a rare political entry
Mar. 25th, 2006 06:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tiggzdude. is this for real? people honestly believe that our government orchestrated 9/11? this is truly the first i've heard of this. i'm at a loss for words. do i trust our government compeletely? no. do i believe that they always have our best interests at heart? no. do i think they killed thousands of people on september 11th for some unknown reason(i'm assuming they're saying it's because the president needed a catalyst for war)? abso-fucking-lutely NOT! how ludicrous is this? really. do any of you think this? if so, please do respond with why you think it's a possibility. i'm truly interested to understand why you would think our government would do something like this.
also Charlie Sheen's comment about the planes "not looking like any commercial jetliner he'd ever seen" is just completely and utterly laughable. what a fucking moron. is he an airplane expert?
this is about as political as you will see me because arguing politics never ends well. i just couldn't get over this though. outraged. that's a good word to describe how i'm feeling.
also Charlie Sheen's comment about the planes "not looking like any commercial jetliner he'd ever seen" is just completely and utterly laughable. what a fucking moron. is he an airplane expert?
this is about as political as you will see me because arguing politics never ends well. i just couldn't get over this though. outraged. that's a good word to describe how i'm feeling.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 01:16 am (UTC)I agree with your view on Charlie Sheen's comment. Nonsense.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 02:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 02:09 pm (UTC)I'm not sure when I first read one of these crazy theories... probably stumbled across it while googling for something less-than-nice (long story, but an old co-worker of mine had allegedly been *associated* with an um, "unsavoury organisation", and I think I stumbled across some of these nutcase theories while googling for some info on them, so as to "check out the rumours" I had heard about him/this group).
I would imagine that one could find a "crazy 9/11 conspiracy" to fit all manner of countries/groups/terrirst organisations to the terrible crimes on that day. It quite sad really, that some in the world would use such a horiible, world-altering attack to push their own anti-[whoever] agendas. :(
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 01:17 am (UTC)ducky
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 02:08 am (UTC)i just think we, as a nation, were just so confident that nothing could happen to us. the government was no different.
Well...
Date: 2006-03-26 01:47 am (UTC)In actuality, from what I have read, no one is saying that the US Government committed the actions. There is no question that Al Qaeda was responsible.
The problem, whether you are a conspiracy theorist or not, is that a lot of WEIRD stuff happened on and around 9/11. For example, research has revealed that a lot of people who were investors in American Airlines put a ton of money into the Futures a few days before 9/11, almost as if they knew that something was going to happen that would make them super rich. If you read Richard Clarke or other experts on the subject, they will also tell you that there were very bizarre lags in the time it took to ground all aircraft. Many people also disagree with the fact that the entire Bin Laden clan was able to fly out of the US shortly after 9/11, while all other aircraft were still grounded. And then of course, there is the fact the fact that even though 99% of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, George Bush had Prince Bandar over to the White House on September 13, 2001. These are the kinds of odd facts that some people think should be explored a bit further to see why they happened.
It's also worth noting, just from a historical standpoint, that US Presidents have risked many lives in the past because they wanted to spark a war for political reasons. Check out the beginning of the Mexican American War. There were lots of reasons why folks like Henry David Thoreau were protesting that war.
Re: Well...
Date: 2006-03-26 02:18 am (UTC)bizarre lags in getting thousands and thousands of planes out of the sky? i can understand the utter chaos that was. have you ever seen a map of all the planes in the sky at any given time? it's incredible. so that i'm willing to dismiss as "looking for something to corroborate your theory" and complete conspiracy theory.
what Bin Laden clan? and Prince Andar's visit doesn't sell me either. i'm racking my brain trying to remember how long it took for us to learn the identity of the terrorists. is it possible we didn't know who they were at this point? and even if we didn't, there's no reason to condemn an entire nation(afghanistan, i know, i know) for a few people's actions. the US government didn't support Timothy McVeigh's attack in OK City. just as an analogy.
Re: Well...
Date: 2006-03-26 03:34 am (UTC)"Trading skyrocketed in options that bet on a drop in UAL Corp. and AMR Corp. stock in the days before terrorists crashed hijacked United and American airlines jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the 110-story 2 World Trade Center, and Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the destroyed twin towers, also experienced pre- attack trading of 12 times to more than 25 times the usual volume in so-called put options that profit when stock prices fall, according to Bloomberg data."
in other words, people bought a ton of options that would give them money if the stock in those companies fell. Being blown up tends to make your stock fall, so those folks that did that trading made a ton of money. The CIA monitors the futures to try to get clues about possible attacks. That's why people think it's funky that these attacks were seemingly just totally out of left field for the CIA.
I see your point about the planes in the sky. I think, from reading Richard Clarke's book, that he and his co-workers had tried to work out a plan in case such an attack occurred (there had been talk that Al Qaeda would be capable of using planes as missiles previous to 9/11). The other controversey is whether or not the Air Force was asked to stand down...hard to get at the truth there, which is why I want more investigation just to figure out what really happened, whether it makes the administration look good or bad. My understanding is that the Air Force is instructed to shoot down a hijacked plane when necessary, so there is some question as to how Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon and Flight 93 that crashed in PA were not targeted, since they were flying around after the Tower attacks. And of course, there are people who think that both planes WERE shot down by the Air Force. Again...hard to know the truth, and that's the shame.
There were many many members of the Bin Laden family living in the US. In fact, I believe I read somewhere that one of Osama's distant relatives had done business in the oil industry with the George Bushes at some point. Planes were sent all around the country to pick up all of those family members and get them out of the country.
Whether we knew who planned and acted out the attack is a bone of contention. If you ask many non-partisan members who worked with the administration in 2001, they would tell you that they had been warning everyone about Al Qaeda for years. So, that's another grey area.
You are right that entire countries should not be held accountable. The problem there is with consistency. Saudia Arabia has many omams who preach vehemently against the US, just as omams in Iran and Iraq do. However, we are fighting in Iraq and are smoking cigars with the leaders of Saudi Arabia. In some cases, a consistent approach to diplomacy would probably erase a lot of the uneasiness. And yes, Afghanistan was bombed after 9/11, and we went to war with Iraq after 9/11. Those countries were held accountable and had little to nothing to do wtih the attacks. So again, that is why some people are frustrated in trying to figure all of this out.
Make sense?
Re: Well...
Date: 2006-03-26 07:18 pm (UTC)i don't doubt that there was murmurings that something of this nature could happen. like i said to someone else, though, we as a nation were just so overconfident and ignorant that nothing like that could ever happen to us. i mean, i know it happened and i still have a hard time believing it because i never feared for my life. we don't(or didn't) have to worry about suicide bombers and the like because we assumed our government was doing everything in their power to protect us. we were wrong. i don't think this was some malicious act by our government though. i think that they felt just as secure as the american public did. since the attacks, i do take issue with the lax security and other things like the attempt to sell our ports to the UAE. i think we're being ignorant in the name of political correctness.
anyway. thank you very much for your viewpoint and for the lesson on Futures.
Re: Well...
Date: 2006-03-26 02:13 pm (UTC)Re: Well...
Date: 2006-03-26 02:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 01:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 02:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 02:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 02:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 02:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 02:52 am (UTC)http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=911
I am not saying I agree or disagree with what is said or shown within the video, but it is definitely something to think about and discuss with others.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 03:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 05:04 am (UTC)Hmmmmm.
Alot of the stuff brought up in the video could be dismissed as coincidence....but THAT many things? Not so easy.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 02:53 am (UTC)I think that, considering that we have an administration who had already orchestrated a judicial coup d'etat in which they stole an election, had already screwed California out of billions of dollars (if you weren't here during the rolling blackouts, sweeties, look it up) for their ever so reliable and honest buddies at Enron, since they lied about weapons of mass destruction and uranium yellowcake and pretty much everything else?
I think that an automatic belief that "gasp shock horror our government wouldn't do anything like that" is naive and dangerous beyond belief.
Short form: you have a government that has already proven it has about as much use for ethics, conscience and truth as it has for any of its actual high-ranking members actually, oh, say, serving in the military at some point in their lives.
So honestly, if George Bush told me the sky was blue? I'd open a window to check. That's how unreliable he's proven himself.
Also - and no, not going to argue this with you, or anyone else, so don't bother, because the only point to a debate is to reach an accord, and I don't much care how the rest of the world feels about it - there are many people out there who believe the administration knew something huge was coming down the pike, and decided to let it go down. Not quite the same thing as orchestrating it. I don't generally put my own take on it forward, but you asked.
But if you can look at the current administration's track record of contempt for the truth and be outraged that people suspect them of stuff, no matter how silly and over the top?
I think you need to pay closer attention to what's been happening.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 07:23 pm (UTC)i do agree that the administration had some inkling that an attack was going to happen, but as i've stated several times in the comments i think they were just as lackadaisical as the american public. no one thought something like this would happen to us. we were secure. the bad people couldn't possibly get us. speaking of naive and extremely dangerous...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 07:45 pm (UTC)Jumping up and down and screaming "JESUS! JESUS! JESUS!" doesn't make anyone a Christian. It's in deeds. And when I look at their deeds, I see Lucifer on roller skates, not Christ.
But my question to you was basically, why are you outraged that a lot of people think these people knew and didn't care? From where I'm sitting - as a former Dip Corps brat - outing a CIA agent because her husband has exposed the administration's lie about Iraq's weapons capability - is an act of treason that exposes how little they actually give a damn about national security.
So, with that in mind, I find your outrage at the idea that they'd deliberately disregard national security very puzzling. Because they've already made it very clear indeed that they *do* disregard it. Valerie Plame, wanting to turn an American port over to Bush's friends from a foreign state - if something fits their agenda, national security goes right to the bottom of their list.
You didn't react with a shrug and an eyeroll - you reacted with outrage. I've reacted with outrage to every flagrant disregard for the American people these guys have done, but I can list my reasons.
Why did you react the way you did? Why outrage? What are your reasons for that reaction?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 01:50 am (UTC)And, if you or anyone else want to believe that sky *isn't* blue, simply because Bush says it *is*, that's certainly your right. But you'd be wrong, wouldn't you?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 02:57 am (UTC)What I was asking her was a very specific question: why that particular reaction?
Because the reaction was not to Charlie Sheen - who, by the way, is a total fruitcake, in my own opnion. It was to the idea that anyone could think it was possible.
Personally, I think impreachment is merely a first step for war crimes, profiteering, lying to the American public, bettrayal of the public troops, wiretapping phones, using the Constitution as toilet paper, and a lot of other things. As it happens, I don't think Bush orchestrated anything at all because he's too stupid to have done anything that complex.
But that's not what I was questioning, was it? Not if you reread and pay attention to the actual question.
Outrage - I'm using her word for it - is a lot stronger than merely the eyeroll of an "oh, puhLEEZE!" reaction to silliness. It implies deep feeling the other way.
I gave my laundry list - only a small one - as to why I think no one in that collection of people regards ethics as anything other than something to be ignored at will. I asked for a single example as a counterbalance to that.
I still - snarking about blue skies aside - have not seen one offered.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 03:29 am (UTC)And before you continue your lecture to me about paying attention to the question, believe me, I was. And your examples of why you would question Bush are all very nice, but you need to understand that not everyone feels the same way. Not everyone thinks he lied about the war. Not everyone thinks he's guilty of any of the things you listed above. And wiretapping? Frankly, I'm for it. It amazes me that people can criticize the intelligence that the Gov't receives, yet wants to ban things that could help better that intelligence. These people were in our country. I don't see wiretapping phones as calling his ethics in to question whatsoever.
But, you do, obviously. And that's fine. But nothing that you've stated above, whether you believe it to be true or not, translates into a sane person thinking that Bush orchestrated 9/11. Why shouldn't tiggy feel outraged that people feel that way. That people would take their personal dislike of a man and his policies and translate that into him having planes crash into the Twin Towers. And the Pentagon. And wherever else was planned. That people think that is disgusting and appalling, and I think "outraged" is exactly the right reaction to have. Tell me why a person that doesn't think that Bush is the devil, and there are plenty of us given that he did win the election, should have any reaction other than outrage. She's not merely rolling her eyes, because it's not merely silliness. It's vile accusations made by people who didn't get the President that they want, and it crosses a line of decency. I don't even think that half of the people saying it, even really believe it themselves. It's a way of smacking back at and villifying the Republicans ,which is what lost them this last election to begin with.
I'm done here. I have no desire to argue back and forth with someone I don't even know. Neither of us will change the other's mind, and that's fine.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 03:35 am (UTC)i guess i'm having a bit of a personal reaction because i knew someone who lost a family member on Flight 93 and my ex-boyfriend was at the WTC when the planes hit.
i've watched the video that
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 03:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 07:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 08:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 03:10 am (UTC)I've reached the point where none of the conspiracy theories about this administration shock me anymore. All I can do is laugh.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 07:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 04:31 am (UTC)I don't think 9/11 was any kind of wag the dog situation, I think that honour belongs to Iraq, bush clearly doesn't have a problem killing thousands of people, but i doubt that he would do it to his own country, i mean as i recall the day it happened he was flying around on air force one somewhere and then went into hiding while everyone else was wondering what the heck was going on, there were very fundamental errors made by the government, that could have prevented it on such a large scale if not entirely, i do believe bush is a complete and utter moron and i can't believe he is the main representative for such a bright, caring and compassionate country, and would certainly put him on a par with Nixon, but in answer to your question, no i don't believe he orchestrated the 9/11 attacks
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 07:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 09:19 am (UTC)After years of reading and listening to this stuff, I just find it amusing. It's hard to take seriously people who side with Islamofascists against America, especially when those same people would be killed first if Islam ever triumphed. Just look at how the Taliban treated women or homosexuals or how Al Queda treats peace activists in Iraq. But all of that is irrelevant in the face of the horror of George Bush. *g*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 01:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 02:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 07:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 02:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 07:28 pm (UTC)also, you bring up very valid points.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 12:32 am (UTC)Do I believe the US Govt. orchestrated 9/11. No.
Do I believe they need to take some responsibility for it. Yes.
I shall elaborate-
Osama Bin Laden got where he was with US Govt backing (George Bush mk2 can't take all the credit here, as it had gone on for years before he hit the White house. I think it was going on in his daddy's day). Al Qaeda was fighting with weapons supplied by the US govt. When they were only blowing up other Arabs it was all good. It was incredibly stupid, given Bin Laden's well-documented hatred of the west, to think that he wouldn't turn thiose weapons on US soldiers or civilians if he had half a chance.
On Iraq, I'll get one thing out of my system - & I still can't believe the US press didn't make more of this! Osama Bin Laden & Saddam Hussein hated each other. To suggest that they were somehow in kahoots, & tie Saddam in with Sept 11 was ludicrous. Osama bin Laden held Saddam in contempt because he believed he was not a devout man. Likewise Saddam thought Osama was a religous fanatic. That's public record.
And Charlie Sheen is an actor, not a rocket scientist. You can have the IQ of a jellyfish & still act.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 03:40 am (UTC)i think it's ignorant of us to supply any country with weapons because i'm not the most trusting person you'll ever meet.
i honestly don't know where the Saddam/Bin Laden working together even came from. i'm hardly the most educated person when it comes to the ins and outs of 9/11, the war, Bin Laden and Saddam, but even i know they couldn't stand each other. hell, Saddam had banned Bin Laden from Saudi Arabia because of his actions.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 03:11 pm (UTC)