F**k the Troops

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

How is it you find my post pathetic? Is it because I don't agree with you?

---

I already explained that. Your post was nothing but a personal insult with no backing. That is no way to have a debate. I was surprised to see that from you.

I said this in another thread and linked it early in this thread...

What does Iraq have to do with terrorism? You say nothing? Well, let me inform you of the truth. First of all, saying Iraq has something to do with terrorism is not to say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No, the Hussein regime was not involved in the 9/11 attacks as far as we know. But, the Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that supported Hamas and Hezballah and provided financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, took over Kuwait without any justification, used WMD's in a terrorist attack on the Kurds, and used terror to control their own masses. They were also having meetings with Al Qaeda representatives and harboring Al Qaeda members. Plus, our 1991 ceasefire with them required that they had to follow certain provisions regarding terrorism and their WMD's, which they did in fact have. They violated that ceasefire for 12 years. After 9/11, the U.S. made policy changes. We formed the Bush Doctrine, which was a policy regarding all international terrorist groups, not just the terrorist group that inspired it. (Make sure you caught that very important point which the leftist fanatics always overlook.) Under it, the Taliban of Afghanistan was the first government we went after. Due to everything I said about the Hussein regime, they were second. In addition to that, democracy in the heart of the Middle East is a great weapon against terrorism in the long run. So is making Islamofascist terrorists come out of the Middle Eastern woodwork so we can kill them like flies. Also, five ally governments and the United Nations, in addition to our own intelligence, reported that the regime currently had stockpiles of WMD's before the war started. Consider that entire picture, and you will see what Iraq has to do with terrorism and the justification for the lifting of the ceasefire and overthrowing the Hussein regime.

You need to consider all of it at the same time. It's about a big picture, not just any one thing.

Those are most of the justifications for the Iraq War. Even IF what you claim about corporate greed and how it relates to the war is true (I don't think you can prove that it is. Your point is pure speculation.), those justifications are still justifications.

First off I must admit I got too personal and insultive. Let me apologise for that. It was uncalled for and I let my emotions get too much in the way.
Let's say I'm having a not-so-enjoyable-time in my life right now.
So. Sorry about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I said this in another thread and linked it early in this thread...

What does Iraq have to do with terrorism? You say nothing? Well, let me inform you of the truth. First of all, saying Iraq has something to do with terrorism is not to say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No, the Hussein regime was not involved in the 9/11 attacks as far as we know. But, the Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that supported Hamas and Hezballah and provided financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, took over Kuwait without any justification, used WMD's in a terrorist attack on the Kurds, and used terror to control their own masses. They were also having meetings with Al Qaeda representatives and harboring Al Qaeda members. Plus, our 1991 ceasefire with them required that they had to follow certain provisions regarding terrorism and their WMD's, which they did in fact have. They violated that ceasefire for 12 years. After 9/11, the U.S. made policy changes. We formed the Bush Doctrine, which was a policy regarding all international terrorist groups, not just the terrorist group that inspired it. (Make sure you caught that very important point which the leftist fanatics always overlook.) Under it, the Taliban of Afghanistan was the first government we went after. Due to everything I said about the Hussein regime, they were second. In addition to that, democracy in the heart of the Middle East is a great weapon against terrorism in the long run. So is making Islamofascist terrorists come out of the Middle Eastern woodwork so we can kill them like flies. Also, five ally governments and the United Nations, in addition to our own intelligence, reported that the regime currently had stockpiles of WMD's before the war started. Consider that entire picture, and you will see what Iraq has to do with terrorism and the justification for the lifting of the ceasefire and overthrowing the Hussein regime.

You need to consider all of it at the same time. It's about a big picture, not just any one thing.

Those are most of the justifications for the Iraq War. Even IF what you claim about corporate greed and how it relates to the war is true (I don't think you can prove that it is. Your point is pure speculation.), those justifications are still justifications.

---

I never said Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism. Where exactly did you get that?

Also not once did I say Iraq didn't have WMD. But then again doesn't the USA have a grand arsenal of nukes? What kind of weapons would you call nukes? A nuclear warhead makes a nervegas bomb seem like an innocent toy.

Also I have never been a fan of Hussein's regime( to make the understatement of the century ), but Universal Mind; Who helped Saddam Hussein to power in the first place? .... Everyone knows the USA did.

And I'm sure you'll remember the 1st Gulf War. 100ds of Iraqis fought alongside the american and UN soldiers to end Saddam's terror regime. However just as our combined troops were zero-ing in on Baghdad, they left again. Needless to say those 100ds of Iraqis fighting alongside our soldiers were brutally slain by Saddam for treason. This goes to show the "charitable intentions" with which the US invaded Iraq.

So why didn't they just release Iraq of Saddams terror right there? They had encircled Baghdad and were closing in on Saddam's palace. They could've easily done it.

Instead they let it serve as a warning for Saddam, hoping that after this threat he would be corrupted and sell out his oil for cheap to western oil corporations. When he refused..... well that's where the 2nd Gulfwar started. The reason for invading Iraq was a weak excuse amounting basically to: "A Saudi Arabian Terrorist leader operating from Afghanistan attacked America, Yeah lets invade Iraq". It makes absolutely no sense.

First comes the Economical hitman that tries to corrupt leaders, if that fails they send CIA jackalls to either cause a revolution or assassinate the incorruptable leader to reinstate a corrupt leader who rules in their favor. If even that fails they send the militairy. Just listen to John Perkins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

Caprisun,
Nice of you to simply redicule my arguments; A clever way to avoiding having to bring good, solid counter arguements. However that's not what discussion is about is it? It's all about arguements.
So where are yours? Let me urge you a little.


Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?
Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?
Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?


Are you here to participate in a political discussion? Or are you merely here to pass your judgement on other people's opinions?
If you TRUELY wan't to redicule me, for whatever reason that makes you feel good, then bring good counter arguements that disprove mine.

---

You don't have an argument, that's my point. As soon as you make a valid point I might be so inclined as to provide a thoughtful response. I have been here since the beginning of this thread arguing my viewpoints. I have answered all three of your questions within the last page and a half, which leads me to believe you haven't read any of this discussion, which means we are probably going to start repeating things that have already been said.

"1. Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?"

There is no universal answer to this question. Anybody who simply answers yes or no has not delved deep enough into the issue. Believe it or not, I do think some politicians are genuine, honest people, others are clearly not. The government itself, the collection of it's employees, works to better the country. Do shady deals with third-world warlords benefit our people? Maybe, maybe not. Every government is different. Some purposefully neglect their own populations, while others really do work for a better standard of living. America falls into the latter category.

"2. Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?"

Yes? That's an odd way to word that.

"3. Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?"

Absolutely not. I do hold a great deal of contempt for certain forms of news media in America. Truthful? Yes, in regard to reporting false news stories. Objective? No, not very often.

"4. Do you really think the series of plane attacks on 9/11 were unforeseen by american intelligence and carried out by anti-american terrorists?"

I don't like where this is going at all. Of course it was carried out by anti-American terrorists, I don't want to argue about any conspiracy theories. There may have been intelligence to suggest that an attack was being planned but it is too easy for you to say in hindsight that it should have been caught. There are too many variables involved. There is evidence that intelligence agencies new terrorists were interested in using airplanes as a weapon, but they obviously did not know the extent of the plan.

"Are you here to participate in a political discussion? Or are you merely here to pass your judgement on other people's opinions?
If you TRUELY wan't to redicule me, for whatever reason that makes you feel good, then bring good counter arguements that disprove mine."

I present your debut post in this thread:

"You are far too gullable. The load of shit they made you believe. You and masses of the world's populace.
You should have nicknamed yourself Universal MindLESSNESS instead."

This was said in response to a man who had already made several logical arguments for feeling the way he does. Further evidence that you did not read any previous posts before entering the discussion. Was I wrong in my assertions?

"And why is it you're not sure John Perkins is to be trusted? I see nothing that suggests he would be lying."

I did a little research, it seems he doesn't have the best reputation. Even his old boss thinks he's delusional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

First off I must admit I got too personal and insultive. Let me apologise for that. It was uncalled for and I let my emotions get too much in the way.
Let's say I'm having a not-so-enjoyable-time in my life right now.
So. Sorry about that.

---

All right, no big deal. Cool beans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

I never said Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism. Where exactly did you get that?

---

That was just how I started out a post addressed to Wendylove a while back. I quoted it here so I wouldn't have to type out my entire argument again. But since you agree Iraq was involved in terrorism, wouldn't you say there was some degree of legitimacy in overthrowing the government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

Also not once did I say Iraq didn't have WMD. But then again doesn't the USA have a grand arsenal of nukes? What kind of weapons would you call nukes? A nuclear warhead makes a nervegas bomb seem like an innocent toy.

---

Okay, you just implied that you agree Iraq was involved in terrorism. You also implied you agree that Iraq had WMD's when Hussein was in power. Those two factors existing together created a huge problem. Terrorist governments with WMD's are out of the question, especially for us when they are our enemies. Remember what I said at the bottom of the quote. The war is not about any one thing. It is about the big picture of all of those factors existing together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

Also I have never been a fan of Hussein's regime( to make the understatement of the century ), but Universal Mind; Who helped Saddam Hussein to power in the first place? .... Everyone knows the USA did.

---

They were an alliance gone bad. I think giving WMD's to any third world government is insane, but I don't think what all Hussein became was completely forseeable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

And I'm sure you'll remember the 1st Gulf War. 100ds of Iraqis fought alongside the american and UN soldiers to end Saddam's terror regime. However just as our combined troops were zero-ing in on Baghdad, they left again. Needless to say those 100ds of Iraqis fighting alongside our soldiers were brutally slain by Saddam for treason. This goes to show the "charitable intentions" with which the US invaded Iraq.

---

I have a charitable view of the situation in the way that I see the good that was created, but that does not mean I think my country is run by saints with hearts of gold. I think politicians are scuzz in practically all cases. However, they do what they think will make them look good so they can keep their power, at least in a democratic republic. That is what has me giving more credibility to government actions than a lot of people give. They can only get away with so much under the right kind of system.

There is a video of Dick Cheney in 1994 saying we didn't go into Baghdad in 1991 because the Bush 41 Administration knew what would happen. Cheney described perfectly what ended up happening in 2003, and he said it in 1994. Big Bush was against it, at least before 9/11. After 9/11, Little Bush decided to go through with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

Instead they let it serve as a warning for Saddam, hoping that after this threat he would be corrupted and sell out his oil for cheap to western oil corporations. When he refused..... well that's where the 2nd Gulfwar started.

First comes the Economical hitman that tries to corrupt leaders, if that fails they send CIA jackalls to either cause a revolution or assassinate the incorruptable leader to reinstate a corrupt leader who rules in their favor. If even that fails they send the militairy. Just listen to John Perkins.

---

As I have said before, I don't rule that impossible. However, what is the proof of it? What makes you so sure, especially considering the other variables involved in the decision to go to war? Like I said, the justifications are still justifications no matter what kind of corrupt money scheming might have been also involved.

With all of that said, even though you disagree with the war, do you sort of see where the pro-war side is coming from? Do you see even a trace of understandability to the view although you think it is wrong? Also, do you think anything at all good has resulted from the overthrowing of the Hussein regime and replacing it with a democracy?

Quote:

---

"And why is it you're not sure John Perkins is to be trusted? I see nothing that suggests he would be lying."

---

Quote:

---

I did a little research, it seems he doesn't have the best reputation. Even his old boss thinks he's delusional.

---

That doesn't say a damn thing. It could either mean he indeed is delusional and fantasizing his ass of bringing his entire country's integrety in question. Or it could mean that he speaks the truth and those that wish to keep covered up what he wants to reveal are running a smear campaign against him to make him lose credibility. So it doesn't conclude anything at all.
Still I don't see why you think such a "conspiracy" as John Perkins "suggests" is really that far-fetched. human history is nothing but conspiracy and mass-deceit. Seems to fall in line perfectly to make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You don't have an argument, that's my point. As soon as you make a valid point I might be so inclined as to provide a thoughtful response. I have been here since the beginning of this thread arguing my viewpoints. I have answered all three of your questions within the last page and a half, which leads me to believe you haven't read any of this discussion, which means we are probably going to start repeating things that have already been said.

Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?

There is no universal answer to this question. Anybody who simply answers yes or no has not delved deep enough into the issue. Believe it or not, I do think some politicians are genuine, honest people, others are clearly not. The government itself, the collection of it's emplyees, works to better the country. Do shady deals with third world war lords benefit our people? Maybe, maybe not. Every government is different. Some purposefully neglect their own populations, while others really do work for a better standard of living. America falls into the latter category.

Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?

Yes? That's an odd way to word that.

Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?

Absolutely not. I do hold a great deal of contempt for certain forms of news media in America. Truthful? Yes, in regard to reporting false news stories. Objective? No, not very often.

Are you here to participate in a political discussion? Or are you merely here to pass your judgement on other people's opinions?
If you TRUELY wan't to redicule me, for whatever reason that makes you feel good, then bring good counter arguements that disprove mine.

I present your debut post in this thread:

"You are far too gullable. The load of shit they made you believe. You and masses of the world's populace.
You should have nicknamed yourself Universal MindLESSNESS instead."

This was said in response to a man who had already made several logical arguments for feeling the way he does. Further evidence that you did not read any previous posts before entering the discussion. Was I wrong in my assertions?

---

And I have apologised to him. But thanks for reminding me.


So what I jumped into the end of this discussion. If you participate in a 4 page discussion, do you read all posts?
I just reacted on one of the last posts in it. To Universal Mind's post.

I did present arguements.
If you consider my points to be too unserious to respond to then that defeats the very meaning of a discussion.

I'm disagreeing with tkdyo, but we actually are having a discussion. I take his point of view serious enough to respond to it and vice versa. You would make for a better discussion-participant if you were to actually take my arguements serious, like he did.



So okay you do not believe "conspiracy theories".
Don't you think it was a little strange how 2 towers designed to withstand a boeing crash came down like a house of cards though?
And how the hell did that 3d WTC building suddenly collapse in on itself in exactly the way a they do in a controlled demolition?
Doesn't the OBVIOUS evidence that demolition charges were used to bring 3 of the WTC buildings down trouble you at least a bit?
And are you not puzzled about the airplane that supposedly hit the Pentagon? It left a very small, clean hole. Not a trace of Airplane wreckage was found.
They claimed to have ID-ed corpses of the passengers of that supposed airplane while they also claimed the airplane wreckage was missing because it would have completely vaporised.
So the crash would have vaporised a complete airplane; hull, engines and everything, yet it did leave enough of the passengers bodies intact to be IDed?
And let's not even mention the clearly (and poorly) staged airplane crash near Pittsburg.

Sure I know it is very populair to redicule Zeitgeist, but the Zeitgesit documentairies do present undeniable evidence that Demolition charges were used to bring the 3 WTC buildings down.
Have you seen the Zeitgeist documentairy? I've once seen another docu on TV about this as well. They really do raise some unnerving questions.

How does this not sound like a seriously questionable explanation of the events on 9/11?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

And I have apologised to him.


So what I jumped into the end of this discussion. If you participate in a 4 page discussion, do you read all posts?
I just reacted on one of the last posts in it.

I did present arguements. Extensively.
If you consider my points to be too unserious to respond to then you shouldn't be discussing anything at all.

I'm disagreeing with tkdyo, but we actually are having a discussion. I take his point of view serious enough to respond to it and vice versa. You would make for a better discussion-participant if you were to actually take my arguements serious, like he did.

---

You have no argument. You have incoherent, far-fetched assertions. What am I supposed to say to that? I answered your questions, were they supposed to prove something?

Sure.
You're right we don't know what exactly happened on 9/11 and the circulating theories(yes even your own theory as to what happened) are all speculative, but what can be safely said is that whatever happened is NOT at all what we were all told by the media had happened.
Off course people come with conspiracy theories. They want to fill in the gaps. They know they've been lied to (at least some of the more analytical, vigilant people) and they're looking for answers.


I for one find the "conspiracy" theory alot more likely than the story we were all presented by the media.
The simple truth is we will never completely find out. Thanks to the FBI confiscating all wreckage and footage that holds the only conclusive evidence as to what exactly happened on 9/11.
Why have they refused to share this evidence with the public to this day?
A series of small explosions was clearly visable and hearable going down the length of the twin towers, RIGHT before they collapsed in on themselves.
And do you know what expertise and precision work it takes to demolish a building to collapse in on itself? And you actually believe that a plane crashing into a building causes it to collapse in on itself perfectly? Did you know the steal beams were cut diagonally, just like they would in a demolition-job? They even found traces of a common demolition-explosive/incendairy on ground zero. Kerosine ablaze would still not have cause the entire steel structure to give way as easily as it did, but this demolition-explosive is especially made to cut through very thick steel beams.

However don't you find any of that even slightly suspicious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

So okay you do not believe "conspiracy theories".
Don't you think it was a little strange how 2 towers designed to withstand a boeing crash came down like a house of cards though?
And how the hell did that 3d WTC building suddenly collapse in on itself in exactly the way a they do in a controlled demolition?
Doesn't the OBVIOUS evidence that demolition charges were used to bring 3 of the WTC buildings down trouble you at least a bit?
And are you not puzzled about the airplane that supposedly hit the Pentagon? It left a very small, clean hole. Not a trace of Airplane wreckage was found.
They claimed to have ID-ed corpses of the passengers of that supposed airplane while they also claimed the airplane wreckage was missing because it would have completely vaporised.
So the crash would have vaporised a complete airplane; hull, engines and everything, yet it did leave enough of the passengers bodies intact to be IDed?
And let's not even mention the clearly (and poorly) staged airplane crash near Pittsburg.

Sure I know it is very populair to redicule Zeitgeist, but the Zeitgesit documentairies do present undeniable evidence that Demolition charges were used to bring the 3 WTC buildings down.
Have you seen the Zeitgeist documentairy? I've once seen another docu on TV about this as well. They really do raise some unnerving questions.

How does this not sound like a seriously questionable explanation of the events on 9/11?

---

I assume this was directed to me since I was mentioned beforehand ;)

I did in fact watch the entire Zeitgeist documentary. I dont ridicule it because its cool...just because the only evidence he has is circumstantial. I ask you read this link about counter evidence to the movie. I have read it all, but it is too much to summarize. I will say though, that I believe our government did fail for many reasons, just two of which I said on the last page, there is no way around that.

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/art...eist/part-two/

note, you dont have to read the 1st or 3rd page as those are on the non 9/11 parts of the film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I assume this was directed to me since I was mentioned beforehand ;)

I did in fact watch the entire Zeitgeist documentary. I dont ridicule it because its cool...just because the only evidence he has is circumstantial. I ask you read this link about counter evidence to the movie. I have read it all, but it is too much to summarize. I will say though, that I believe our government did fail for many reasons, just two of which I said on the last page, there is no way around that.

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/art...eist/part-two/

note, you dont have to read the 1st or 3rd page as those are on the non 9/11 parts of the film.

---

Actually I adressed Caprisun, but feel free to show me what has moved you to believe that 9/11 was indeed a genuine terror attack.

See CapriSun? This is why I took tkdyo as an example; Here he comes with counter arguements. That's alot more constructive than simply stating I have no worthwhile arguements and rediculing me.

I am more than willing to not simply dismiss his counter arguements as "rubbish"(as you dismissed my arguements, even completely denied their existance).

I will check it out and if I find the arguements compelling enough then I see no reason as to why I shouldn't change my mind about 9/11.

There's alot you could learn from tkdyo.


--------------------


I read the debunking 9/11 myth page. And to be honost I'm not impressed.



In fact I find these explanations so weak that it only serves to reinforce my beliefs that 9/11 indeed was an inside job.
They try far too desperately to disporve every single point Zeitgeist made about 9/11. I haven't checked the rest of the pages attempting to debunk Zeitgeist (yet), but you cannot take a documentairy and debunk every single point they make without agreeing with at least some points made in it. It is too complete of a crackdown on Zeitgeist.

Also this guy(s?) uses sources that I do not at all deem trustworthy and objective. Mainstream media channels.
Very sloppy.

The Pentagon video that was supposed to prove it indeed was an airplain was very vague and inconclusive. I must say that whatever struck the pentagon much rather had the speed of a jetfighter or missile than a huge Boeing. It moved far too fast to be visable; Boeings fly relatively slow. Also the size of whatever it was that hit the pentagon looked like at least 1/8th the size of a Boeing. You see the impact took place relatively close to the camera so you would have expected to see a HUGE body slam into it, yet you can only see a very small white stripe.
I suggest you take a good look at that video and you'll see it was NOTHING like a boeing.

Furthermore they try to dispell the fact that the twin towers were supposed to withstand Boeing impacts. They say it was designed to survive a 747 impact flying at low speed with little fuel. That is about the weakest "explanation" I've read. What kind of engineers build a building to survive the impact of a Boeing, but only a 747 flying at low speed and with little fuel? Isn't the point of engineering to prepare for the worst? What an airhead would an engineer be consider a Boeing747 impact into a building's design, yet not consider the possibility that it might fly in at full speed with full fuel tanks? I don't see how an accidentally crashing airplane would not fly in at full speed, with full kerosine tanks. Very sloppy "explanation" don't you think?

And they also claim that large buildings just tend to collapse that way. Is that why you think it is considered such a delicate, expert's job to demolish a building and prevent it from damaging surrounding buildings?
Nonsense. Go ask a demolition expert that demolishes obsolete buildings.




This looks like sanity and realism to you? It looks like a poor cover up job to me.
"Go back to sleep people, everything is under control" is written all over that site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

Sure.
You're right we don't know what exactly happened on 9/11 and the circulating theories(yes even your own theory as to what happened) are all speculative, but what can be safely said is that whatever happened is NOT at all what we were all told by the media had happened.
Off course people come with conspiracy theories. They want to fill in the gaps. They know they've been lied to (at least some of the more analytical, vigilant people) and they're looking for answers.


I for one find the "conspiracy" theory alot more likely than the story we were all presented by the media.
The simple truth is we will never completely find out. Thanks to the FBI confiscating all wreckage and footage that holds the only conclusive evidence as to what exactly happened on 9/11.
Why have they refused to share this evidence with the public to this day?
A series of small explosions was clearly visable and hearable going down the length of the twin towers, RIGHT before they collapsed in on themselves.
And do you know what expertise and precision work it takes to demolish a building to collapse in on itself? And you actually believe that a plane crashing into a building causes it to collapse in on itself perfectly? Did you know the steal beams were cut diagonally, just like they would in a demolition-job? They even found traces of a common demolition-explosive/incendairy on ground zero. Kerosine ablaze would still not have cause the entire steel structure to give way as easily as it did, but this demolition-explosive is especially made to cut through very thick steel beams.

However don't you find any of that even slightly suspicious?

---

I thought I said I wasn't going to argue about conspiracy theories, yet you proceeded to write a rather large response about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. We were talking about the American military, the inevitability of war, and the history of Empires. You know, sane topics. Everything you mentioned above has been thoroghly and unequivocally proven false on multiple occasions by experts, note the emphasis on "experts." This is completely irrelevant to the topic. I believe there is even a thread on this site completely dedicated to criticizing Zeitgeist, you should go there.

"Have you seen the Zeitgeist documentairy? I've once seen another docu on TV about this as well. They really do raise some unnerving questions."

No, no they don't.

Quote:

---

"That doesn't say a damn thing. It could either mean he indeed is delusional and fantasizing his ass of bringing his entire country's integrety in question. Or it could mean that he speaks the truth and those that wish to keep covered up what he wants to reveal are running a smear campaign against him to make him lose credibility. So it doesn't conclude anything at all.
Still I don't see why you think such a "conspiracy" as John Perkins "suggests" is really that far-fetched. human history is nothing but conspiracy and mass-deceit. Seems to fall in line perfectly to make sense."

---

It seems you have a mind that is prone to conspiracy theories. The criticisms I read were written by journalists and economists from all ends of the political spectrum, don't be so quick to call it a smear campaign. Even an editorial reviewer from amazon.com said this "Gathering evidence is not Perkins's strong suit. Typically, a shadowy figure pulls him aside, insists on anonymity, then reveals all. Critics will rightfully accuse Perkins of dreadful journalism and a taste for conspiracy theories."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

I read the debunking 9/11 myth page. And to be honost I'm not impressed.



In fact I find these explanations so weak that it only serves to reinforce my beliefs that 9/11 indeed was an inside job.
They try far too desperately to disporve every single point Zeitgeist made about 9/11. I haven't checked the rest of the pages attempting to debunk Zeitgeist (yet), but you cannot take a documentairy and debunk every single point they make without agreeing with at least some points made in it. It is too complete of a crackdown on Zeitgeist.

Also this guy(s?) uses sources that I do not at all deem trustworthy and objective. Mainstream media channels.
Very sloppy.

The Pentagon video that was supposed to prove it indeed was an airplain was very vague and inconclusive. I must say that whatever struck the pentagon much rather had the speed of a jetfighter or missile than a huge Boeing. It moved far too fast to be visable; Boeings fly relatively slow. Also the size of whatever it was that hit the pentagon looked like at least 1/8th the size of a Boeing. You see the impact took place relatively close to the camera so you would have expected to see a HUGE body slam into it, yet you can only see a very small white stripe.
I suggest you take a good look at that video and you'll see it was NOTHING like a boeing.



And they also claim that large buildings just tend to collapse that way. Is that why you think it is considered such a delicate, expert's job to demolish a building and prevent it from damaging surrounding buildings?
Nonsense. Go ask a demolition expert that demolishes obsolete buildings.




This looks like sanity and realism to you? It looks like a poor cover up job to me.
"Go back to sleep people, everything is under control" is written all over that site.

---

first, thank you for taking the time to actually read it, many do not.

I guess it may seem desperate to cover them up, but to me it just shows they wanted to be thorough and not leave certain things uncovered.

I did watch the pentagon security cam, and it looked like a plane to me. However, the tapes are too blurry to tell in any event. I dont think 500 mph is too slow for a cam that only refreshes every few seconds to catch, and 500mph is just a cruising speed, I highly doubt the pilot was flying that slow.

I have talked to some demolition experts as well, my friend's step dad is one actually, and he thinks the opposite. So many beams were taken out by the planes that it doesnt seem unreasonable to me to believe they would fall straight down.

It does very much seem like realism to me. more real than, say, half the US's constructional engineers not crying out about how unrealistic the buildings fall was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

first, thank you for taking the time to actually read it, many do not.

I guess it may seem desperate to cover them up, but to me it just shows they wanted to be thorough and not leave certain things uncovered.

I did watch the pentagon security cam, and it looked like a plane to me. However, the tapes are too blurry to tell in any event. I dont think 500 mph is too slow for a cam that only refreshes every few seconds to catch, and 500mph is just a cruising speed, I highly doubt the pilot was flying that slow.

I have talked to some demolition experts as well, my friend's step dad is one actually, and he thinks the opposite. So many beams were taken out by the planes that it doesnt seem unreasonable to me to believe they would fall straight down.

It does very much seem like realism to me. more real than, say, half the US's constructional engineers not crying out about how unrealistic the buildings fall was.

---

Concerning the Pentagon. Okay if indeed the camera was a low tech one that refreshed every couple of seconds it could be possible to miss the actual plane. But the video shows a police car passing by and it did not look laggy. In wasn't a perfect stream either, but it streamed pretty smooth. Smooth enough to be able to notice something as HUGE as a boeing comming in from the right.
This was the only video that was published and it doesn't prove or disprove anything really. It is a vague video where no airplane can be seen at all. Just a vague thin white shape and then an explosion.

However there were so much more cameras that filmed the Pentagon event. Surely some of them would have captured conclusive footage of an airplane flying into the building. Or maybe something other than a Boeing?

The FBI has confiscated all the tapes of these cameras and refuses to publicise them.

Why? What was on those tapes that they do not want us to see?

yea, a few seconds was a bit exaggerated now that I think about it but still something flying so fast would get past anything minus a smooth stream imo, but the ones that have been confiscated may be more detailed. Perhaps they not only showed the crash but also sensitive details of whats inside the pentagon. Of course, it is mere speculation and circumstance on both sides until we have someone from the inside speaking out, which Im sure we would all love.

lol he says we kill innocent civilians LOL

First of all, the whole reason the troops even went to Iraq was because of suspicion that they had nuclear weapons. Look at it like this. Say im a police officer. I suspect that you may have 50 kilos of cocaine in your vehicle. I ask to search you vehicle to make sure you dont have any illegal drugs or weapons. You tell me no. If there was no problem then you would not have a problem with me searching your vehicle.

This is the same scenario in iraq. We suspected that Iraq had nuclear bombs that they were hiding, and seeing as they would not let anyone in the country to inspect for said nuclear bombs, probable cause to take an even more direct action. With a country like Iraq, a very underdeveloped country where most people have the mind and instincs of a pure savage, why on earth would you allow them to have nuclear bombs? Its like letting a kid play with your loaded shotgun. I dont know if you realize that nuclear bombs can reach you anywhere on this planet, so please, dont say that being in the US, that we are not threatened, especially since decades ago we have been the bullseye for every major anti democracy rebellion group. Sure we havent found any nukes yet, probably never will, but i know i feel alot safer knowing that trained proffessionals are in Iraq to ensure that they never get used on us. If the US left Iraq today, by the end of the month the whole country would be in turmoil. It would be a giant cival war.

You already have insurgents there from all bordering countries, KILLING THE INNOCENT CIVILIANS, and blaming it on the US, because they themselves dont want the rest of the world to know that it was actually them using civilians as human shields, blowing up there own hospitals, blowing up there own schools etc. Should we just sit back, and allow these savages to continue making life hard for the good people of there country? I thnk not, as that is not what the US is all about.

Sure there are plenty of problems here in the US that need to be adressed, but none of them outweight the problems that are happening in these third world countries such as, but not limited to, genocide. People bash the US, and even our OWN people cuss and spit on our troops for making the world a better place for EVERYONE. Where is the logic? We removed a tyrant from power, basically liberated the people of Iraq. Now you got all different tribes having a cival war in the streets, sending suicide bombers to blow each other away, and the US is policing that issue. Can you not see that we are trying to clean that country up? There is always casualties in battle, but do you not see that everything we blow up, eventually gets re built? If they didnt want there houses blown up, they shouldnt have been hanging out the window shooting AK's at the guys trying to help them.

You want to sit behind your keyboard and your soft drinks writing about how bad the US is, but you only write about what you read on the internet. Have you ever seen a day of combat in your life? Do you know what it feels like to accomplish a goal that is worth no money, a goal that gives only self satisfaction to know that YOU have made a difference in these peoples lives? It sickens me to my stomach when i read this stuff, especially when it comes from our own citizens. GET REAL. There is more to life than your own back yard.

Afganistan. We are there primarily to search and apprehend the HEAD of the snake, Osama Bin Laden. Without him the main rebel force could not function as well. I have no doubts that with him gone that they would not still find a way to operate and carry out attacks on the peaceful citizens of there own countries, but there morale and basic functions would be cut in HALF. That would make the US and all other countries helping out's job, that much easier. If you dont like the idea of helping someone in need, for no personal, physical gain, then you should leave this country. Go join with the savages and see how fast they turn you into the next beheading video on the news.

You want to make a difference in this world, join the military, be a soldier, be a real true american hero. You really think that we go over there and say hey i see a civilian, lets shoot him. That is just fucking retarded im sorry to say. The only murdering going on in the middle east is the murders commited by there own people. Why is it so hard to believe that we are actually there to help? The US also isnt the only country over there. This leads me to my next point that the US is a target and always will be, because we are the most successful country in the world. You dont ever hear people bashing the fine UK troops for doing THERE job do you? Exactly.

That kind of physically hurt me... :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Good lord. You truly are a violent individual.

How did war create peace for Germany after WWI? Economic destruction, the rise of a dictator, a second world war?

Honestly I don't even know how to respond. Your statement was so full of shit.



It would seem that you are the one living in the past, what with your caveman "ooga booga fight fight fight" mentality.

And I was using the creation of Israel as a timestamp rather than an example, yet it fits anyway.

Do you honestly believe that by further meddling for years and years, spending countless billions of dollars, wasting innocent lives, that we will "create" peace in the Middle East? If so...

You're ridiculous.

---

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I just came upon a nice quote from the book I'm currently reading called "The Utility of Force" by Rupert Smith. This quote is very relevant to the topic so I thought I would share it. The opening lines of chapter 4 on pg. 153 go like this: "Conflict has been, is and probably always will be an integral element of human society. I stated as much at the start of this book, and will revert to the theme at its end. It is vitally important to maintain the search for peace, but peace must be understood as a condition relating to conflict: not in the sense of the absence of conflict but as one in which that option is not chosen. I do not consider this situation to be good, but rather, and simply, a fact."

I just remembered why I resent politics so much. It only serves to divide people.
I'm going to agree to disagree with you guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I just came upon a nice quote from the book I'm currently reading called "The Utility of Force" by Rupert Smith. This quote is very relevant to the topic so I thought I would share it. The opening lines of chapter 4 on pg. 153 go like this: "Conflict has been, is and probably always will be an integral element of human society. I stated as much at the start of this book, and will revert to the theme at its end. It is vitally important to maintain the search for peace, but peace must be understood as a condition relating to conflict: not in the sense of the absence of conflict but as one in which that option is not chosen. I do not consider this situation to be good, but rather, and simply, a fact."

---

But why does conflict have to happen on a large scale between nations? There is no reason why we cannot be peaceful with each other in our international dealings.

You keep reiterating that your opinion is a fact. It is not. If it was we wouldn't be discussing this. It has not been established in this thread, nor is it a commonly accepted that human beings must join groups and kill each other. It has been shown that monkeys have a tendency to be territorial. It has been shown that they have a tendency to form groups and fight for this territory. But these are tendencies that can be overcome(this is why we live in society rather than the wild; to form new more effective means of surviving). There are reasons we are territorial, there are reasons why we fight. These are techniques that have been effective in ensuring survival(of the gene pool) this far. But these techniques have grown to proportions that could now completely destroy us. We now see the advent of technology and new survival strategies based on cooperation rather than being #1.

We have set up a power structure that is based on military might. We can change this structure. Our government was an attempt to create a new structure based on personal liberty and economic freedom. However, we have strayed away from these ideals.

I don't mean ^this^ to be about Iraq; this is about war and society in general.

Ok how are you going to have peace when the next country doesnt want peace? Hm? You cant have world peace if everyone isnt willing to cooperate. If i ran my own country i would eliminate every single hostile force on this planet. I could see that as being the ONLY way to have world peace, to remove them from the source. That would mean alot of trips to Africa, middle east, etc.

The world would hate me until the job was finished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

But why does conflict have to happen on a large scale between nations? There is no reason why we cannot be peaceful with each other in our international dealings.

You keep reiterating that your opinion is a fact. It is not. If it was we wouldn't be discussing this. It has not been established in this thread, nor is it a commonly accepted that human beings must join groups and kill each other. It has been shown that monkeys have a tendency to be territorial. It has been shown that they have a tendency to form groups and fight for this territory. But these are tendencies that can be overcome(this is why we live in society rather than the wild; to form new more effective means of surviving). There are reasons we are territorial, there are reasons why we fight. These are techniques that have been effective in ensuring survival(of the gene pool) this far. But these techniques have grown to proportions that could now completely destroy us. We now see the advent of technology and new survival strategies based on cooperation rather than being #1.

We have set up a power structure that is based on military might. We can change this structure. Our government was an attempt to create a new structure based on personal liberty and economic freedom. However, we have strayed away from these ideals.

I don't mean ^this^ to be about Iraq; this is about war and society in general.

---

"But why does conflict have to happen on a large scale between nations? There is no reason why we cannot be peaceful with each other in our international dealings."

How could it be any other way? This world is made up of large, densely populated nations, all of which have different ideals, different culture, different morals, differnet governments etc. Conflict of interest is inevitable. How are they supposed to protect their own interests? Diplomacy doesn't always work, in fact, it usually doesn't work if there is a legitimate conflict at hand. I have another quote from Rupert Smith: "Yet this cannot be so; whilst the application of force for immoral reasons or in an illegal way is not to be countenanced, it is also not a sufficient manner in which to understand a core reality: we the people need a force as a basic element of our lives for two generic overarching purposes---defense and security. Put more particularly, or even personally, we need people to defend our homes and ourselves, and to secure our interests. Like every other aspect of force, these two purposes are eternal---which means that in times of peace as in times of war the maintenance of a force can never be entirely dismissed, even if it is expensive; nor can a focus upon the morality and legality of the use of force supplant the very basic need to understand its utility."

"You keep reiterating that your opinion is a fact. It is not. If it was we wouldn't be discussing this. It has not been established in this thread, nor is it a commonly accepted that human beings must join groups and kill each other."
"We have set up a power structure that is based on military might. We can change this structure. Our government was an attempt to create a new structure based on personal liberty and economic freedom. However, we have strayed away from these ideals."


I am going to keep referencing Rupert Smiths book because it is very relevant to this topic and it happens to be an excellent source of wisdom. The premise of his book is that war continually evolves. This evolution is characterized by distinct paradigm shifts in history. Examples of these paradigms are the "Interstate Industrial War" era, which took place between the time of Napoleon and the second world war, and also the "Cold War Confrontation" era, which was ushered in by the creation of nuclear weapons. We can't control this evolution any more than we can control the evolution of our pysical bodies. That means we can't stop it and we can't predict its future, the only thing we can do is adapt to it. We cannot steer this evolution into an era of utopian peace. That is not an opinion, it is a fact of human civilization. Just as science has laws, this is a law of civilization.

"It has been shown that monkeys have a tendency to be territorial. It has been shown that they have a tendency to form groups and fight for this territory. But these are tendencies that can be overcome(this is why we live in society rather than the wild; to form new more effective means of surviving). There are reasons we are territorial, there are reasons why we fight. These are techniques that have been effective in ensuring survival(of the gene pool) this far. But these techniques have grown to proportions that could now completely destroy us. We now see the advent of technology and new survival strategies based on cooperation rather than being #1."

This was my point earlier, war cannot be overcome by consciousness. I can personally choose not to fight, it is easy for individuals to consciously override their natural tendency to be violent. But when you have large populations of people, they are filled with people that have different opinions, different levels of self control, different levels of education, different level of emotional control etc. Group think mentality makes war unavoidable. Not everybody is like you, they don't all think like you. You need to understand that most conflicts are not about being #1, they are merely a conflict of interest. They need to fight to survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I am going to keep referencing Rupert Smiths book because it is very relevant to this topic and it happens to be an excellent source of wisdom. The premise of his book is that war continually evolves. This evolution is characterized by distinct paradigm shifts in history. Examples of these paradigms are the "Interstate Industrial War" era, which took place between the time of Napoleon and the second world war, and also the "Cold War Confrontation" era, which was ushered in by the creation of nuclear weapons. We can't control this evolution any more than we can control the evolution of our pysical bodies. That means we can't stop it and we can't predict its future, the only thing we can do is adapt to it. We cannot steer this evolution into an era of utopian peace. That is not an opinion, it is a fact of human civilization. Just as science has laws, this is a law of civilization.

---

We don't need to control it's evolution. I'm suggesting we stop using this tactic. Rupert asserts that war constantly evolves and from this you conclude that war is a fact/can't be stopped. A bit of a jump, no?

You still have absolutely no evidence, no solid proof. Try to explain why this is a fact in a short concise manner; I'm interested as to why you see this as FACT.

By the way, if war constantly evolves, it will eventually stop itself. Eventually we will have strong enough weapons that either we will kill everything, or it will be pointless to fight because the technology will be so strong that whichever side is more advanced will automatically win. We are already very close to this point and will likely reach it within our lifetime. If they ever get nano-bots going the military will be obsolete. Think of a microscopic computer that can kill you without you ever seeing it. This is the kind of thing we will see if we continue to let war evolve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elem3nt0

Ok how are you going to have peace when the next country doesnt want peace? Hm? You cant have world peace if everyone isnt willing to cooperate. If i ran my own country i would eliminate every single hostile force on this planet. I could see that as being the ONLY way to have world peace, to remove them from the source. That would mean alot of trips to Africa, middle east, etc.

The world would hate me until the job was finished.

---

Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster ~ Nietzsche

You yourself would become a hostile force, would you kill yourself when you finished?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster ~ Nietzsche

You yourself would become a hostile force, would you kill yourself when you finished?

---

you dont automatically become a hostile force when you defend yourself, what are you suppose to do, just lay down and let them take over and take your rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

We don't need to control it's evolution. I'm suggesting we stop using this tactic. Rupert asserts that war constantly evolves and from this you conclude that war is a fact/can't be stopped. A bit of a jump, no?

You still have absolutely no evidence, no solid proof. Try to explain why this is a fact in a short concise manner; I'm interested as to why you see this as FACT.

By the way, if war constantly evolves, it will eventually stop itself. Eventually we will have strong enough weapons that either we will kill everything, or it will be pointless to fight because the technology will be so strong that whichever side is more advanced will automatically win. We are already very close to this point and will likely reach it within our lifetime. If they ever get nano-bots going the military will be obsolete. Think of a microscopic computer that can kill you without you ever seeing it. This is the kind of thing we will see if we continue to let war evolve.



Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster ~ Nietzsche

You yourself would become a hostile force, would you kill yourself when you finished?

---

"We don't need to control it's evolution. I'm suggesting we stop using this tactic. Rupert asserts that war constantly evolves and from this you conclude that war is a fact/can't be stopped. A bit of a jump, no?"

Stop using what tactic? Tactics are always changing. You can't stop military evolution just as you can't stop human evolution. War is a natural manifestation of human psychology when placed in the context of a civilized world. Unless we physically evolve and develop new psychological traits, which is not likely, we will always have war. Don't you realize that for war to end, you need the cooperation of the entire human race? Even if you were able to acheive some miraculous measure of peace throughout the world, it would never last. The only way we may be able to end war between nations is to create one super nation, under one ruling government. That won't happen as long as different cultures exist because not all cultures agree on everything. Maybe in the year 3000 when we all evolve into one generic race we could form this unified earth, but there would probably still be infighting and civil wars, because divisions will still exist inside that super-nation. Humans, in their current physical form, need war. This isn't a conclusion that I myself have jumped to, it is common sense among historians.

"You still have absolutely no evidence, no solid proof. Try to explain why this is a fact in a short concise manner; I'm interested as to why you see this as FACT."

I won't be able to dig any one thing out of the ground and point to that object as unambiguous proof of this concept. How do you prove George Washington existed? There is a skeleton with his name labeled above it, but how can we really be sure that skeleton was the one that became the first president of the United States of America? Good knowledge of history and logical thinking will allow you to come to the conclusion that warfare, as ugly and destructive as it may be, is also naturally and perpetually a part of human society. The evidence is interwoven into 5,000 years of civilized history, and its roots can be traced back several million years. Warfare could be described as a negative side effect of large scale civilizations. Our violent tendencies served a specific purpose in the cave man days, they evolved for a reason. These psychological constructs won't suddenly devolve just because we became civilized. Primal instict paired with a group think mentality is the major force that drives countries into war. Nations will do what the natural human would do, they don't have a conscience. Nations have the drive to survive just as individuals do. This doesn't mean war is mindless. Good leaders know the futility of trying to end war, which is why they dedicate their time and energy to forming a strong military, and utilizing that military in the most effective and humane way possible. It is the only way to ensure the safety of their country. Your argument is that we should simply be able to overcome these insticts, but you aren't looking at the big picture. You are treating nations as if they were individuals with human emotions, and that is obviously not the case.

Take a land dispute for example. Two countries equally believe that they own a particular piece of land, neither one is willing to compromise. Country A invades the piece of land in question in an attempt to forcefully take what they believe to be theirs. It is not reasonable to expect country B to stand aside and allow this to happen, they also believe this land is rightfully theirs. How do you resolve this conflict? Remember each country believes the whole of this land is rightfully thiers. It is too easy to say they should split it in half when you aren't personally involved, we both know that is not a realistic outcome.

Conflicts like this are all too common, and they can be traced back to our primal instincts that evolved a million years ago. As I said earlier, military force is as much, if not more about national security than it is about a need to dominate the world.

So why don't you explain to me how you think we can end war. All you have said so far is that we should simply stop, just overcome our emotions, as if it were that easy. Maybe if you sit and really think about formulating a plan for world peace, you will begin to see my point.

"By the way, if war constantly evolves, it will eventually stop itself. Eventually we will have strong enough weapons that either we will kill everything, or it will be pointless to fight because the technology will be so strong that whichever side is more advanced will automatically win. We are already very close to this point and will likely reach it within our lifetime. If they ever get nano-bots going the military will be obsolete. Think of a microscopic computer that can kill you without you ever seeing it. This is the kind of thing we will see if we continue to let war evolve."

Military evolution has no endpoint, just as biological evolution has no endpoint. There is no destination at which evolution stops. It is a misconception to think we are on a road to self-destruction. Evolution simply means change, there is no specific direction. Meaning weapons won't just continue to get bigger and bigger. We invented nuclear weapons 70 years ago, since the end of the Cold War, weapon development has taken another turn. Now the emphasis is not on absolute destruction but rather precise, controlled destruction. Smart bombs can be dropped on a specific building, or a specific car, or even a specific person rather than carpet bombing a ten square mile area with the hope of destroying our target. During the war in Iraq, smart bombs with no explosive charge at all have been dropped. A large hunk of metal dropped from several thousand feet produces enough force to destroy the more fragile targets. The casuality rate from the Interstate Industrial War era was many times higher than the preceding two eras combined. To say we will eventually destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons or nanobots is to make a prediction that you are not at liberty to make. That is like saying humans will evolve larger calf muscles that allow us to jump 20 feet in the air. While this is technically possible, the odds of it happening are infinitesimally small. There are far too many variables to make such predictions.

"Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster ~ Nietzsche

You yourself would become a hostile force, would you kill yourself when you finished? "

This is another instance of you failing to look at the big picture. I think you took Nietzches quote out of context. He is referring to conflict on an individual level. Obviously a monster like the Nazi Empire needs to be crushed.

And why would you kill yourself? You are not hostile to everyone, only your enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

you dont automatically become a hostile force when you defend yourself, what are you suppose to do, just lay down and let them take over and take your rights?

---

He wasn't talking about defending himself. He said he would go out and eliminate every hostile force. It's only self defense if they attack first.

Im talking about world peace here, and im talking realistic here. Without violence there wont EVER be world peace. You think you can just walk up to an insurgent or a somalian, and be like "Hey we dont like you fighting all the time, put down your weapons".

Sure i live in a country where i shouldnt have to worry about stuff like that, because it has nothing to do with me, and doesnt effect me, but ill tell you one thing, this might kind of throw you off a little but, if you believe in extraterrestrial's, the ONLY reason they choose to not have anything to do with this planet, OPENLY, is because all we do is kill eachother, and this race is NEVER going to advance any farther as long as there are factions running around chopping each others heads off, and the scariest part about it, is middle eastern countries and similar third world areas, they think nothing of it. You have people that will gut a baby and think nothing of it. If we dont cleanse our race of people like that, were just gonna keep swimming in circles because they will always represent our race's "broken arm".

This has nothing to do with my earlier statements about Iraq and Afganistan, this is just a personal opinion of mine.