Osama Bin Laden is dead

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by tkthafm


Authorizing the action is not anywhere near as ballsy as the media is making it out to be. He made the call to kill the man, now why try to hide the outcome of his action ? Too "gruesome" ? Afraid of "retaliation" ? It won't convince "conspiracy theorists" ? (complete bull excuses) 
A round to the head is not supposed to be pretty. The "War on Terror" and all the death/carnage it has caused is not pretty. This is reality we are living in. Why now censor a picture ? 

You authorized the killing, you're claiming the death as a victory and are up there making speeches celebrating it... so show the world the real aftermath. Govt. acting like we are children not mature or worthy of seeing what our tax dollars paid for. I don't believe its their call to make. The majority of Americans want to see it (CNN poll). 

Now we're "not allowed" to because of our cowardly president/government ? 

   LOL.  You dudes are too funny.

How is it not ballsy? Think about it, a 60-80% chance that this dude was even there. Those aren't great odds when you think about the backlash if this operation had failed. Relations with Pakistan have already been strained enough. What would have happened if he wasn't there and we just ended up killing a bunch of randoms and also took SEAL casualties as well? What if the SEALs got captured by the Pakistani military? That would have effectively severed any relations we had with them. Yeah...easy decision right there. 

You're a fool if you believe the chances were REALLY only 60-80%. Pakistan's government is very weak and relies heavily on our own to survive. With any mission there is chance of things going wrong, but we spent months building replicas/practicing raids. The US is no stranger to killing dozens of innocent civilians either. If this mission were in a country like Iran, sure, "ballsy" might apply. 

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by tkthafm


Authorizing the action is not anywhere near as ballsy as the media is making it out to be. He made the call to kill the man, now why try to hide the outcome of his action ? Too "gruesome" ? Afraid of "retaliation" ? It won't convince "conspiracy theorists" ? (complete bull excuses) 
A round to the head is not supposed to be pretty. The "War on Terror" and all the death/carnage it has caused is not pretty. This is reality we are living in. Why now censor a picture ? 

You authorized the killing, you're claiming the death as a victory and are up there making speeches celebrating it... so show the world the real aftermath. Govt. acting like we are children not mature or worthy of seeing what our tax dollars paid for. I don't believe its their call to make. The majority of Americans want to see it (CNN poll). 

Now we're "not allowed" to because of our cowardly president/government ? 

   LOL.  You dudes are too funny.

How is it not ballsy? Think about it, a 60-80% chance that this dude was even there. Those aren't great odds when you think about the backlash if this operation had failed. Relations with Pakistan have already been strained enough. What would have happened if he wasn't there and we just ended up killing a bunch of randoms and also took SEAL casualties as well? What if the SEALs got captured by the Pakistani military? That would have effectively severed any relations we had with them. Yeah...easy decision right there. 

I'm telling you, these dudes have no perspective on just about anything.  Too busy playing video games and listening to their ipods on a daily basis to have any kind of concept or connection to the real world or worldly issues.  To say President Obama's decision regarding this mission in any way shape or form wasn't "ballsy" is to not have any self-awareness of American life, potential military casualities and foreign relations. 

  

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by tkthafm


Authorizing the action is not anywhere near as ballsy as the media is making it out to be. He made the call to kill the man, now why try to hide the outcome of his action ? Too "gruesome" ? Afraid of "retaliation" ? It won't convince "conspiracy theorists" ? (complete bull excuses) 
A round to the head is not supposed to be pretty. The "War on Terror" and all the death/carnage it has caused is not pretty. This is reality we are living in. Why now censor a picture ? 

You authorized the killing, you're claiming the death as a victory and are up there making speeches celebrating it... so show the world the real aftermath. Govt. acting like we are children not mature or worthy of seeing what our tax dollars paid for. I don't believe its their call to make. The majority of Americans want to see it (CNN poll). 

Now we're "not allowed" to because of our cowardly president/government ? 

   LOL.  You dudes are too funny.

How is it not ballsy? Think about it, a 60-80% chance that this dude was even there. Those aren't great odds when you think about the backlash if this operation had failed. Relations with Pakistan have already been strained enough. What would have happened if he wasn't there and we just ended up killing a bunch of randoms and also took SEAL casualties as well? What if the SEALs got captured by the Pakistani military? That would have effectively severed any relations we had with them. Yeah...easy decision right there. 

I'm telling you, these dudes have no perspective on just about anything.  Too busy playing video games and listening to their ipods on a daily basis to have any kind of concept or connection to the real world or worldly issues.  To say President Obama's decision regarding this mission in any way shape or form wasn't "ballsy" is to not have any self-awareness of American life, potential military casualities and foreign relations. 

  

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by tkthafm

All of the sudden we have "morals" about 'touting' corpses on TV ?

Uday ?

Qusay ?

Zarqawi ?

Cop-out excuse. The networks make their own decisions, should not change whether or not the govt releases the picture. Are we going to pretend like we live in a fairy tale land with marshmallow clouds where we can authorize killings and celebrate them while shielding the audience from the darker side (the actual dead body, you know, the thing left behind after a KILLING) of reality ? lol

I really don't get what all of you are missing. Those three examples? Done under the Bush administration. The same administration that DESTROYED our image across the world. The Obama administration has tried to do the opposite and REPAIR our image in the Arab world for two years now. I understand the lack of knowledge on Arabs and Muslims, and the thought that there is one single entity on that side, but it's ridiculous that people seem to think the Bush and Obama administrations are EXACTLY the same in all of their policies.

Obviously, but how does this address my 2nd point ? 
Releasing photos isn't going to do much of anything to "damage relations" more than they currently are. Same with the Bush decision to release those photos. Let's give Israel billions in aid, use DU munitions in Iraq, prop up dictators, kill/invade at will, but God forbid those Arabs (whom we like to claim is their enemy as well) see a picture of Bin Laden dead..

Just like we "respected Muslim tradition" by dumping him at sea right ? 

It's a cop-out excuse by a true coward.

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by tkthafm

All of the sudden we have "morals" about 'touting' corpses on TV ?

Uday ?

Qusay ?

Zarqawi ?

Cop-out excuse. The networks make their own decisions, should not change whether or not the govt releases the picture. Are we going to pretend like we live in a fairy tale land with marshmallow clouds where we can authorize killings and celebrate them while shielding the audience from the darker side (the actual dead body, you know, the thing left behind after a KILLING) of reality ? lol

I really don't get what all of you are missing. Those three examples? Done under the Bush administration. The same administration that DESTROYED our image across the world. The Obama administration has tried to do the opposite and REPAIR our image in the Arab world for two years now. I understand the lack of knowledge on Arabs and Muslims, and the thought that there is one single entity on that side, but it's ridiculous that people seem to think the Bush and Obama administrations are EXACTLY the same in all of their policies.

Obviously, but how does this address my 2nd point ? 
Releasing photos isn't going to do much of anything to "damage relations" more than they currently are. Same with the Bush decision to release those photos. Let's give Israel billions in aid, use DU munitions in Iraq, prop up dictators, kill/invade at will, but God forbid those Arabs (whom we like to claim is their enemy as well) see a picture of Bin Laden dead..

Just like we "respected Muslim tradition" by dumping him at sea right ? 

It's a cop-out excuse by a true coward.

 

[essential1]

And we wonder why we can't get anything done in this country..


Such a simple topic about killing the most hated/wanted man in the World, and it breeds 90+ pages of irrelevant discussion, hypocrisy, divisiveness, and straight up buffoonery,,

 

[essential1]

And we wonder why we can't get anything done in this country..


Such a simple topic about killing the most hated/wanted man in the World, and it breeds 90+ pages of irrelevant discussion, hypocrisy, divisiveness, and straight up buffoonery,,

 

[jking0821]

DAM i feel like the end of inception

I was ready for the pics. Like ok i can stop contemplating a conspiracy of any sort if i see these. Still have some questions but it would clear some up as well.

Then the stupid Top doesn't fall. FALL DAM IT FALL

 

[jking0821]

DAM i feel like the end of inception

I was ready for the pics. Like ok i can stop contemplating a conspiracy of any sort if i see these. Still have some questions but it would clear some up as well.

Then the stupid Top doesn't fall. FALL DAM IT FALL

 

[Nike Jordan]

Originally Posted by Essential1

And we wonder why we can't get anything done in this country..


Such a simple topic about killing the most hated/wanted man in the World, and it breeds 90+ pages of irrelevant discussion, hypocrisy, divisiveness, and straight up buffoonery,,

Welcome to America.

 

[Nike Jordan]

Originally Posted by Essential1

And we wonder why we can't get anything done in this country..


Such a simple topic about killing the most hated/wanted man in the World, and it breeds 90+ pages of irrelevant discussion, hypocrisy, divisiveness, and straight up buffoonery,,

Welcome to America.

 

[moonmaster3]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by Deuce King



   LOL.  You dudes are too funny.

How is it not ballsy? Think about it, a 60-80% chance that this dude was even there. Those aren't great odds when you think about the backlash if this operation had failed. Relations with Pakistan have already been strained enough. What would have happened if he wasn't there and we just ended up killing a bunch of randoms and also took SEAL casualties as well? What if the SEALs got captured by the Pakistani military? That would have effectively severed any relations we had with them. Yeah...easy decision right there. 

You're a fool if you believe the chances were REALLY only 60-80%. Pakistan's government is very weak and relies heavily on our own to survive. With any mission there is chance of things going wrong, but we spent months building replicas/practicing raids. The US is no stranger to killing dozens of innocent civilians either. If this mission were in a country like Iran, sure, "ballsy" might apply. 

Honestly, your entire post relied upon your own interpretation of what the odds were. Please, tell me, since you're in the know...exactly how it all went down. If it wasn't 60-80% why wouldn't they just say so? What benefit is it for them to tell us that they went in half blind? Building replicas and practicing raids means nothing if the actual target wasn't even in there. Just because we've killed civilians before...does that mean the international backlash will somehow be milder? 
I swear to God half the people in this thread have no common sense or logic. Everything has to be a conspiracy. 

 

[moonmaster3]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by Deuce King



   LOL.  You dudes are too funny.

How is it not ballsy? Think about it, a 60-80% chance that this dude was even there. Those aren't great odds when you think about the backlash if this operation had failed. Relations with Pakistan have already been strained enough. What would have happened if he wasn't there and we just ended up killing a bunch of randoms and also took SEAL casualties as well? What if the SEALs got captured by the Pakistani military? That would have effectively severed any relations we had with them. Yeah...easy decision right there. 

You're a fool if you believe the chances were REALLY only 60-80%. Pakistan's government is very weak and relies heavily on our own to survive. With any mission there is chance of things going wrong, but we spent months building replicas/practicing raids. The US is no stranger to killing dozens of innocent civilians either. If this mission were in a country like Iran, sure, "ballsy" might apply. 

Honestly, your entire post relied upon your own interpretation of what the odds were. Please, tell me, since you're in the know...exactly how it all went down. If it wasn't 60-80% why wouldn't they just say so? What benefit is it for them to tell us that they went in half blind? Building replicas and practicing raids means nothing if the actual target wasn't even in there. Just because we've killed civilians before...does that mean the international backlash will somehow be milder? 
I swear to God half the people in this thread have no common sense or logic. Everything has to be a conspiracy. 

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

But it was calculated and planned for a while. I'm sure KSM didn't wake up on September 1st and say "I've got it!" and run to Bin Laden with the idea. The hijackers had been training at flight schools in the late 90s. Security at this time was nowhere near the level that it is today. It was incredibly lax. Also, they weren't simply sitting in caves. They were planning this at a time when they were shuttling people to Afghanistan to train with them. They were very well funded, protected, and equipped.
The United States had unrivaled hegemonic power at the time. It can be argued that on top of many other things, spending on war led to the downfall of our hegemony, because it can be argued we are no longer in such a position. 

They went into Iraq so quickly because the NeoCons had wanted to remove Saddam since they stopped at Kuwait in the early 90s. They realized they had made a monumental mistake and felt they needed to remove him from power, so they tried desperately to link 9/11 to Saddam. This doesn't mean that we were responsible for any of it though, it just means the NeoCons used 9/11 as a pretext for regime change in Iraq and played many people like pawns. 

 By the way, Al-Qaeda is not even centralized. The way it works is behind the scenes in which they have Islamic radicals collaborating with intelligence agencies such as the ISI, MI6, CIA, and even Mossad (even more than these ones mentioned). You get these different intelligence agencies that help prop up different cells and then these cells get formed and actually operate fully for what they were made out to do. For example, that plot that was revealed in which Mossad was trying to recruit and set phony Al-Qaeda cells among Palestinians.  It's a lot more complex than what we see on the surface. I also will not get into the topic of sleeper assassins and double agents which play a role in all this.

Badly trained pilots that did not pass flying lessons? We don't know all the actual hijackers either, since it looks like some turned out alive and had their identities stolen. If this is an iside job, I actually do not think Bush was behind it or maybe even knew all that much about it. This was on some other level secretive entity on some extremely advanced skill set in their operations which were planning this for years. Bush and Commanders in Chief are only puppets for those who pull the strings behind the scenes. We don't see the real masters.

The U.S. empire is dwindling very slowly, but it is still the hegemony and they need to milk thatas much as they can while they are the main superpower. Without 9/11, they could not have propped up this bogus War on Terror to achieve their military, economic, and political goals. From a realist theory, wars secure states. A tragedy like 9/11 scared the masses into fear and for them to enable the public to put their faith in the Government to saving them and protecting them from the boogeyman and this new threat in the post-Cold war era (all the while taking away their liberties).

It could be very delusional and conspiracy theorist of me to put the War on Terror in this context, but it seems to make sense to me. All I know is that the Government has killed too many people to get money in their pockets based on lies over and over again throughout today and history for me to take their word and what they feed us.


  

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

But it was calculated and planned for a while. I'm sure KSM didn't wake up on September 1st and say "I've got it!" and run to Bin Laden with the idea. The hijackers had been training at flight schools in the late 90s. Security at this time was nowhere near the level that it is today. It was incredibly lax. Also, they weren't simply sitting in caves. They were planning this at a time when they were shuttling people to Afghanistan to train with them. They were very well funded, protected, and equipped.
The United States had unrivaled hegemonic power at the time. It can be argued that on top of many other things, spending on war led to the downfall of our hegemony, because it can be argued we are no longer in such a position. 

They went into Iraq so quickly because the NeoCons had wanted to remove Saddam since they stopped at Kuwait in the early 90s. They realized they had made a monumental mistake and felt they needed to remove him from power, so they tried desperately to link 9/11 to Saddam. This doesn't mean that we were responsible for any of it though, it just means the NeoCons used 9/11 as a pretext for regime change in Iraq and played many people like pawns. 

 By the way, Al-Qaeda is not even centralized. The way it works is behind the scenes in which they have Islamic radicals collaborating with intelligence agencies such as the ISI, MI6, CIA, and even Mossad (even more than these ones mentioned). You get these different intelligence agencies that help prop up different cells and then these cells get formed and actually operate fully for what they were made out to do. For example, that plot that was revealed in which Mossad was trying to recruit and set phony Al-Qaeda cells among Palestinians.  It's a lot more complex than what we see on the surface. I also will not get into the topic of sleeper assassins and double agents which play a role in all this.

Badly trained pilots that did not pass flying lessons? We don't know all the actual hijackers either, since it looks like some turned out alive and had their identities stolen. If this is an iside job, I actually do not think Bush was behind it or maybe even knew all that much about it. This was on some other level secretive entity on some extremely advanced skill set in their operations which were planning this for years. Bush and Commanders in Chief are only puppets for those who pull the strings behind the scenes. We don't see the real masters.

The U.S. empire is dwindling very slowly, but it is still the hegemony and they need to milk thatas much as they can while they are the main superpower. Without 9/11, they could not have propped up this bogus War on Terror to achieve their military, economic, and political goals. From a realist theory, wars secure states. A tragedy like 9/11 scared the masses into fear and for them to enable the public to put their faith in the Government to saving them and protecting them from the boogeyman and this new threat in the post-Cold war era (all the while taking away their liberties).

It could be very delusional and conspiracy theorist of me to put the War on Terror in this context, but it seems to make sense to me. All I know is that the Government has killed too many people to get money in their pockets based on lies over and over again throughout today and history for me to take their word and what they feed us.


  

 

[iheartboost]

finnns2003 wrote:

---

Americans wanted to see the photo. Latest poll was 56%. Obama only hurting himself with this "decision". Now there will DEFINITELY be doubts on whether it really happened.
Doubt it.
Americans are fickle. It's just like his birth certificate, people STILL believe it's fake. He could release the pictures and people will cry fiction, photoshop or it's someone elses head. 

 

[bkmac]

"Obama said 'there is no doubt we killed' bin Laden, so photos unnecessary."

"Respect for bin Laden's burial far more greater than bin Laden's respect for 9/11 victims"

Straight from the briefing being aired on CNN right now.

at the White House.

 

[bkmac]

"Obama said 'there is no doubt we killed' bin Laden, so photos unnecessary."

"Respect for bin Laden's burial far more greater than bin Laden's respect for 9/11 victims"

Straight from the briefing being aired on CNN right now.

at the White House.

 

[iheartboost]

finnns2003 wrote:

---

Americans wanted to see the photo. Latest poll was 56%. Obama only hurting himself with this "decision". Now there will DEFINITELY be doubts on whether it really happened.
Doubt it.
Americans are fickle. It's just like his birth certificate, people STILL believe it's fake. He could release the pictures and people will cry fiction, photoshop or it's someone elses head. 

 

[Bert.]

no photos? yup they never found him/he never existed.

bunch of lies

 

[in yo nostril]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

But it was calculated and planned for a while. I'm sure KSM didn't wake up on September 1st and say "I've got it!" and run to Bin Laden with the idea. The hijackers had been training at flight schools in the late 90s. Security at this time was nowhere near the level that it is today. It was incredibly lax. Also, they weren't simply sitting in caves. They were planning this at a time when they were shuttling people to Afghanistan to train with them. They were very well funded, protected, and equipped.
The United States had unrivaled hegemonic power at the time. It can be argued that on top of many other things, spending on war led to the downfall of our hegemony, because it can be argued we are no longer in such a position. 

They went into Iraq so quickly because the NeoCons had wanted to remove Saddam since they stopped at Kuwait in the early 90s. They realized they had made a monumental mistake and felt they needed to remove him from power, so they tried desperately to link 9/11 to Saddam. This doesn't mean that we were responsible for any of it though, it just means the NeoCons used 9/11 as a pretext for regime change in Iraq and played many people like pawns. 

 By the way, Al-Qaeda is not even centralized. The way it works is behind the scenes in which they have Islamic radicals collaborating with intelligence agencies such as the ISI, MI6, CIA, and even Mossad (even more than these ones mentioned). You get these different intelligence agencies that help prop up different cells and then these cells get formed and actually operate fully for what they were made out to do. For example, that plot that was revealed in which Mossad was trying to recruit and set phony Al-Qaeda cells among Palestinians.  It's a lot more complex than what we see on the surface. I also will not get into the topic of sleeper assassins and double agents which play a role in all this.

Badly trained pilots that did not pass flying lessons? We don't know all the actual hijackers either, since it looks like some turned out alive and had their identities stolen. If this is an iside job, I actually do not think Bush was behind it or maybe even knew all that much about it. This was on some other level secretive entity on some extremely advanced skill set in their operations which were planning this for years. Bush and Commanders in Chief are only puppets for those who pull the strings behind the scenes. We don't see the real masters.

The U.S. empire is dwindling very slowly, but it is still the hegemony and they need to milk thatas much as they can while they are the main superpower. Without 9/11, they could not have propped up this bogus War on Terror to achieve their military, economic, and political goals. From a realist theory, wars secure states. A tragedy like 9/11 scared the masses into fear and for them to enable the public to put their faith in the Government to saving them and protecting them from the boogeyman and this new threat in the post-Cold war era (all the while taking away their liberties).

It could be very delusional and conspiracy theorist of me to put the War on Terror in this context, but it seems to make sense to me. All I know is that the Government has killed too many people to get money in their pockets based on lies over and over again throughout today and history for me to take their word and what they feed us.


  

look, i already mentioned to you that the war on Iraq was going down regardless. the foreign policy and embargos on that country were set up to slowly destroy them and military action was always going to finish the job. stop with your "9/11 was necessary" rhetoric. if you've done research into this, you would know thats not true.

 

[Bert.]

no photos? yup they never found him/he never existed.

bunch of lies

 

[tkthafm]

I'm not privy to CIA information, but I would assume the estimate be given under an "abundance of caution". All signs pointed to him being there.

As stated, even if he wasn't in there (despite all the evidence we did have), storming the compound and killing 4 "innocents" (aka: people firing back/attacking SEALS) is not a big deal. Sad to say but true if you know anything about world politics. Also, I'm pretty sure the SEALS would not have slaughtered everybody in there if it truly was a civilian household....

The backlash from this would have been a joke. We've bombed, shot, and illegally detained civilians for decades. Now a few "innocents" dying is supposed to somehow trigger a backlash from a weak instable govt. we give billions to ? They are ALREADY giving "backlash" over us not informing them beforehand, but honestly, no one cares about their public statements. We've known for years now that the ISI has connections to Bin Laden and contains anti-American elements. Are they going to turn around and cut off all relations with us because we killed some civilians ?

So I guess being willing to weather the oh so dangerous "storm" of negative comments coming from a weak government that we know needs us to survive (Pakistan) makes Obama one hell of a ballsy man. Perhaps he should be awarded another Nobel prize for displaying such courage. 

 

[tkthafm]

I'm not privy to CIA information, but I would assume the estimate be given under an "abundance of caution". All signs pointed to him being there.

As stated, even if he wasn't in there (despite all the evidence we did have), storming the compound and killing 4 "innocents" (aka: people firing back/attacking SEALS) is not a big deal. Sad to say but true if you know anything about world politics. Also, I'm pretty sure the SEALS would not have slaughtered everybody in there if it truly was a civilian household....

The backlash from this would have been a joke. We've bombed, shot, and illegally detained civilians for decades. Now a few "innocents" dying is supposed to somehow trigger a backlash from a weak instable govt. we give billions to ? They are ALREADY giving "backlash" over us not informing them beforehand, but honestly, no one cares about their public statements. We've known for years now that the ISI has connections to Bin Laden and contains anti-American elements. Are they going to turn around and cut off all relations with us because we killed some civilians ?

So I guess being willing to weather the oh so dangerous "storm" of negative comments coming from a weak government that we know needs us to survive (Pakistan) makes Obama one hell of a ballsy man. Perhaps he should be awarded another Nobel prize for displaying such courage. 

 

[in yo nostril]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

But it was calculated and planned for a while. I'm sure KSM didn't wake up on September 1st and say "I've got it!" and run to Bin Laden with the idea. The hijackers had been training at flight schools in the late 90s. Security at this time was nowhere near the level that it is today. It was incredibly lax. Also, they weren't simply sitting in caves. They were planning this at a time when they were shuttling people to Afghanistan to train with them. They were very well funded, protected, and equipped.
The United States had unrivaled hegemonic power at the time. It can be argued that on top of many other things, spending on war led to the downfall of our hegemony, because it can be argued we are no longer in such a position. 

They went into Iraq so quickly because the NeoCons had wanted to remove Saddam since they stopped at Kuwait in the early 90s. They realized they had made a monumental mistake and felt they needed to remove him from power, so they tried desperately to link 9/11 to Saddam. This doesn't mean that we were responsible for any of it though, it just means the NeoCons used 9/11 as a pretext for regime change in Iraq and played many people like pawns. 

 By the way, Al-Qaeda is not even centralized. The way it works is behind the scenes in which they have Islamic radicals collaborating with intelligence agencies such as the ISI, MI6, CIA, and even Mossad (even more than these ones mentioned). You get these different intelligence agencies that help prop up different cells and then these cells get formed and actually operate fully for what they were made out to do. For example, that plot that was revealed in which Mossad was trying to recruit and set phony Al-Qaeda cells among Palestinians.  It's a lot more complex than what we see on the surface. I also will not get into the topic of sleeper assassins and double agents which play a role in all this.

Badly trained pilots that did not pass flying lessons? We don't know all the actual hijackers either, since it looks like some turned out alive and had their identities stolen. If this is an iside job, I actually do not think Bush was behind it or maybe even knew all that much about it. This was on some other level secretive entity on some extremely advanced skill set in their operations which were planning this for years. Bush and Commanders in Chief are only puppets for those who pull the strings behind the scenes. We don't see the real masters.

The U.S. empire is dwindling very slowly, but it is still the hegemony and they need to milk thatas much as they can while they are the main superpower. Without 9/11, they could not have propped up this bogus War on Terror to achieve their military, economic, and political goals. From a realist theory, wars secure states. A tragedy like 9/11 scared the masses into fear and for them to enable the public to put their faith in the Government to saving them and protecting them from the boogeyman and this new threat in the post-Cold war era (all the while taking away their liberties).

It could be very delusional and conspiracy theorist of me to put the War on Terror in this context, but it seems to make sense to me. All I know is that the Government has killed too many people to get money in their pockets based on lies over and over again throughout today and history for me to take their word and what they feed us.


  

look, i already mentioned to you that the war on Iraq was going down regardless. the foreign policy and embargos on that country were set up to slowly destroy them and military action was always going to finish the job. stop with your "9/11 was necessary" rhetoric. if you've done research into this, you would know thats not true.