A failure of imagination

[southsider2k5]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/22/...port/index.html

[kapkomet]

I find it quite hypocritical for the Saudis in this report to basically be cleared of any wrong doing BY AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION, and the Bush Administration basically cleared for this same issue, yet half of America goes out and watches Farenheight 9/11 and believes it's truth.

 

Which would you believe? A known left-wing Bush hater or an independent commission saying that the premise of one such movie is pure Bull s***?

[israel4ever]

The Saudis were directly responsible for 9/11.

 

To say otherwse is foolish, and any report that claims this isn't worth the paper on which it was printed.

 

(In my humble opinion!)

[kapkomet]

Then we just wasted 11 months, plain and simple. And before you go saying that, do you believe everything you read as truth?

 

I'm not going to sit here and say you're wrong because I don't know all the facts. But if they just spent 11 months going through this crap and that was their conclusion, there has to be at least some relevance.

 

(not that our government would lie to us... )

[cwsox]

I find it quite hypocritical for the Saudis in this report to basically be cleared of any wrong doing BY AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION, and the Bush Administration basically cleared for this same issue, yet half of America goes out and watches Farenheight 9/11 and believes it's truth.

 

Which would you believe?  A known left-wing Bush hater or an independent commission saying that the premise of one such movie is pure Bull s***?

kind of out on the edge conclusions for a report that we have not read in full yet -

 

Pavlov, here is your dog...

 

or maybe more like the Rocky Horror Picture Show - every time Michael Moore's name is mentioned yell "Asshole" and everytime Bush's name gets mentioned yell "My hero"

 

[kapkomet]

Bush isn't my hero. Moore is best thought of as a dog. C'mon, take off the Democratic shades. This report was put together by top Republicans AND DEMOCRATS. This report (which I have read parts of already) does what I suggest, it goes a long way in discrediting everything the movie said.

[cwsox]

Bush isn't my hero.  Moore is best thought of as a dog.  C'mon, take off the Democratic shades.  This report was put together by top Republicans AND DEMOCRATS.  This report (which I have read parts of already) does what I suggest, it goes a long way in discrediting everything the movie said.

I disagree on your conclusions about the conclusions of the report and how it is vis a vis a movie that the report in no way comments upon.

 

Reasonable people of good conscience can disagree.

[israel4ever]

Then we just wasted 11 months, plain and simple.  And before you go saying that, do you believe everything you read as truth? 

 

I'm not going to sit here and say you're wrong because I don't know all the facts.  But if they just spent 11 months going through this crap and that was their conclusion, there has to be at least some relevance.

 

(not that our government would lie to us...  )

Here is the bottom line, IMO...

 

As rich and powerful as Osama Bin Laden may be, 9/11 could not have been accomplished without "state sponsorship".

 

Since almost all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, if you put 2 and 2 together, wouldn't Saudi Arabia come up as the most likely sponsor?

[kapkomet]

I disagree on your conclusions about the conclusions of the report and how it is vis a vis a movie that the report in no way comments upon.

 

Reasonable people of good conscience can disagree.

So let me guess.

 

BUSH is responsible, no one else is.

 

Congress is not responsible, BUSH IS.

 

Clinton is not responsible, BUSH IS.

 

CIA is not responsible, BUSH IS.

 

FBI is not responsible, BUSH IS.

 

Am I getting warmer about your conclusions?

 

If so, laugh and you'd deserve to be laughed at because any reasonable, objective person can see it. I know, you haven't said that, but... this report really does discredit Farenheight 9/11's premises A LOT.

 

This document was crafted to carefully not BLAME anyone. Let's make that perfectly clear. It was a systematic breakdown of our intelligence, executive, and legislative oversight committees collectively. It says no more or no less.

 

But I still stand by my premious that Farenheight 9/11 becomes a total work of FICTION based on the conclusions of this BIPARTISAN report.

[Texsox]

Here is the bottom line, IMO...

 

As rich and powerful as Osama Bin Laden may be, 9/11 could not have been accomplished without "state sponsorship".

 

Since almost all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, if you put 2 and 2 together, wouldn't Saudi Arabia come up as the most likely sponsor?

I don't see how Bin Laden needed state sponsored help. He didn't use any complicated or advanced weaponry to take over the planes, he didn't hack into any intelligence agencies to get his men on the planes. He even used US flight schools to train his "pilots".

 

He placed a couple dozen men in the US. Paid for their flight schools, bought box cutters at Ace Hardware, bought plane tickets, and pissed off a nation.

 

What makes it so terrifying is how simple and cheap it really was.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So let me guess.

 

BUSH is responsible, no one else is.

 

Congress is not responsible, BUSH IS.

 

Clinton is not responsible, BUSH IS.

 

CIA is not responsible, BUSH IS.

 

FBI is not responsible, BUSH IS.

 

Am I getting warmer about your conclusions?

 

If so, laugh and you'd deserve to be laughed at because any reasonable, objective person can see it.  I know, you haven't said that, but... this report really does discredit Farenheight 9/11's premises A LOT.

 

This document was crafted to carefully not BLAME anyone.  Let's make that perfectly clear.  It was a systematic breakdown of our intelligence, executive, and legislative oversight committees collectively.  It says no more or no less.

 

But I still stand by my premious that Farenheight 9/11 becomes a total work of FICTION based on the conclusions of this BIPARTISAN report.

Moore is good at bringing up vast points to be looked into in a light that is usually comedic or satirical (i.e. going after the huge corporate campaign contributions in Congress by hiring a pimp to try to get his DNC and RNC ho's back in line, haha) For that, he is good. He gets people talking about an issue.

 

9/11 was a huge failure. At the time we had 2x the amount of agents working on the War on Drugs than on preventing terrorism. Both parties helped to plant the seeds that culminated in 9/11 as can be seen in books like "Killing Hope" which is one of THE books on the subject of US foreign policy actions in countries. (The author is a former advisor in the State Department too...)

 

In 1993, the FBI and US government had an informant that built the bomb used. (FBI tapes, both audio and video, show the FBI providing the Egyptian man with the materials to build it in an attempt to infiltrate AQ) They let the bomb detonate and kill people. The only reason it didn't take down the building was because the bomb was placed away from the structural supports. Ralph McGehee outed the CIA for being just an arm of the Presidency to gather evidence for whatever the Prez wants to do in his book "Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA".

 

http://antiwar.com/ewens/?articleid=3072 is a good article about the movie Moore should have made to chronicle the move from 9/11 to the Iraq war.

[cwsox]

So let me guess.

 

BUSH is responsible, no one else is.

what is with the attitude? Please don't infer that you know what I think because it is every clear that is not the case.

 

There are far more shades of possibilities and dimensions and reflections of the prism and alternatives than the simple "if you don't believe this you *must* believe that" fallacies.

 

And the report is far, far more complex than the way it has been reported in these quarters.

 

I said before that reasonable people of good conscience can disagree. I have no idea why that is such an objectionable statement.

[kapkomet]

I said before that reasonable people of good conscience can disagree.  I have no idea why that is such an objectionable statement.

That statement taken alone, of course, is true.

 

But your silence on this is deafening.

 

BTW, I didn't even watch one newscast yesterday, I read a lot of this for myself and drew my conclusions on my own, without any help from "the media".

[southsider2k5]

BTW for all who are interested. The full 9-11 report.

 

Adobe Acrobat required

[Texsox]

How anyone can logically think that the entire US population isn't somehow to blame surprises me. The US has never prepared for something of this magnitude. Adminstrations dating back 15-20 years can be blamed. Some people like to point out how Clinton would conduct poll after poll and do whatever would make him popular, or what the citizens want. Do you think we we held hands and sung God Bless America after the Cole and other attacks that he wouldn't have welcomed the opportunity to start a war?

 

We've been transfering power for hundreds of years, if Bush couldn't put together a team in 9 months then he's even worse than some Dems believe.

 

We, as citizens, are the government. We, as citizens, are the country. We, as citizens, are equally to blame.

[kapkomet]

We, as citizens, are the government. We, as citizens, are the country. We, as citizens, are equally to blame.

That's exactly right. We ALLLLLLLL, Republicans or Democrats, Rich or Poor, bumbling idiot or Einsteinish, are ALLLLLLLLLL to blame.

 

But to some Democrats are exempt.

 

But to still others, Republicans are exempt, also.

 

My point is folks need to take the partisan glasses off and realize that there's a lot of blame to go around.

 

And my other point in this whole thread is Michael Moore's film is pure propagandist Bull s***, which is my conclusion after reading this document... (whereas before it was the media telling me, now I read this for myself and say "bull s***".)

[Texsox]

And my other point in this whole thread is Michael Moore's film is pure propagandist Bull s***, which is my conclusion after reading this document... (whereas before it was the media telling me, now I read this for myself and say "bull s***".)

We can say this about a lot of things.

 

And my other point in this whole thread is Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly's shows are pure propagandist Bull s***, which is my conclusion after listening... (whereas before it was the media telling me, now I read this for myself and say "bull s***".)

[kapkomet]

Yea it is. They all are sensationalized pure bull s***. I will agree with that.

[IlliniBob72]

I don't see how Bin Laden needed state sponsored help. He didn't use any complicated or advanced weaponry to take over the planes, he didn't hack into any intelligence agencies to get his men on the planes. He even used US flight schools to train his "pilots".

 

He placed a couple dozen men in the US. Paid for their flight schools, bought box cutters at Ace Hardware, bought plane tickets, and pissed off a nation.

 

What makes it so terrifying is how simple and cheap it really was.

THANK YOU, TEX!!! I was thinking the same thing yesterday. I keep hearing about the "sophistication" of the 9/11 attack. What are people talking about? Like you said, they took some pilot classes, as anyone here can do, then bought some tickets and exacto knives and flew planes into buildings. Where is the sophistication???

[IlliniBob72]

what is with the attitude?  Please don't infer that you know what I think because it is every clear that is not the case.

 

There are far more shades of possibilities and dimensions and reflections of the prism and alternatives than the simple "if you don't believe this you *must* believe that" fallacies.

 

And the report is far, far more complex than the way it has been reported in these quarters. 

 

I said before that reasonable people of good conscience can disagree.  I have no idea why that is such an objectionable statement.

People can assume your thoughts because they are so predictable. It is the same way as I said about your anti-Passion rants. They were so persistent and over the top that they became irrelevant and easily dismissed. The same can be said of someone like Michael Moore. He is so outrageously anti-Bush that nothing he says can be taken at face value. If Bush shoved an elderly woman out of the path of a speeding bus, Moore would report "Bush likes to shove old ladies!". You have a pattern of blaming Bush for everything and libs for nothing. So, if you don't like people inferring what you think on topics, it is because there is a 99% chance that whatever you think is anti-Bush.

[israel4ever]

I don't see how Bin Laden needed state sponsored help. He didn't use any complicated or advanced weaponry to take over the planes, he didn't hack into any intelligence agencies to get his men on the planes. He even used US flight schools to train his "pilots".

 

He placed a couple dozen men in the US. Paid for their flight schools, bought box cutters at Ace Hardware, bought plane tickets, and pissed off a nation.

 

What makes it so terrifying is how simple and cheap it really was.

Al Queda members need a place to train...Saudi Arabia!

[Texsox]

Al Queda members need a place to train...Saudi Arabia!

They trained to fly in the US. Are you implying we sponsor terrorists?

[Texsox]

U.S. policy on Israel key motive for effort

 

The report doesn't think it was state sponsored.

 

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission.

 

Mohammed conceived the initial outline of the attack six years before its execution and brought the plan to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden because he thought he did not have the resources to carry it out on his own.

 

The Sept. 11 report contains the fullest accounting of Mohammed's overarching role from original conception to supervision of details. Bin Laden, too, was fully involved, selecting all or most of the participants, ordering the substance and the location of their training, and contributing to the timing of the attacks and the selection of targets, the report says.

 

The report makes a strong case that al-Qaida accomplished the attacks without any hint of state sponsorship. The report also appears to lay to rest the notion, long alluded to by administration officials including Vice President Dick Cheney, that hijacker Mohamed Atta traveled to the Czech Republic to meet an Iraqi intelligence operative in the spring of 2001.

 

In addition to repeating evidence that Atta was in the United States at the time, the report revealed that the Iraqi agent was not in Prague either when the meeting was alleged to have occurred.

 

Much of the report's detail comes from interrogations of al-Qaida operatives in U.S. custody, including Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. Some of that information is contradictory; much of it is difficult to corroborate. One CIA analysis cited in the report, for example, is titled "Khalid Shaykh Muhammed's Threat Reporting -- Precious Truths, Surrounded by a Bodyguard of Lies."

[israel4ever]

They trained to fly in the US. Are you implying we sponsor terrorists?

They learned combat and hand-to-hand fighting in SAUDI ARABIA, in Al Queda training camps.

[Texsox]

They learned combat and hand-to-hand fighting in SAUDI ARABIA, in Al Queda training camps.

So they used official government training for hand to hand combat but used US flight schools? Come on, which was going to get them caught easier? Taking a martial arts class in the US or a flight school? Why would they train in hand to hand combat in a state sponsored training program and then not train them to fly a plane? It doesn't pass the common sense test. The Saudis have an Air Force and if it was state sponsored could have trained the pilots.