There were dozens of reports of them hooting it up for weeks if not months before. As " soldiers " of Islam, they were being given a " taste " of the heaven that awaits them..
The way the Bin laden " Cells " were organised, they were deliberately left in the dark until the last possible moment.
This same isolation cell activity is used to prevent the leaking of imformation in that no two cells have the same imformation or even know who all the members of any individual "cell " might be. ( That's what US ground forces are now running into in Iraq ) so it makes it hard to " Crack " a cell.
So as far as most of the hijackers "knew ", they were merely boarding a plane to go somewhere. As far as is known, they weren't told what was to be their mission until they were on their way to the airport or at the airport terminal. Very effective.... & very terrible.
Hopefully things will change for the better...
Quote:
"After what happened, more and more Saudis have come out of their shells and have started saying that it's about time to see how we can put an end to radicalism," Mr. Qusti said.
Quote:
Unsure about how to cope with this new uncertainty, the government's response to the May 12 attacks has been a sometimes confusing mix of repression on the one hand and liberalization on the other. Hundreds of radical clerics have reportedly been fired or sent for retraining and there are promises to reform Islamic education to tone down extremist teachings.
Quote:
Newspapers are heading into previously uncharted territory and Saudi reformers are appearing almost nightly on Arab satellite TV stations calling for more freedoms for women and even a limited form of democracy.
Quote:
Even Crown Prince Abdullah, the effective leader since his brother King Fahd was hit by a severe stroke eight years ago, is in on the act. First, he went on television to denounce the attackers as wild animals. Then he convened a National Forum for Dialogue, an unprecedented three-day closed-door meeting of leaders from the nation's diverse tribal and minority groups to discuss a range of usually taboo subjects including women's rights, freedom of expression and relations with non-Muslims.
You guys are dishonest. You're creating a false point of view to argue against. Yes, it's your strawman, again and again.
No Arabs on Flight 77 != Bush administration conspiracy theory.
Now keep that equation in mind when you write your posts so you don't appear to be so childish.
What the hell is going on here? Does anyone have any ideas, or can anyone provide any links and stories that debunk this strange state of affairs? No, you can only scream like little children: "There is no Bush conspiracy!!!"
Apparently, the initial poster to this thread does:
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
All this thread has generated is a bunch of hysterical tantrums by people who can never and will never entertain the possibility that a US administration, most specially this one, is capable of being associated with, or being accessory to activity that is either wrong or flat out criminal.
Sorry bunge, but the initial premise of the thread was that the linked article brought up questions related to the identidy of the hijackers and implied that there was US gov involvment in it. It the implication was to vague for you to pick up on and hence explains why you argued that the implication wasn't there, I think SJO's last post demonstrates the point she was trying to get at.
So, given her implications and the actual point of the thread, do you still write off shetline's critique of the implication of Bush involment? Since obviously, shetline's comments were not strawmen, but right on target for the topic, will you still argue that they are misplaced comments, or will you now take a position: is it reasonable to presume any involvement of the US or Israeli governments in the events of 9/11; or is it right to say that those putting that idea forward, are cobbling together information that, at best, was taken at a time of mass confusion for those involved, could have been incorrect simply because of the confusion and likely doesn't point to a government conspiracy and is itself just another conspiracy theory?
All this thread has generated is a bunch of hysterical tantrums by people who can never and will never entertain the possibility that a US administration, most specially this one, is capable of being associated with, or being accessory to activity that is either wrong or flat out criminal.
There's a big difference between being willing to entertain wrongdoing by the US government, and buying every such accusation, explicit or implied.
If you think I have any particular love of the current administration, you certainly haven't read much of my writing on AI, including in this thread.
Instead of just sending people off to pages and pages of links, summarize what you consider salient, suspicious, or even downright damning, and please be explicit in what you think any of this implies, rather than leaving vague unspoken suspicions lying about.
I have looked over some of the material you linked to. I was very thorough in fact in analyzing the first piece, and found in severely lacking in merit. Am I permitted this opinion without being considered a naive dupe of the government and the media?
C'mon folks, specially us Americans, we are surely mature enough to have a proper discussion about something controversial?
I'm terribly sorry if my discussion of this topic hasn't achieved your lofty criteria of maturity. Please feel free to demonstrate where my childish approach needs improvement.
Why is it that anything with unwelcome connotations that invades certain folks' comfort zones automatically gets written off as a conspiracy theory?
Perhaps because sometimes the fault isn't always a mere matter of violating comfort zones, but of insufficiently compelling cases being made? Go back over what I've already written in this thread if you like, and please point out any places where you believe I've confused logic and probability with mere comfort.
If rationality were to prevail, the official government line should whack us smartly and viciously across the chops as being a cartload of both irrational nonsense and manufactured conjecture, and if I may be blunt, a paranoid conspiracy theory in itself.
It becomes very hard to argue against someone who's bouncing between specifics, such as "No Arabs on Flight 77", and broad generalities of "something" rotten going on.
So what exacting is supposed to be whacking me smartly across the chops? Evidence that it wasn't Arab terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Sorry... you'll have to work harder to show me the evidence I'm so blind to, because at this point, I don't feel any whacking going on, not even a gentle poke.
If you're merely looking for acceptance of wrong doing (of some as-yet-unspecified sort) in our government and the Bush administration, please lay out specific allegations so we can address them on a case-by-case basis. You might find that in some cases I might already be in agreement.
I start my fair share of stupid threads, or turn them to the stupid side, but I'm at least aware of it!
Kill the white people, all the white people
Kill
kill kill kill
kill the white man
kill him
kill the white man
kill him
Was that Fharmakon, or just a caricature by Eddie murphy?
The only thing we know for sure is that Bin Ladin acted out of a pathological state of anger and resentment over his less than average penis.
Then we look to Africa and we see why Muslim colonization is causing so many problems there: if a white girl laughed at his dong, can you imagine what the African sisters would say? Or was that a "law and Order" episode?
Some will look at this as joking, but, when you think of the whole sexual-theological promise of Martyr psychology, it's obvious why they're so mad at us, oil schmoil, we got the 'poon and they wants it, yes my precious, the nasty bin ladinsesses.
I think it comes down to LEsbians in the Middle East. The world would be a better place with more lesbians.
There's a big difference between being willing to entertain wrongdoing by the US government, and buying every such accusation, explicit or implied.
........etc etc
allegations so we can address them on a case-by-case basis. You might find that in some cases I might already be in agreement.
I'm not quite sure why you think I was addressing that comment at you...and your response to the thread, since you are one of the only ones who has discussed it, amd made some points, rather than regurgitating a series of empty headed "conspiracy theory" knee-jerk-isms, or brushing the whole thing off with schoolboy-type flippancies.
Sorry bunge, but the initial premise of the thread was that the linked article brought up questions related to the identidy of the hijackers and implied that there was US gov involvment in it. It the implication was to vague for you to pick up on and hence explains why you argued that the implication wasn't there, I think SJO's last post demonstrates the point she was trying to get at.
And everyone here has to admit that this conspiracy is a possiblity regardless of how remote of a possibility it may be. And it's still an irrelevant point.
You guys can't even begin to admit that this incorrect information about the hijacker identities could be real, simply because it would be admitting something negative about your Prez captain dumb-ass. So instead you attack with childish avoidance responses.
So, given her implications and the actual point of the thread, do you still write off shetline's critique of the implication of Bush involment? Since obviously, shetline's comments were not strawmen, but right on target for the topic, will you still argue that they are misplaced comments, or will you now take a position: is it reasonable to presume any involvement of the US or Israeli governments in the events of 9/11; or is it right to say that those putting that idea forward, are cobbling together information that, at best, was taken at a time of mass confusion for those involved, could have been incorrect simply because of the confusion and likely doesn't point to a government conspiracy and is itself just another conspiracy theory?
If you actually read the thread you'd see that I already responded to shetline's critique. And the critique is still irrelevant to the point of this thread.
You conservatives are running scared, that's all. Your man is responsible and you don't like that thought. Instead of tarnishing his image you have to deflect. There is no spoon is right, only I'm not sure the conservatives around here understand what that means.
You conservatives are running scared, that's all. Your man is responsible and you don't like that thought. Instead of tarnishing his image you have to deflect. There is no spoon is right, only I'm not sure the conservatives around here understand what that means.
Responsible for what? Assuming you are still on topic with this thread, then do you mean responsible for 9/11, then please, enlighten those amongst us who are to naive to see how he was responsible.
And everyone here has to admit that this conspiracy is a possiblity regardless of how remote of a possibility it may be. And it's still an irrelevant point.
very remote. so remote it actually becomes pretty irrelavant.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You guys can't even begin to admit that this incorrect information about the hijacker identities could be real, simply because it would be admitting something negative about your Prez captain dumb-ass. So instead you attack with childish avoidance responses.
Umm, I think many people here have stated time and again, this has little to do with conservatives vs' liberals. It has to do with common sense. Sorry, but if you want to believe that your admin planned and coordinated the 9/11 attacks, fine, but don't expect other reasonable minded people to believe that it is likely, or even really worth discussing. It is not a matter of avoiding the possibility, but there hasn't been any compelling or even seemingly well thought out evidence showing a direct link between western governments and the 9/11 attacks.
No one here has claimed that the id's of the hijackers was positively made with 100% certainty. That this implies they weren't muslim radicals or that there must have then been a coverup or Bush involvement is pretty weak.
The only converative/liberal slant I see in this whole thread is that some liberals buy into anything they hear, if it might made Bush look bad..regardless if how inane or foolish the implications. Other, more reasonable people, even many strongly liberal people here, consider it to be simply a conspiracy theory. They don't call it a conspiracy theory in order to write it off easily, the write it off because it is a weak theory, based on weak reasoning.
Sorry, but if you want to believe that your admin planned and coordinated the 9/11 attacks, fine, but don't expect other reasonable minded people to believe that it is likely, or even really worth discussing.
Why don't you read the thread? I'll say it again for you, since you've not retained it yet, but we're not discussing a Bush conspiracy in this thread.
It seems you'd rather read an agenda into what's being said, and rail against the agenda you perceive, rather than addressing specific points being raised.
Originally posted by bunge, after quoting me saying "It seems you'd rather read an agenda into what's being said, and rail against the agenda you perceive, rather than addressing specific points being raised." in another thread:
Oh the irony.
You're comparing what I've said in this thread to groverat in the child custody thread? Worlds apart.
Groverat never addressed the original topic in that other thread... just leapt straight into his ah-ha-I-know-your-agenda tirade, without even the hint of any connective logic so that one would even know exactly what he was doing railing against without working at it.
Now, look back on this thread. What's the title of this thread? NO ARABS ON FLIGHT 77. You'll see I've covered exactly that. I didn't start there, because the credibility of the linked article had already been fairly well attacked before I came along and other issues were already in the air, but when prompted, I did go back to the title topic itself, and in any case, I always made it clear what issues I was addressing at any given time.
You don't even seem to think the thread's about "No Arabs on Flight 77". From the way you've been talking, it's only about the so-vague-as-to-be-nearly-pointless topic of whether or not there's anything odd at all about details of the 9/11 story as related by our government.
Further, you're now determined to show how confused and/or richly amused you are when anyone takes the thread differently,.
there irony means "oh crap, i have no point, and it's liberals i'm arguing with, so i'll just post little snippets here and there and hope people forget about this thread."
what's the irony? the original premise of this thread is bunk. everything based off of that premise is bunk. if you want to bring something worthwhile, be my guest.
in the meantime this thread has fallen out into two camps. reality vs. fantasy.
Comments
Originally posted by aquafire
Oh..Puh...Leeese !
There were dozens of reports of them hooting it up for weeks if not months before. As " soldiers " of Islam, they were being given a " taste " of the heaven that awaits them..
The way the Bin laden " Cells " were organised, they were deliberately left in the dark until the last possible moment.
This same isolation cell activity is used to prevent the leaking of imformation in that no two cells have the same imformation or even know who all the members of any individual "cell " might be. ( That's what US ground forces are now running into in Iraq ) so it makes it hard to " Crack " a cell.
So as far as most of the hijackers "knew ", they were merely boarding a plane to go somewhere. As far as is known, they weren't told what was to be their mission until they were on their way to the airport or at the airport terminal. Very effective.... & very terrible.
Hopefully things will change for the better...
"After what happened, more and more Saudis have come out of their shells and have started saying that it's about time to see how we can put an end to radicalism," Mr. Qusti said.
Unsure about how to cope with this new uncertainty, the government's response to the May 12 attacks has been a sometimes confusing mix of repression on the one hand and liberalization on the other. Hundreds of radical clerics have reportedly been fired or sent for retraining and there are promises to reform Islamic education to tone down extremist teachings.
Newspapers are heading into previously uncharted territory and Saudi reformers are appearing almost nightly on Arab satellite TV stations calling for more freedoms for women and even a limited form of democracy.
Even Crown Prince Abdullah, the effective leader since his brother King Fahd was hit by a severe stroke eight years ago, is in on the act. First, he went on television to denounce the attackers as wild animals. Then he convened a National Forum for Dialogue, an unprecedented three-day closed-door meeting of leaders from the nation's diverse tribal and minority groups to discuss a range of usually taboo subjects including women's rights, freedom of expression and relations with non-Muslims.
Taken from This Link
Fellowship
Originally posted by bunge
You guys are dishonest. You're creating a false point of view to argue against. Yes, it's your strawman, again and again.
No Arabs on Flight 77 != Bush administration conspiracy theory.
Now keep that equation in mind when you write your posts so you don't appear to be so childish.
What the hell is going on here? Does anyone have any ideas, or can anyone provide any links and stories that debunk this strange state of affairs? No, you can only scream like little children: "There is no Bush conspiracy!!!"
Apparently, the initial poster to this thread does:
Originally posted by sammi jo
All this thread has generated is a bunch of hysterical tantrums by people who can never and will never entertain the possibility that a US administration, most specially this one, is capable of being associated with, or being accessory to activity that is either wrong or flat out criminal.
Sorry bunge, but the initial premise of the thread was that the linked article brought up questions related to the identidy of the hijackers and implied that there was US gov involvment in it. It the implication was to vague for you to pick up on and hence explains why you argued that the implication wasn't there, I think SJO's last post demonstrates the point she was trying to get at.
So, given her implications and the actual point of the thread, do you still write off shetline's critique of the implication of Bush involment? Since obviously, shetline's comments were not strawmen, but right on target for the topic, will you still argue that they are misplaced comments, or will you now take a position: is it reasonable to presume any involvement of the US or Israeli governments in the events of 9/11; or is it right to say that those putting that idea forward, are cobbling together information that, at best, was taken at a time of mass confusion for those involved, could have been incorrect simply because of the confusion and likely doesn't point to a government conspiracy and is itself just another conspiracy theory?
If rationality were to prevail...
then this thread never would have gotten past one post. you're looking for demons that aren't there.
there is no spoon.
Originally posted by sammi jo
All this thread has generated is a bunch of hysterical tantrums by people who can never and will never entertain the possibility that a US administration, most specially this one, is capable of being associated with, or being accessory to activity that is either wrong or flat out criminal.
There's a big difference between being willing to entertain wrongdoing by the US government, and buying every such accusation, explicit or implied.
If you think I have any particular love of the current administration, you certainly haven't read much of my writing on AI, including in this thread.
Instead of just sending people off to pages and pages of links, summarize what you consider salient, suspicious, or even downright damning, and please be explicit in what you think any of this implies, rather than leaving vague unspoken suspicions lying about.
I have looked over some of the material you linked to. I was very thorough in fact in analyzing the first piece, and found in severely lacking in merit. Am I permitted this opinion without being considered a naive dupe of the government and the media?
C'mon folks, specially us Americans, we are surely mature enough to have a proper discussion about something controversial?
I'm terribly sorry if my discussion of this topic hasn't achieved your lofty criteria of maturity. Please feel free to demonstrate where my childish approach needs improvement.
Why is it that anything with unwelcome connotations that invades certain folks' comfort zones automatically gets written off as a conspiracy theory?
Perhaps because sometimes the fault isn't always a mere matter of violating comfort zones, but of insufficiently compelling cases being made? Go back over what I've already written in this thread if you like, and please point out any places where you believe I've confused logic and probability with mere comfort.
If rationality were to prevail, the official government line should whack us smartly and viciously across the chops as being a cartload of both irrational nonsense and manufactured conjecture, and if I may be blunt, a paranoid conspiracy theory in itself.
It becomes very hard to argue against someone who's bouncing between specifics, such as "No Arabs on Flight 77", and broad generalities of "something" rotten going on.
So what exacting is supposed to be whacking me smartly across the chops? Evidence that it wasn't Arab terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Sorry... you'll have to work harder to show me the evidence I'm so blind to, because at this point, I don't feel any whacking going on, not even a gentle poke.
If you're merely looking for acceptance of wrong doing (of some as-yet-unspecified sort) in our government and the Bush administration, please lay out specific allegations so we can address them on a case-by-case basis. You might find that in some cases I might already be in agreement.
Kill the white people, all the white people
Kill
kill kill kill
kill the white man
kill him
kill the white man
kill him
Was that Fharmakon, or just a caricature by Eddie murphy?
The only thing we know for sure is that Bin Ladin acted out of a pathological state of anger and resentment over his less than average penis.
Then we look to Africa and we see why Muslim colonization is causing so many problems there: if a white girl laughed at his dong, can you imagine what the African sisters would say? Or was that a "law and Order" episode?
I'm so confused...
I think it comes down to LEsbians in the Middle East. The world would be a better place with more lesbians.
Originally posted by Matsu
Kill the white people, all the white people
Kill
kill kill kill
kill the white man
kill him
kill the white man
kill him
Was that Fharmakon, or just a caricature by Eddie murphy?
Wasn't that ?Kill My Landlord??
But then it was quite some time ago.
Originally posted by sc_markt
Does anyone remember if anyone on the plane that went down in Penn. noted anything about the hijackers race and/or religion?
Hmmmm..Considering that they're all dead, this is going to be a little difficult...
......suggest you get a weegee board out and ask the spirits ( jennii ), otherwise the rest is all speculation..
better still..ask Harry Potter....
Originally posted by shetline
There's a big difference between being willing to entertain wrongdoing by the US government, and buying every such accusation, explicit or implied.
........etc etc
allegations so we can address them on a case-by-case basis. You might find that in some cases I might already be in agreement.
I'm not quite sure why you think I was addressing that comment at you...and your response to the thread, since you are one of the only ones who has discussed it, amd made some points, rather than regurgitating a series of empty headed "conspiracy theory" knee-jerk-isms, or brushing the whole thing off with schoolboy-type flippancies.
Originally posted by sc_markt
Does anyone remember if anyone on the plane that went down in Penn. noted anything about the hijackers race and/or religion?
A quick search of CNN said this:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/pla....call/?related
"Glick told police he could see three men he described as Arabs and that the plane was over countryside, according to Makely."
Originally posted by Tulkas
Sorry bunge, but the initial premise of the thread was that the linked article brought up questions related to the identidy of the hijackers and implied that there was US gov involvment in it. It the implication was to vague for you to pick up on and hence explains why you argued that the implication wasn't there, I think SJO's last post demonstrates the point she was trying to get at.
And everyone here has to admit that this conspiracy is a possiblity regardless of how remote of a possibility it may be. And it's still an irrelevant point.
You guys can't even begin to admit that this incorrect information about the hijacker identities could be real, simply because it would be admitting something negative about your Prez captain dumb-ass. So instead you attack with childish avoidance responses.
Originally posted by Tulkas
So, given her implications and the actual point of the thread, do you still write off shetline's critique of the implication of Bush involment? Since obviously, shetline's comments were not strawmen, but right on target for the topic, will you still argue that they are misplaced comments, or will you now take a position: is it reasonable to presume any involvement of the US or Israeli governments in the events of 9/11; or is it right to say that those putting that idea forward, are cobbling together information that, at best, was taken at a time of mass confusion for those involved, could have been incorrect simply because of the confusion and likely doesn't point to a government conspiracy and is itself just another conspiracy theory?
If you actually read the thread you'd see that I already responded to shetline's critique. And the critique is still irrelevant to the point of this thread.
You conservatives are running scared, that's all. Your man is responsible and you don't like that thought. Instead of tarnishing his image you have to deflect. There is no spoon is right, only I'm not sure the conservatives around here understand what that means.
Originally posted by bunge
You conservatives are running scared, that's all. Your man is responsible and you don't like that thought. Instead of tarnishing his image you have to deflect. There is no spoon is right, only I'm not sure the conservatives around here understand what that means.
Responsible for what? Assuming you are still on topic with this thread, then do you mean responsible for 9/11, then please, enlighten those amongst us who are to naive to see how he was responsible.
Originally posted by bunge
And everyone here has to admit that this conspiracy is a possiblity regardless of how remote of a possibility it may be. And it's still an irrelevant point.
very remote. so remote it actually becomes pretty irrelavant.
Originally posted by bunge
You guys can't even begin to admit that this incorrect information about the hijacker identities could be real, simply because it would be admitting something negative about your Prez captain dumb-ass. So instead you attack with childish avoidance responses.
Umm, I think many people here have stated time and again, this has little to do with conservatives vs' liberals. It has to do with common sense. Sorry, but if you want to believe that your admin planned and coordinated the 9/11 attacks, fine, but don't expect other reasonable minded people to believe that it is likely, or even really worth discussing. It is not a matter of avoiding the possibility, but there hasn't been any compelling or even seemingly well thought out evidence showing a direct link between western governments and the 9/11 attacks.
No one here has claimed that the id's of the hijackers was positively made with 100% certainty. That this implies they weren't muslim radicals or that there must have then been a coverup or Bush involvement is pretty weak.
The only converative/liberal slant I see in this whole thread is that some liberals buy into anything they hear, if it might made Bush look bad..regardless if how inane or foolish the implications. Other, more reasonable people, even many strongly liberal people here, consider it to be simply a conspiracy theory. They don't call it a conspiracy theory in order to write it off easily, the write it off because it is a weak theory, based on weak reasoning.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Responsible for what?
What this thread is addressing.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Sorry, but if you want to believe that your admin planned and coordinated the 9/11 attacks, fine, but don't expect other reasonable minded people to believe that it is likely, or even really worth discussing.
Why don't you read the thread? I'll say it again for you, since you've not retained it yet, but we're not discussing a Bush conspiracy in this thread.
Originally posted by shetline
It seems you'd rather read an agenda into what's being said, and rail against the agenda you perceive, rather than addressing specific points being raised.
Oh the irony.
Originally posted by bunge, after quoting me saying "It seems you'd rather read an agenda into what's being said, and rail against the agenda you perceive, rather than addressing specific points being raised." in another thread:
Oh the irony.
You're comparing what I've said in this thread to groverat in the child custody thread? Worlds apart.
Groverat never addressed the original topic in that other thread... just leapt straight into his ah-ha-I-know-your-agenda tirade, without even the hint of any connective logic so that one would even know exactly what he was doing railing against without working at it.
Now, look back on this thread. What's the title of this thread? NO ARABS ON FLIGHT 77. You'll see I've covered exactly that. I didn't start there, because the credibility of the linked article had already been fairly well attacked before I came along and other issues were already in the air, but when prompted, I did go back to the title topic itself, and in any case, I always made it clear what issues I was addressing at any given time.
You don't even seem to think the thread's about "No Arabs on Flight 77". From the way you've been talking, it's only about the so-vague-as-to-be-nearly-pointless topic of whether or not there's anything odd at all about details of the 9/11 story as related by our government.
Further, you're now determined to show how confused and/or richly amused you are when anyone takes the thread differently,.
Originally posted by bunge
Oh the irony.
bunge lives in an alternate universe.
there irony means "oh crap, i have no point, and it's liberals i'm arguing with, so i'll just post little snippets here and there and hope people forget about this thread."
what's the irony? the original premise of this thread is bunk. everything based off of that premise is bunk. if you want to bring something worthwhile, be my guest.
in the meantime this thread has fallen out into two camps. reality vs. fantasy.
this isn't a left/right thing bunge.