|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
US intel always lot of information.
The CIA new something , the FBI knew something else. The NSA heard something.
But the agencies never talk to one another. Just cause the NSA has some information doesn't mean it gets to the White House. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| also, cbc, nobody that I am aware of, anywhere, is saying Saddam had anything to do with terrorism against Western nations. Perhaps Israel, but that is a not the US, or is it? Please enlighten me if there is a movement saying this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
US intel always lot of information.
The CIA new something , the FBI knew something else. The NSA heard something.
But the agencies never talk to one another. Just cause the NSA has some information doesn't mean it gets to the White House. |
That's a tired argument. What's funny is that they say that they had this and that intel, but didn't share it. Why not use it yourself? If I have info that a hijacker is going to board a plane in NY, why not do something about it myself? They want to portray it like it is so complicated, when it isn't.
These are not stupid people. They want you to believe they are not capable of chewing gum and talking on the phone at the same time. We all should know better. These are people who sit around all day, dreaming up scenarios that could topple governments. These are not people who question orders. These are not people who let a projectile hit the pentagon from 50 miles out, regardless of if it is a missile, a plane, or a blimp, without at least firing something at it to try and stop it. The order was to stand down, period. It came from Cheney, in the bunker. You can feel free to believe otherwise, but you would be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| also, cbc, nobody that I am aware of, anywhere, is saying Saddam had anything to do with terrorism against Western nations. Perhaps Israel, but that is a not the US, or is it? Please enlighten me if there is a movement saying this. |
I am saying he did, I don't care what others are saying.
He harbored known international terrorists.
Can you say Abu Nidal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal
(Offered as a point of reference only)
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9153/
Among the group�s best-known attacks are:
1994 assassination of the senior Jordanian diplomat Naeb Imran Maaytah in Beirut;
1991 assassination of Abu Iyyad, the PLO�s second-in-command after Arafat, and another PLO official in Tunis;
1986 shooting at the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul, Turkey, that killed twenty-two;
1985 attempted hijacking of a Pan Am flight in Karachi, Pakistan, in which twenty-two people died;
1985 attacks on El Al airport counters in Rome and Vienna, which killed eighteen people and injured 111;
1982 attempt to assassinate Israeli ambassador Shlomo Argov in London, which helped trigger Israel�s invasion of Lebanon.
Do you need more?
Or will you continue to vouch for Saddam's sainthood? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[blaseblasphemener"][
| Quote: |
| That's a tired argument. What's funny is that they say that they had this and that intel, but didn't share it. Why not use it yourself? If I have info that a hijacker is going to board a plane in NY, why not do something about it myself? They want to portray it like it is so complicated, when it isn't. |
Cause the US officals don't do things that way.
How would they know which plane anyway and what date?
Do you know of a case before 9-11 where the fed govt shut down anything cause of a terror warning?
| Quote: |
| These are not stupid people. They want you to believe they are not capable of chewing gum and talking on the phone at the same time. We all should know better. These are people who sit around all day, dreaming up scenarios that could topple governments. These are not people who question orders. These are not people who let a projectile hit the pentagon from 50 miles out, regardless of if it is a missile, a plane, or a blimp, without at least firing something at it to try and stop it. The order was to stand down, period. It came from Cheney, in the bunker. You can feel free to believe otherwise, but you would be wrong. |
They are very careful people. How many times had the US had sucessful covert operations? Answer not often. The people who sit around trying to topple governments are not focused on domestic security.
Can we select the stand down theory as something to debunk?
Challege accepted.
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To all those who keep asking "where's the evidence". Let me ask you:
Do you believe we know most/50%/20%/5% of what the CIA/NSA/others are doing?
Do you believe we have the capability of knowing? How? If the mainstream media is incapable of finding the truth about countless events, that we only find out about 30 years or more later, than how can we be expected to have the smoking gun?
Do you believe we have the right to question the official story, without having the smoking gun? I believe that since we do not have an independent media, and since we can see that the govt is constantly acting in a covert manner and stretching the lines of what they are allowed by law to do, than it is our right to say that something is fishy, even without a smoking gun.
Do you believe that more than 90% of what happened on 9/11 seems straightforward? I think there are many of the aspects of 9/11 before and after raise significant questions, that cause me to question the official story. Do you believe this is not so? Are you comfortable with the official story? If you are not, than why keep trying to close the door by asking for the smoking gun. The smoking gun has not been found, obviously. But do you believe it exists? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| the U.S. has shown ample times that if something fishy happens and it benefits them, it is shown later they were involved. |
But it would seem there are just as many cases where something seems fishy and benefits the administration that they had no role in. The Virginia Tech massacre some people found fishy and the religious right used this to advance all kinds of ideas about needing to put god back in schools. Surely the religious right did not have Cho shoot people. So you're just cherry picking.
| Quote: |
| The 9/11 commission was a joke. It's findings were a joke. It's scope of investigation was a joke. It's creation was a joke. |
Could you give me your top three reasons, with supporting evidence, for this claim?
| Quote: |
| Why did it take Popular Mechanics of all things, to publish a story years after? Is PM a bastian of investigative news gathering? |
Why not? The media drops the ball on all kinds of stories. PM it seems has the expertise to tackle this kind of story.
| Quote: |
| It was dripping with sarcasm. If you think the mainstream media is objective, and has the moxie to challenge conventional wisdom, you are sadly mistaken. |
I would not at all claim the media is objective. They are a for profit enterprise. Regarding sarcasm, let me quote Thomas Jefferson:
| Quote: |
| Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. |
I dunno. I've asked you for some evidence. You keep just churning up questions in support of a slippery slope. Don't you think this is possible? And if that is possible, then can't this be possible?
Last edited by mindmetoo on Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:21 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps this will help...or not.
http://www.john-loftus.com/enron3.asp
Loftus asserts that the Enron block, which remained in force from January 2001 until August 2001 when the pipeline deal collapsed, is the reason that none of FBI agent Rowley뭩 requests for investigations were ever approved. As numerous British and French authors have concluded, the information provided by European intelligence sources prior to 9/11 was so extensive, that it is no longer possible for either CIA or the FBI to assert a defense of incompetence.
It is time for Congress to face the truth: In order to give Enron one last desperate chance to complete the Taliban pipeline and save itself from bankruptcy, senior levels of US intelligence were ordered to keep their eyes shut and their subordinates ignorant.
The Enron cover-up confirms that 9/11 was not an intelligence failure or a law enforcement failure (at least not entirely). Instead, it was a foreign policy failure of the highest order. If Congress ever combines its Enron investigation with 9/11, Cheney뭩 whole house of cards will collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EVERYBODY KNOWS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Do you believe we know most/50%/20%/5% of what the CIA/NSA/others are doing? |
Gaps are not evidence. This is why those making a claim need to provide evidence. I'm not sure how much more simple I can put that.
| Quote: |
| Do you believe that more than 90% of what happened on 9/11 seems straightforward? |
Yes. Some terrorists saw a flaw and exploited it. It wasn't a recent move to put low paid, poorly motivated screeners in charge of airport security. That's been around for a while. It wasn't a recent change that allowed people to bring small utility knives on board planes.
Yes, the government was well warned that terrorists could use planes in the exact faction. But then would mean major changes to airports, to security, to the business of airlines. Heck, some people want better scientific tests employed in the meat packing industry and huge lobby groups hang the government for such an attempt. And then people die eating tainted meat. The airline industry would surely protest such large changes. Governments and industry don't have your best interest at heart. Yeah. We know. But that doesn't mean they're also out to kill large numbers of us to advance some plot.
I mean consider all the current warnings about port security, or that the rebuilt levies in LA won't survive another Katrina. Yeah, governments just like to paper over cracks and leave it for the next guy.
| Quote: |
| But do you believe it exists? |
I think the possibility that the government had a hand in 9/11, either by commission or direct omission (ah, we know there's an attack coming but why stop it? we can blame iraq!), is low and there's no evidence to support that belief.
Smoking gun evidence for me would be (but not limited to):
- a verifiable memo
- large numbers of people with plausible hands in the conspiracy all coming forward
- significant pieces of evidence that does not fit with the government scenario (cruise missile parts found in the rubble of the twin towers or pentagon, a few of the supposed terrorists actually turning up alive and their DNA verified).
Now let me ask you, what would be evidence for you that the government did not have a hand in the attack? Bearing in mind I'm not speaking of a government that let this happen via being simply asleep at the switch/incompetence or using the unplanned attack to advance a political agenda.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0708/S00326.htm
Evidence Suggests CIA Spiked Investigations
Monday, 27 August 2007, 11:11 am
Column: www.UnansweredQuestions.org
Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .
Evidence Suggests CIA Purposefully Spiked Investigations
Dear Members of the Press:
A grave miscarriage of justice is afoot. After years being withheld the Administration finally is forced to release the CIA's IG Report on 9/11. While earlier news accounts said the report would be released in early September it was released in the middle of a Congressional recess, in the middle of a Summer break, thus insuring it will not receive the attention it deserves. Worse still is the conclusion in most press reports since its release that bolsters the official narrative ie. that all the myriad failures were simply due to 'systemic failure' and/or incompetence.
The circumstantial evidence running contrary to this conclusion is compelling and convincing.
It appears that Al-Hazmi and Al-Mihdhar were being protected by higher ups in the CIA. Respected author Joe Trento has reported that they were working for Saudi Intelligence. Others reported the two were removed from the watchlist two days before 9/11. I don't know if either was the case. It is clear however that there was a concerted effort to protect them similar in some respects to the way authorities in FBI HQ refused to allow Rowley and company in Minnesota to go into Mousaoui's laptop computer or how higher ups prevented Robert Wright in Chicago from going after the money trail of Yassin Al-Kadi (Qadi) who financed the software company Ptech and the terrorist group Hamas and who was later named a /Specially Designated Global Terrorist/ by President Bush in October of 2001.
There is a pattern here that cannot be adequately explained by charges of 'systemic failure' or incompetence. As Kristen Breitweiser http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/enabling-danger- par t-one_b_5951.html has suggested, something else is going on, and the repeated missed opportunities (She has documented 7) and blocked communications suggests something "purposeful" on the part of authorities. The IG Report says 60 agents reviewed the Intel about the two.
Please review the statement below made by 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser and by Investigative Journalist Michael Isikoff of Newsweek. These are merely jumping off points to following a trail few have had the courage to examine closely and relentlessly until answers to the questions raised by Kristen and others are answered. In the wake of 9/11, billions of dollars, the lives of soldiers and the Constitution are being sacrificed. Let not truth be sacrificed as well, not when it comes to what happened on September 11th, 2001.
Thank you.
Kyle F. Hence Co-Producer, 9/11: Press for Truth http://www.911pressfortruth.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
There is a pattern here that cannot be adequately explained by charges of 'systemic failure' or incompetence. As Kristen Breitweiser http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/enabling-danger- par t-one_b_5951.html has suggested, something else is going on, and the repeated missed opportunities (She has documented 7) and blocked communications suggests something "purposeful" on the part of authorities. The IG Report says 60 agents reviewed the Intel about the two. |
So put your nickel down. What? And what is the evidence for it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
To all those who keep asking "where's the evidence". Let me ask you:
Do you believe we know most/50%/20%/5% of what the CIA/NSA/others are doing?
Do you believe we have the capability of knowing? How? If the mainstream media is incapable of finding the truth about countless events, that we only find out about 30 years or more later, than how can we be expected to have the smoking gun?
Do you believe we have the right to question the official story, without having the smoking gun? I believe that since we do not have an independent media, and since we can see that the govt is constantly acting in a covert manner and stretching the lines of what they are allowed by law to do, than it is our right to say that something is fishy, even without a smoking gun.
Do you believe that more than 90% of what happened on 9/11 seems straightforward? I think there are many of the aspects of 9/11 before and after raise significant questions, that cause me to question the official story. Do you believe this is not so? Are you comfortable with the official story? If you are not, than why keep trying to close the door by asking for the smoking gun. The smoking gun has not been found, obviously. But do you believe it exists? |
Why should anyone give you any credence?
You have yet to admit that there could be a connection between the
Saddam Regime and international terror.
Yet, I put before you the absolute truth fo the Abu Nidal campaign
headquartered in Iraq and the dastardly deeds committed by them.
No acknowledgement from you, you remian blind to facts.
You ask questions and refuse answers.
Refute the evidence or accept the connection.
Or do have more questions within questions Ezekial.
"Despite claims by Iraqi officials that Abu Nidal committed suicide after
being implicated in a plot to overthrow Saddam, Western diplomats now
believe that he was killed for refusing to reactivate his international
terrorist network."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mindmetoo, watch the video I posted if you want to know some of the failings of the commission. I watched the video, I didn't take notes on it.
you know the arguments, it's just a question of interpretation. I choose to believe that on the one instance the continental united states is attacked, everybody in the most sophisticated intelligence and military machine in the history of mankind missing the ball just didn't happen. People on the inside let it happen, or had a hand in it's planning, which makes them equally culpable. I see you argument, I see how your Jefferson quote has merit, but we are in unchartered waters here. We are in the throws of a police state, and the normal rules do not apply. We are in the dark more than ever before,but we still have instincts that allow us to infer what something is not right, and this is certainly that. I'm sorry I don't list answers, I don't feel like posting links and digging through evidence, when I've already seen enough to make up my mind. Slam me if you like, but my only intention was to post a video that points out some information that I think is valid, and to let others make up their minds. I think this is the greatest hoax perpetrated ever on the American public, and the truth will come out, of that I am certain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
To all those who keep asking "where's the evidence". Let me ask you:
Do you believe we know most/50%/20%/5% of what the CIA/NSA/others are doing?
Do you believe we have the capability of knowing? How? If the mainstream media is incapable of finding the truth about countless events, that we only find out about 30 years or more later, than how can we be expected to have the smoking gun?
Do you believe we have the right to question the official story, without having the smoking gun? I believe that since we do not have an independent media, and since we can see that the govt is constantly acting in a covert manner and stretching the lines of what they are allowed by law to do, than it is our right to say that something is fishy, even without a smoking gun.
Do you believe that more than 90% of what happened on 9/11 seems straightforward? I think there are many of the aspects of 9/11 before and after raise significant questions, that cause me to question the official story. Do you believe this is not so? Are you comfortable with the official story? If you are not, than why keep trying to close the door by asking for the smoking gun. The smoking gun has not been found, obviously. But do you believe it exists? |
Why should anyone give you any credence?
You have yet to admit that there could be a connection between the
Saddam Regime and international terror.
Yet, I put before you the absolute truth fo the Abu Nidal campaign
headquartered in Iraq and the dastardly deeds committed by them.
No acknowledgement from you, you remian blind to facts.
You ask questions and refuse answers.
Refute the evidence or accept the connection.
Or do have more questions within questions Ezekial.
"Despite claims by Iraqi officials that Abu Nidal committed suicide after
being implicated in a plot to overthrow Saddam, Western diplomats now
believe that he was killed for refusing to reactivate his international
terrorist network."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml |
cbc, Saddam has never been my focus on this thread. I'm not saying Saddam didn't have anything to do with terrorism, although that is not why America went in there, and if it were, then there are better reasons to go into Palestinian territory or Iran, or Pakistan, right?
My focus is 9/11, and Saddam is not a part of that. Bush made him a part of it after, and many gullible Americans took the bait on it, but even he later said there was no connection. So, I don't know why you are going on about Saddam. It's not relevant to this topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
