a global exchange of nuclear weapons and cockroaches will inherit the earth. Besides, China isn't particularly likely to go to war with us anyway, our economies are too intertwined.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What about accusations that the US government doesn't want South Korea and North Korea to rejoin and purposefully sabotages negotiations? North Korea might have their sniper towers and hollow cities but there's still a big wall dug into the ground in South Korea and plenty of land mines along the DMZ's border. You might say, "Wait! North Korea just agreed to dismantle its nuke program after successful negotiations with the US, SK, and Russia." Well sure, but if it's that easy to buy off North Korea, why hasn't the Korean War ended - we're at a ceasefire with NK; there never was a peace treaty. That's just bizarre. Mighty America can't get a peace treaty signed in under 50 years?

    Who gains from a divided Korea besides Kim Jong Il?

    Wait, I really want to hear the logical process that goes from "the only one who benefits from a divided Korea is Kim Jong Il" to "The US must be sabatoging the negotiations!"

    I mean, isn't the logical conclusion that, y'know, North Korea is sabatoging the negotiations? Maybe it's just me.

    Yes, but you also have to remember there hasn't been a military coup in North Korea, either. The brainwashing indoctrination and patriotism can't be that strong - how is it a military leader hasn't stepped up and whipped Kim Jong Il's ass and reversed his policies? Stalinist regimes aren't known for being honest. Those generals and such must know there's a delicate relationship between Chairman Kim and the US and any hint of instability will disrupt the relationship.

    NK is being paid in aid to be crazy. The US now gets a foot in the door; NK is starting to become dependent on foreign aid. A poor NK means a gateway into China should WW3 ever start. Maybe there wouldn't many excuses to keep military bases in SK if NK didn't act crazy ... as soon as Korea is unified, 'Yankee Go Home!' will follow. Well, much more than usual. D:

    The other guess I've heard is America and South Korea are trying to be nice and our side is postponing reunification just so we can get our figures straight - we don't want to just absorb NK's economy and military like West Germany sucked in and assimilated East Germany. So we have to take it slow and plan.

    I like the crazy first theory better.

    Er, I don't see the need for hare-brained conspiracy theories to explain something like this. Complex diplomatic and political subterfuge, maybe, but you don't have to go into tinfoil hat country.

    There's a pretty practical reason why SK and the west would be nervous about reunification: the immediate aftermath. You have one of the most backwards and repressed countries in the world next to a modernized, open one. The risk of a bunch of refugees running south and the problems in bringing the economic and political situations in line are very high obstacles even if you had a NK not run by a madman who only cares about maintaining control.

    Add into that the normal concern about spheres of influence and so forth in international politics and it's pretty clear to see it is not a simple matter.

  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    But the operations those agencies have been able to keep secret have been minor, minor operations, and all for more definite beneficial purposes. Like the operation where they acted as a Hollywood film crew in order to save a hostage in Afghanistan, or somewhere.

    You'd have to keep a significantly larger portion of people quiet about an operation which drove faux 747's into the towers. And this operation was most definitely not for beneficial purposes.

    And what of the dead? The planes were real, as were the pilots. For this operation to have been government, all flight controllers would have to have been in on it, as well as pilots, and all who operated the place where those real planes landed. Then they would have had to kill all the passengers, as well as the pilots if they weren't in on it. And I suppose the just went down the line, killing everyone who wouldn't call a loved one and give a fake goodbye.

    Uh, Im saying that if this was a conspiracy, the only people who would be in on it would be the government and the hijackers. Im saying if it was a coverup conspiracy tinfoilhat job, that the people on the planes were real and died and the planes were purposely crashed. Who the fuck says the planes werent crashed into the towers and they were secretly switched out? That's just retarded.

    Im saying that if it was a conspiracy, the government wouldn't give a shit about the people on the planes or in the towers and the point of them doing it would be so that all died. And for what reason? To further an agenda in the Middle-East and strengthen government control and increase government control and create an authoritarian government that is after your bodily fluids.

    /tinfoilhat adovcate

    Theft 4 Bread
  • BrynjBrynj Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Daedalus wrote: »
    We don't really need a gateway into China if there's another world war because let's face it, there'll be a global exchange of nuclear weapons and cockroaches will inherit the earth. Besides, China isn't particularly likely to go to war with us anyway, our economies are too intertwined.

    Don't underestimate Taiwan which is still a major source of national shame for China and the likeliest cause of war between the US and China in the future. Though not the immediate future. China's 'navy' is years away from even trying to challenge the US navy and no naval support means no way to support ground troops.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Daedalus wrote:
    Besides, China isn't particularly likely to go to war with us anyway, our economies are too intertwined.

    Aaah! Don't say that out loud - you might jinx it!

    *knocks on wood*

    :P

    It was discovered after his death that Stalin had a filing cabinet full of strategies on how to invade the West. General MacArthur even presented a plan to the public on how to invade Soviet Land before he got the boot. I bet we've got filing systems brimming with tactics and plans on how to invade China by land like they have for us ... just in case. There's always a plan.

    In the next thirty years, China's expected to hit a depression when their one child per family policy catches up to the demands on the work force. If we hit them, it'll be then. We'll be at odds with NK for at least thirty more years. Our robot troops (armed with lasers and hover tanks) will kick so much ass across that continent ...

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.