9/11: PNAC Motive and Opportunity as evidence of an inside job

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Those who refuse to question the gaping holes in the official 9/11 story, whether the overall story be true or not, and the obvious inconsistencies in Larry Silversteins revelations, whether he is trying to state the truth or not, do not deserve the liberty that they do not fight for. Also those who do not seek the truth, be it different from the official narrative or not, are part of the problem, as opposed to part of the solution, and at the same time are possibly doing the many victims of 9/11 a disservice by possibly allowing the deaths of these people to be in vain.

Who's refusing to question? Show me some gaps, and I'll question them.

I think that "refusing to listen to the answers" is more of a problem.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Those who refuse to question the gaping holes in the official 9/11 story, whether the overall story be true or not, and the obvious inconsistencies in Larry Silversteins revelations, whether he is trying to state the truth or not, do not deserve the liberty that they do not fight for. Also those who do not seek the truth, be it different from the official narrative or not, are part of the problem, as opposed to part of the solution, and at the same time are possibly doing the many victims of 9/11 a disservice by possibly allowing the deaths of these people to be in vain.
I don't believe you are here to undertake serious debate. I believe, unbiased, that you merely wish to put up your statement and clear off. What holes? What inconsistencies?

"those who do not seek the truth, be it different from the official narrative or not, are part of the problem". Now here we agree. Perhaps you would care to seek it.

Why did those people die? Do you know? If you do, perhaps you would like to share your wisdom with us.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Fascinating...you just bob and weave and do anything to avoid the facts.


No- they are terrorists because they use violence and terror to promote their beliefs and goals. They perverse Islam to their benefit to justify their means. Their very justification comes from their interpretation of Islam. This is fundamental to their actions. They are not only reacting, they are using this conflict to promote a proactive agenda. You are entitled to your belief, however, according to OBL and Ayman al-Zawahiri, you are wrong:

But wait...I thought the US "abandoned" Afghanistan? So, why did the attacks originate there? The US didn't invade until it was attacked first.

Sorry Oxy- the invasion of Afghanistan was about retaliating against those who attacked the US. It really pretty straightforward. Iraq is a whole other case.

Look- the point of this side-bar was your marginalization of the role that religion plays in the ideology and actions of Islamic militants. Nothing you have presented has come remotely close to supporting your belief that there is "nothing to substantiate" the role religion plays in this conflict. Just saying its all the West's fault and they only reason they are violent is because they feel oppressed is not accurate or factual summation.

Brzezinski makes a boo boo and contradicts SR... Is the 'west', (bankers etc), guilty of terrorism because "they are terrorists because they use violence and terror to promote their beliefs and goals"?

Do they pervert democracy by covert provocation to war using sovereign states as proxy excuse and battlefield and ignoring the protestations of its own people and lying to it's own people about the supposed threat?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Sorry Oxy- the invasion of Afghanistan was about retaliating against those who attacked the US. It really pretty straightforward. Iraq is a whole other case.
That's funny. I could have sworn the heavy majority of the people who allegedly attacked the united states on 9/11 were Saudi-Arabian.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The attacks originated there, because Osama and his buddies had been thrown out of several other countries, including Saudi. They attacked the US because they did not like us having bases in Saudi. It was framed as ' infidels with bases in the 'Muslim' holy land', however, the real reason is that Osama does not like/approve of the ruling family there and he felt that our bases helped to keep the house of Saud in power.

Is Islamic fundamentalism a threat to world peace, Yes it is, but so is Christian, or Jewish or Hindui or any other fundamentalism. When you think that GOD is on your side, it is easy to rationalize what you do. There was a lot of nasty things done during the Crusades, both to others and in recruiting 'fighters'. Today it is more dangerous because of the technology of nukes, dirty bombs and biological warfare.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Hindu fundamentalism is a threat to the world? There's no such thing as Hindu fundamentalism. The closest thing is a political movement in India. Hinduism has no specific 'sacred text', so there's nothing to demand followers conform too. Hinduism is by far one of the more mellow religions... and their creation myths are lovely/ a lot more fun.
 

RolandD

Active Member
Hindu fundamentalism is a threat to the world? There's no such thing as Hindu fundamentalism. The closest thing is a political movement in India. Hinduism has no specific 'sacred text', so there's nothing to demand followers conform too. Hinduism is by far one of the more mellow religions... and their creation myths are lovely/ a lot more fun.

Are you denying that Hindu fundamentalists are one of the main controlling powers behind many of the UFO sightings? My brothers, sisters, husbands, cousin has proof that they are responsible for mad cow disease. It was engineered in a secret bio lab in Calcutta, project name 'Dark Hole'.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
There is plenty of folks that will disagree with you. It does tend to be more of a traditional "Indian culture' movement. However, they use the 'trappings' of fundamentalism to attack both Muslims and Christians. Often these groups will evolve in 'bastardizations' of the religion they grew out of. An example is Aum Shinrikyo, which merged Christian and other beliefs.

I will admit a better word needs to be found. Religious militancy is one possibility, but it is not quite right either. Radicalism is another possibility. I have encountered what I and others would call ' fundy pagans and even atheists--so far, all they tend to do is irritate folks that deal with them. I have been known to call it an 'ism' belief. Often times political movements will take on the trappings of a religion, such as with the use of Mao's 'little red book'.

I guess my point is this. It doesn't really matter what you call the movement, if someones faith in a 'belief system' ends up encouraging violence and the deaths of others, It is DANGEROUS!
 

MikeC

Closed Account
There is plenty of folks that will disagree with you. It does tend to be more of a traditional "Indian culture' movement.

Like Islam Hinduim is both a way of life and a belief system, so you cannot actually separate "cultura" fundamentalism from the religious aspects of it - see Hindutva


I guess my point is this. It doesn't really matter what you call the movement, if someones faith in a 'belief system' ends up encouraging violence and the deaths of others, It is DANGEROUS!

Indeed - fortunately fundamentalist pastafarians don't actually care about anything except Al Dante...;)
 

Grieves

Senior Member
so you cannot actually separate "cultura" fundamentalism from the religious aspects of it - see Hindutva
You very much can. There is an extremely stark difference between religious fundamentalism as an ideology and a Nationalist movement, even one based in a particular religion. The 'Hindu fundamentalism' in India isn't about religious issues so much as it is a political movement, revolving mostly around the social status of Hindus in that country. There have indeed been violent acts commited, and these acts do indeed at times target people or places affiliated with other faiths, but the motivations for doing so are not religious in nature, and revolve more around the culture-clash that's been taking place in the region for a long, long time. Most telling in this regard, as taken from your wiki-link,
Views on other faiths

The votaries of Hindutva believe that the way Muslims and Hindus have treated each other in the past is a one-way compromise and they intend on making society more balanced and fair towards the majority Hindu population.[21] The BJP has also invited Muslims to be a part of this new society and work with the Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs for a better India.[22] Even more parties such as the Shiv Sena have invited Muslims to join and the party leader declared after the Babri Mosque incident,
"We must look after the Muslims and treat them as part of us."[23]
Hindutva groups are supportive of the Jewish State of Israel, including Savarkar himself, who supported Israel during its formation.[24] The RSS is politically pro-Israel and actively praised the efforts of Ariel Sharon when he visited India.[25][26] RSS spokesperson Ram Madhav recently expressed support for Israel.[27]
Religious fundamentalists don't typically have anything remotely positive or cooperative to say about other religions. By the very nature of religious fundamentalism, other faiths are wicked distractions.
Hinduism by its nature is too diverse a faith for any religious fundamentalism to take shape. The 'God/s' of Hinduism are by no means set in stone, having a wide variety of names and forms, there's no concept of 'heaven' or 'hell', there's no particular 'prophet' to be held up, no all-powerful holy books, no specific 'laws' of life, just Karma. There's no real enforceable doctrine in Hinduism, and thus nothing to get 'fundamentalist' about in the religious context.

It doesn't really matter what you call the movement, if someones faith in a 'belief system' ends up encouraging violence and the deaths of others, It is DANGEROUS!
How about 'The American Dream'?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
If they are so inclusive then why are they KILLING Muslims?

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/muslim_massacre_in_hindu_india

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/india-hindus-convicted_n_1083624.html

Even the Buddhists (which is more of a philosophy than a religion) gets in on the killing of non believers

http://killingthebuddha.com/ktblog/buddhist-killing-it-really-happens/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2891231/posts


It is not ALL the believers in these 'faiths' that are involved, it is the extreme fringe/radicals that twist and alter the 'beliefs' to fit what they want them to say. Sort of like the 'chem trail' folks that ignore the facts and we some advocating violence.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
But that was not where they were located.
What do you mean? The hijackers were dead. OBL was AWOL. Turned up later in Pakistan.

If they are so inclusive then why are they KILLING Muslims?

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodb...in_hindu_india

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1083624.html

Even the Buddhists (which is more of a philosophy than a religion) gets in on the killing of non believers

http://killingthebuddha.com/ktblog/b...eally-happens/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2891231/posts
I didn't say murderous fucks of all faiths didn't exist, or that Hinduism/Buddhism have entirely non-violent histories. I said that religious fundamentalism, as in basing life and law around the traditional interpretation of the tenets of your faith while disregarding most all other laws and decrying all other religions, isn't particularly possible where Hinduism is concerned, as the tenets of HInduism as a faith have no particular bearing on /make no particular demands of a person's behavior. There's no real aspect of the Hindu faith viable to be forcefully 'imposed'. The brutality to which you linked was horrible, but this is the context:
The worst recent violence erupted in 2002 in Gujarat state. More than 1,000 people, most of them Muslims, were killed by Hindu mobs after a train fire killed 60 Hindus returning from a pilgrimage. Muslims were blamed for the fire.
This wasn't religious fundamentalism at work, it was brutal and senseless mob killings instigated as retaliation for the presumed murder of 60 people. That this tragedy was carried out by one cultural group against another, who've gone at each other's throats from time to time throughout their history, doesn't make the crime religiously motivated, or mean that the sick pieces of shit who carried them out were religious fundamentalists.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
There are moderate movmenets in all religions and cultures that are prepared to deal with others - that dealing with others in a reasonable and equitable manner disqualifies them from being fundamentalists in the first place!! Bit if you look atthe section yuo quoted, it is actualy about engaging other faiths so that they learn their place in the hindo order of things - it is patronising, and domineering - it is certainlyu telling - but not in the way you seem to think it is - look again at the very first sentence:

- then other faiths get invited to be part of "this new society".

Perhaps you missed this bit from later on:

and yes "The American Dream" has fundamentalist aspects too
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The Taliban had sheltered bin Laden.

That's it then is it? Reason enough to invade and stay for 10 years.

When are you invading Pakistan, Saudi, S.America etc? And especially that hotbed of Muslim fanaticism, Iran... They are Muslim Fundamentalists of the first order surely?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
it is actualy about engaging other faiths so that they learn their place in the hindo order of things - it is patronising, and domineering - it is certainlyu telling - but not in the way you seem to think it is - look again at the very first sentence:
you're not wrong, but then I'm not defending these guys. Seem relatively douchey to me. I'm just pointing out that, whatever you wan't to say about them, their position isn't one of religious fundamentalism. That requires their motivations and aspirations to be intrinsic to their religious beliefs. Clearly there's some powerful elements of prejudice and racism in Hindu communities, just as there are in Christian/Muslim/Secular communities, and some Hindu's have taken violent stands against people of other faiths. But 'this is my place, you don't belong here' isn't the same thing as 'My God is the only God, you are a heretic', even if both messages have their roots in similar human conditions, and can lead to similar crimes.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
That's it then is it? Reason enough to invade and stay for 10 years.

When are you invading Pakistan, Saudi, S.America etc? And especially that hotbed of Muslim fanaticism, Iran... They are Muslim Fundamentalists of the first order surely?

When am I invading? You're referring to America? Where are you?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Originally Posted by JRBids

The Taliban had sheltered bin Laden.
Originally Posted by Oxymoron
That's it then is it? Reason enough to invade and stay for 10 years.

When are you invading Pakistan, Saudi, S.America etc? And especially that hotbed of Muslim fanaticism, Iran... They are Muslim Fundamentalists of the first order surely?



When am I invading? You're referring to America? Where are you?

I was speaking in the abstract about your apparent approval of the invasion (and 'settlement'), of Afghanistan, based on the rationale that OBL, (who gave much of his life to freeing Afghanistan from the Russians), was allowed to stay in Afghanistan in gratitude and recognition of his actions and that the ruling force there at the time happened to be the Taliban.

I was also harking back to SR's 'Muslim Fundamentalists' attempting world domination theory. As you appear to think 'The Taliban had sheltered bin Laden', is sufficient grounds for an invasion/occupation, I was simply inviting comment on the likelihood of further invasions of Muslim Fundamentalist Countries or 'aberrant' Nations.

Why not just admit that OBL was an excuse for regime change in the area?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Are you denying that there are Muslims that are advocating for a return of a Caliphate?

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?252109-Hadith-about-Islamic-Caliphate

There are those that wish it.

There are those that wish a lot of things... inc me... doesn't mean they will get it. Are you speaking of a World Caliphate?

If so do you have any proof... other than a few ideological idiots such as can be found in any religion?

Caliphates had their day but as with any ideology there are those who would like to see it's return.

The closest we have to a Caliphate is Iran, (post 79 :eek:)

Obviously the Iranians wanted to try the Shah for his crimes but America sheltered him, (much like the Taliban sheltering OBL I suspect... embarrassing but necessary)

Prior to the 1953 coup d' etat they had constitutional monarch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

Why would the west wish to destabilise such a democracy?

Ah, oil!

Deja vu again?

And so currently we have:

http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1148

Not sure if the latter is their version of CIA/Homeland security :confused:

As far as I know the Iranians do not wish to take over the world with some NWO Caliphate.

Do you think they do or that they are a danger to the west if left alone?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I am going to suggest that going to what happened in Iran is a distraction. Iran is NOT a Sunni country. The Shia have never been included in any of the Caliphates. An Iranian Caliphate would be a Sunni nightmare.

Reclaiming a Caliphate has been a dream of many Muslims since the fall of the Ottoman Empire

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

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

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


Yes I am using Wikipedia, because it has the simplest and least biased explanation.


It is also wrapped up in 'end times' beliefs' . A lot like what we see with some Christians also.

We need to understand others, not react with blind fear.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I am going to suggest that going to what happened in Iran is a distraction. Iran is NOT a Sunni country. The Shia have never been included in any of the Caliphates. An Iranian Caliphate would be a Sunni nightmare.

Reclaiming a Caliphate has been a dream of many Muslims since the fall of the Ottoman Empire

A lot like what we see with some Christians also.

We need to understand others, not react with blind fear.

I do not understand what your concern is?

Can you be more specific?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I was speaking in the abstract about your apparent approval of the invasion (and 'settlement'), of Afghanistan, based on the rationale that OBL, (who gave much of his life to freeing Afghanistan from the Russians), was allowed to stay in Afghanistan in gratitude and recognition of his actions and that the ruling force there at the time happened to be the Taliban.

I was also harking back to SR's 'Muslim Fundamentalists' attempting world domination theory. As you appear to think 'The Taliban had sheltered bin Laden', is sufficient grounds for an invasion/occupation, I was simply inviting comment on the likelihood of further invasions of Muslim Fundamentalist Countries or 'aberrant' Nations.

Why not just admit that OBL was an excuse for regime change in the area?

Well that's where he was, that was the country that was supporting him, and he did it so we went there.

As far as invading and "settling there", I did not give an apparent approval, I said why it happened, since you asked.

Frankly, I'd be all for letting all these countries duke it out and screw them, I don't care for us being policemen for the world. And I'm against giving any of these countries aid.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I had not heard anything about the US 'settling' in Afghanistan.

OBL wanted to overthrow the house of Saud. He attacked the US because of our support for them. He was not in Afghanistan to help the Afghanis, he was there, because he had been kicked out of a bunch of countries.

I feel that we botched the job in Afghanistan, because we got distracted by Iraq.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
My concern would be more 9/11s and more bombings as went on in Spain and England and Indonesia.

That is also my concern. I think they are more likely as a result of U.S foreign policy.

http://www.opensocietyfoundations.o...-extraordinary-rendition-and-secret-detention

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I suppose the next thing is how much is Obama like Bush and would he actively seek an attack on Iran in the same way as Bush engineered Iraq?

Certainly the drums are banging out their call to arms... how far will it go?

There are huge differences between Iraq and Iran in that Iran is much stronger and better able to defend itself. Also it has a democratically elected government which is politically very astute.

Julian Assange gives a very interesting analysis.

 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
Certainly the drums are banging out their call to arms... how far will it go?

Whose drums are those you hear?

Also it has a democratically elected government which is politically very astute.

Allegedly. No real proof and charges of fraud were rampant......or don't you choose to believe them?

No worries. Syria has pretty much been shown to have used chemical weapons, that observation reinforced again today, but I don't see the President doing anything about it.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
In my opinion, Pres Obama has been in a 'damned if you and damned if don't' sitution in regard to Syria. If we were to have acted before now, then he would have been accused of 'starting another war in the Mideast'. Most likely there are those thatwould have accused him of doing that to 'cover up' Benghazi.

I know a lot of folks think Assauage is some great person for his 'revealations'. I don't share that. He hung others out to dry.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
That's where the "spelling corrector" strikes, I think. It's very funny sometimes. Actually it should have rendered "assuage".

Or sometimes it happens if you can't find your reading glasses. Just you wait, you young ones. :)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
That's where the "spelling corrector" strikes, I think. It's very funny sometimes. Actually it should have rendered "assuage".

Or sometimes it happens if you can't find your reading glasses. Just you wait, you young ones. :)

No no, I was asking 'who he hung out to dry', :) My fault... should've specified lol
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
Here's an interesting take on Assange:


 

Grieves

Senior Member
Assange is just a dude who published information he was given. That American authorities and media now call for his blood is somewhat laughable, especially the news agencies that take this position. Such choice irony, demonizing a man for providing unbiased information to the public as they completely fail in their supposed duty to provide unbiased information to the public.
I don't think Assange is any kind of hero, though. The real hero is Bradley Manning, who's been treated like a terrorist/enemy combatant instead of an American citizen for the "crime" of whistle-blowing on a horrendous act. He did the right thing, and sits in a cell for it, as his name is dragged through the mud of public opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top