Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

'9/11 Truth Movement' and Academia

EddyBlack

New Member
editor said:
Really? Could you offer some 'historical examples' of the US Govt mass slaughtering thousands of its own civilian citizens on their home turf and give some examples of USG-sponsored catastrophic attacks on its own major cities please?

Thanks.
What I actually said was:

EddyBlack said:
I would also add that as far as mass slaughtering of its own citizens, or rather allowing the enemy to strike if it is in the wider interest as they see it, the mentality of many of these people is difficult to understand. If they see their agenda as fundementally crucial then they can indeed countenance mass death of their own people. Its not to hard to think of historical examples.
Allowing the enemy to get one in, though they may regret loss of life but see it as part of the wider strategic necessesity as they see it, is what I was trying to say.
 

jæd

Corporate Hooker
EddyBlack said:
What I actually said was...
Ok then, do you have some historical examples of the US allowing foreign powere to slaughter 000's of its own citizens in order to invade foreign countries...?
 

EddyBlack

New Member
No. But there is something about Neo-Con mentality and ideology that makes this somewhat plausable in my eyes.

Other than that, there are plenty of examples of agencies allowing the enemy to strike because they felt it necessary. Although I cannot really provide you with any satisfactory examples in regards to gaining pretexts of this kind, the Moira bomb and the Omagh bomb where very likely allowed to happen. Why? because someone in the chain of command felt it neccesary to let their own agents within the Real IRA retain some credibility and allow them to continue to gather intelligence and not be suspected.
 

Dillinger4

Es gibt Zeit
Maybe the Neo-Con mentality is to make everybody think they are capable of anything.

Where as the reality is they are pretty incapable at everything.
 

jæd

Corporate Hooker
EddyBlack said:
No. But there is something about Neo-Con mentality and ideology that makes this somewhat plausable in my eyes.
So its something thats "plausable"., rather than having any actual historical examples...?

EddyBlack said:
Other than that, there are plenty of examples of agencies allowing the enemy to strike because they felt it necessary. Although I cannot really provide you with any satisfactory examples in regards to gaining pretexts of this kind...
There are or there aren't...? :confused:
 

EddyBlack

New Member
jæd said:
So its something thats "plausable"., rather than having any actual historical examples...?



There are or there aren't...? :confused:

There are not any historical examples I know of where the USG allows somebody to attack in order to justify an invasion. I said that quite clearly.

There are examples of agencies allowing attacks though for other reasons, see above. I was trying to say why I felt it was 'somewhat plausable'.
 

editor

hiraethified
EddyBlack said:
No. But there is something about Neo-Con mentality and ideology that makes this somewhat plausable in my eyes.
Ah. So you're basing 'plausibility' on your own beliefs and prejudices, rather than historical precedent, evidence and fact?
 

jæd

Corporate Hooker
EddyBlack said:
There are examples of agencies allowing attacks though for other reasons, see above. I was trying to say why I felt it was 'somewhat plausable'.
So you can show us evidence on how the Moira bomb and the Omagh bomb were specifically allowed to happen so that a threat could continue...? Or is still in the "it might possibly, could've, perhaps it might've, please Sir, make it true" realm...?
 

EddyBlack

New Member
butchersapron said:
And what is that?
Many of them are adherents to Machiavellian principles, they make no secret of this. Though I am no expert I believe this basically means that the ‘ends justify the means’. This leads to all kinds of horrific possibilities.

They are also very militaristic, as their stated PNAC principles show. One of their core ideas is that America had not made full use of its military advantage.

You have look at this group, their principles and their influence as the reason that America and the world is going down the toilet in the present era. Perhaps there are a long line of idealistic war mongering nutters, but the present bunch are as bad as any of them.

I find rather chilling some of their ideas, like adherence to Mavhievellian principles for example. I think they are extremists.
 

butchersapron

blood on the walls
All politicians are. That's how they work, None of that makes me think, or ven offers evidence, for your case. That's normal political behaviour.
 

EddyBlack

New Member
Perhaps a lot are in a loose sense, i.e. their all a bit sly. Not all by any means. However, Neo-Conservatism is a specific group, thats ideological basis, having sprouted out of Chicago University where many of its leading adherents where tutored by Leo Strauss. They publicly and unashamedly cite Strauss and Machivellian ideas as one of their core principles.
 

butchersapron

blood on the walls
EddyBlack said:
Perhaps a lot are in a loose sense, i.e. their all a bit sly. Not all by any means. However, Neo-Conservatism is a specific group, thats ideological basis, having sprouted out of Chicago University where many of its leading adherents where tutored by Leo Strauss. They publicly and unashamedly cite Strauss and Machivellian ideas as one of their core principles.
Fucking hell, you think labour and tories have never hear of Machivelli? or are are in, shock horror, a group with an ideological basis?
 

jbob

Well-Known Member
nosos said:
Have you actually read the thread?

If someone's rude and patronising to someone else while bigging up their own academic credentials as a way of attempting to be personally demaning, is it not valid to ask them to justify said credentials?

Sometimes "a circle forms" because it's so obvious that someone is being a prick.
Yeah, read the thread. Still don't see why someone (even Fela) has to state their place of work or education. Irrelevant. I know you like to think you're the be all and all of academic behaviour, but you're wrong on this. He may be a twat, but he's entitled to his confidentiality, as is anyone else.
 

laptop

Freudenschade
jbob said:
he's entitled to his confidentiality, as is anyone else.
The price of complete confidentility, however, is not making public claims.

If only fela would stop doing that...
 

fela fan

sunny thailand
laptop said:
The price of complete confidentility, however, is not making public claims.

If only fela would stop doing that...
You obviously didn't read the thread. I was answering a post of kyser's, and it needed me to say what i did.

So cut out your lies about me making 'public' claims, and saying that this is repeated behaviour of mine.

Read before you judge.
 

fela fan

sunny thailand
jbob said:
Yeah, read the thread. Still don't see why someone (even Fela) has to state their place of work or education. Irrelevant. I know you like to think you're the be all and all of academic behaviour, but you're wrong on this. He may be a twat, but he's entitled to his confidentiality, as is anyone else.
It was an interesting question by nosos. About two weeks ago i found out quite by chance he had me on the ignore button.

Interestingly he still seems interested in commenting on my posts, and surely has been unable to read the full thread properly, and therefore is asking of others what he cannot do himself.

And, er, no jbob, i'm not a twat actually. I'm a perfectly normal human being who objects to such a description of myself. Fucking rude really.
 

jæd

Corporate Hooker
fela fan said:
You obviously didn't read the thread. I was answering a post of kyser's, and it needed me to say what i did.

So cut out your lies about me making 'public' claims, and saying that this is repeated behaviour of mine.

Read before you judge.
It was like this:

Fela: Because of my qualifications I know all about dissertations. I also advise students...

Everyone: Oh, what are you qualifications....?

Fela:Not telling...! Its private + none of your business...

Everyone: :rolleyes:
 

fela fan

sunny thailand
jonH said:
So if you only have O level maths and english don't go any further?
But in britain it's all about jobs and qualifications. Once they're known, so are you. So conversely, if they can't know or find out, they can't know you.

And this seems to be unsettling for some, judging by their stream of negative posts. The outcome is that they write about me as if they know me, and dish out as many barbs as they can. They're playing a sport i guess.

Informed a couple of times on this thread where to look on urban to find both my job and my qualifications, instead they, having decided who i am, therefore decided i didn't have the qualifications i said i had. They put me down for lying. And not wanting to have their negative bullshit exposed they refused to go and find out the answers for themselves.

My take on things just right now.
 

jæd

Corporate Hooker
fela fan said:
But in britain it's all about jobs and qualifications. Once they're known, so are you. So conversely, if they can't know or find out, they can't know you.
In the UK if you rely on something you get pulled up on it. Perhaps thats why Fela moved to Thailand...? Too many heat in the kitchen for Fela...!

fela fan said:
And this seems to be unsettling for some, judging by their stream of negative posts. The outcome is that they write about me as if they know me, and dish out as many barbs as they can. They're playing a sport i guess.
No-one's being negative. Just wanting you to support your posts for once...

fela fan said:
Informed a couple of times on this thread where to look on urban to find both my job and my qualifications, instead they, having decided who i am, therefore decided i didn't have the qualifications i said i had. They put me down for lying. And not wanting to have their negative bullshit exposed they refused to go and find out the answers for themselves.
Nope its more that if you rely on something to make a point, the onus is up to you to provide evidence, or even the merest example of it. Go on give us a link to to your qualifications...!
 

kyser_soze

Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Other than that, there are plenty of examples of agencies allowing the enemy to strike because they felt it necessary. Although I cannot really provide you with any satisfactory examples in regards to gaining pretexts of this kind, the Moira bomb and the Omagh bomb where very likely allowed to happen. Why? because someone in the chain of command felt it neccesary to let their own agents within the Real IRA retain some credibility and allow them to continue to gather intelligence and not be suspected
The neo-cons might give lip service to Machiavelli, but if you've ever read The Prince you'd know he'd be turning in his grave at their appallinging unsubtle approach to things.l

Also, I'm assuming you're referring to spygames when talking about Omagh & Moira - that in order to protect intelligence assets you have to let certain bad things happen? Hard one to call really? Also n/a to 9/11 - the US famously had switched intel gathering away from Islamists (who had been a focus under Clinton) and back toward the Soviets and Chinese under Condi (the ole Cold Warrior that she is...she wasn't wrong in hindsight either) before 9/11 (see 9/11 threads passim - the real question is can you pin a Dereliction of Duty charge on Bush and the executive for ignoring the CIA on this)
 

EddyBlack

New Member
Its kind of hard to prove that, either positively of negatively. The 911 Commission was inadequate. Not enough time, money, investigative and subpoena powers, co-operation, or impartiality.
'Set up to fail', as commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton described it, although I'm sure they did the best job they could.
 

EddyBlack

New Member
Sorry to keep bringing it up, but on that thread I link to earlier, the case with Omagh is that the families, or some of them, are still searching for the truth and justice.
The Nally report for instance found that there was no 'prior knowledge' or failiure by the Garda, yet they just happened to keep Paddy Dixon quiet and didn't take his testimony, the Garda agent should have been the key witness in such a question.
Its so easy for these agencies to just cover-up, close ranks and keep silence.
 

kyser_soze

Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
EddyBlack said:
Its kind of hard to prove that, either positively of negatively. The 911 Commission was inadequate. Not enough time, money, investigative and subpoena powers, co-operation, or impartiality.
'Set up to fail', as commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton described it, although I'm sure they did the best job they could.
I'd suggest you read Bod Woodwards books on the Bush adminstration on this subject.
 
Top