Amadinejad says he is "su**CENSORED**ious" of 9/11 events

[olafberserker]

Hey joe I don't have to respond to every thing you post. Not sure why you think you deserve an answer to every post you make. But if trained firefighters go into a building and come out saying it is structually unsound and they hear creaks and moans than I think there may be credence to that theory.

What's funny is that I don't recall posting any opinion on what a firefighter may have said prior to my above post. Maybe you can refresh my memory by pointing out where I specifically addressed this.

Just because something is structurally unsound doesn't mean its going to completely collapse.

A building being unsafe to enter by firefighters doesn't necessarily mean the building is about to go down.

Didn't say it did.  Said that if there were concerns by the firefighters that entered, then maybe the structure was damaged and that is why it came down.  Which would be the more boring, but also the more logical explanation as opposed to government conspiracy.

[Biggs3535]

Terrorists don't hate America because of our freedom like our bozo president would like you to believe. They want us out of their region and countries.

You might be a little misinformed on that issue, Snook.

How so?
Do you really think that people half a world away hate America because of it's freedom, do you really believe that?

I have read the Qur'an and studied Islamic-Extremists.  I do my own research.  I do not rely on websites or the President.

To answer your question, it's not the Freedom they hate, per say...it's what some have chosen to do with said Freedom.

I recommend reading the Qur'an to you fellas.

[ufojoe]

Hey joe I don't have to respond to every thing you post.  Not sure why you think you deserve an answer to every post you make.  But if trained firefighters go into a building and come out saying it is structually unsound and they hear creaks and moans than I think there may be credence to that theory. 

So what does it mean when a demolition expert says WTC7 was brought down by demolition?

Danny Jowenko is the guy. And, despite that, he feels WTC1 and 2 were brought down by fire and damage.
Not many people are split like that.

Fire fighters and police felt that bombs were going off. But they're not trained on that stuff an
they're not trained on buildings coming down the way WTC7 came down.

[ufojoe]

You guy's like UFOJ,

Get real !!! I guess my eyes were lying to me when those diaper headed SOB's commandered the planes into the towers. Blaming  it on Bush is a way you unrealists can justify the way you want this world to be.
Face the facts there are bad people out there whose sole purpose in life is to hate us and want to kill us. They detest everything that is good about America.
Our Democracy, Our many freedoms such as religion, speech ect..
They even hate the mini skirts that our beautiful woman wear...I wish to hell that it wasnt this way, but it is what it is!!!!!

Try reading what we have said instead of injecting theories into our words.

BTW, guys. Try to keep the name calling out of this. That's the only thing PR frowns upon.

[ufojoe]

Oh Im sure the government used 9/11 to justify the Iraq war. But that doesnt mean they orchestrated it. They simply took advantage of the oppertunity.

We did the same thing with Pearl Harbor. It pissed off enough Americans that it gave the government the green light to officially enter both theaters, in the Pacific and in Europe. Prior to Pearl Harbor, Americans were against getting involved.
Some even go as far as saying FDR knew the attack was coming.

And maybe that's what happened here. There is evidence that our government and intelligence agencies knew
more about what was going on around 911 than we were lead to believe. Maybe just gross negligence. Maybe
not.

[king_frog]

These islamic a-holes would still be coming after us if we were out of the middle east. They want a world wide domination. This is their mantra and their goal.
We cannot be isolationist and live in a bubble. It would be ideal if we could, but impossible. Cripes even in the 1780 right after we became a nation, France and England were trying to get us involved in their war.  This was when we did not even have the instaneous communication and travel that we have today. It took months before we even new what was going on in the rest of the world. And they were still trying to suck us in.
The radicals already hold most of Europe hostage. The governments for the most part are terrified to speak out against them because they are afraid of an attack. aka spain, france...You guy's that want to keep you head in the sand are scary !!!

[ufojoe]

Terrorists don't hate America because of our freedom like our bozo president would like you to believe.  They want us out of their region and countries.

You might be a little misinformed on that issue, Snook.

Actually, one of the lead CIA guys who investigated Bin Laden and what made him tick agrees
with Snook. There's more to it than that but Snook was not misinformed at all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/08/terror/main3244193.shtml

CBS News consultant Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror" and "Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America" (Potomac), has been critical of the administration's efforts to capture bin Laden, and says the newly-released video shows an al Qaeda leader taunting the U.S. for failing to catch him.

Scheuer spent years tracking al Qaeda as the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit.

Bin Laden makes mention of Scheuer's writings, saying in the tape, "If you would like to get to know what some of the reasons for your losing your war against us, then read the book by Michael Scheuer."

Scheuer said the referral makes the point that the former CIA analyst communicates what recent American presidents have not said about the nation's war against Islamic fundamentalism.

"The war is motivated on the enemy's side by the impact of our policies," he said. "It's not about democracy. It's not about women's rights. It's not about freedom or elections. It has everything to do with the impact of our foreign policy in the Muslim world. It's not to say that our policy is wrong, it's simply to try to understand the motivation of your enemy."

[Biggs3535]

Joe,

I always find it humorous at who you decide to take at their word, and who you question.  That's all I will say.

[Runole]

Do I believe that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.  Absolutely not.  These conspiracy theories are ridiculous IMO.


Do I think the US presence in the middle east is to protect our oil interest?  Absolutely


Do I believe that the US is truly interested in creating democracy in  Iraq?  Nope   Just a police action to maintain our presence.


I most certainly believe that universally any country occupying another is pretty much hated by the majority of those that inhabit countries.   The only ones that like an occupation is for any opportunity to take over that country for their own selfish needs.

[SnookAU]

Terrorists don't hate America because of our freedom like our bozo president would like you to believe.  They want us out of their region and countries.

You might be a little misinformed on that issue, Snook.

Actually, one of the lead CIA guys who investigated Bin Laden and what made him tick agrees
with Snook. There's more to it than that but Snook was not misinformed at all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/08/terror/main3244193.shtml

CBS News consultant Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror" and "Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America" (Potomac), has been critical of the administration's efforts to capture bin Laden, and says the newly-released video shows an al Qaeda leader taunting the U.S. for failing to catch him.

Scheuer spent years tracking al Qaeda as the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit.

Bin Laden makes mention of Scheuer's writings, saying in the tape, "If you would like to get to know what some of the reasons for your losing your war against us, then read the book by Michael Scheuer."

Scheuer said the referral makes the point that the former CIA analyst communicates what recent American presidents have not said about the nation's war against Islamic fundamentalism.

"The war is motivated on the enemy's side by the impact of our policies," he said. "It's not about democracy. It's not about women's rights. It's not about freedom or elections. It has everything to do with the impact of our foreign policy in the Muslim world. It's not to say that our policy is wrong, it's simply to try to understand the motivation of your enemy."

Exactly, Joe. 

Best quote out of all that:

"It has everything to do with the impact of our foreign policy in the Muslim world."

Our government and current administration rules with FEAR.  People are so enamored with the smoke and mirror "They hate us 'cause we're free" crap that they don't even bother to go out and and learn for themselves.

The war on terror will NEVER truly end.  Why is that?

Answer:  Because the US will NEVER leave the middle east.

[king_frog]

Runole, you are right on with all that you posted.. Another point, we have never ever taken over a country and made it our own. We have always liberated and then set the country free..
We even rebuild our enemies after they attack us. 
You guy's that do not love our country remind me of the Gruden haters. He can do nothing right and the USA can do nothing right in your eyes....

[Balls Out]

Cyberdude- You're almost there....Like you've stated, oil is the only reason we give 2 **CENSORED**s about the region and it's why we're in Iraq today, because he who controls the energy, controls the world (Look at what the US did when it discovered how oil could be used, what Britain did with coal and what the Dutch did with wind).

We both agree that the US needs huge/secure oil fields. We both agree that those reserves are found in the middle east and you'd probably agree with me that the easiest source to secure was in Iraq. But the powers that be know that the population would never get behind a war for the sole purpose of securing oil fields. In fact, a neoconservative think tank called "The project for the new American Century" formed in 1997, identified the importance of making Iraq's oil secure, most likely by force, but knew that a "Pearl Harbour type of event" would need to happen to get the people behind it. The think tank consisted of such noble characters as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, ect...

So in 2000 Bush gets elected and fills the most important positions with people from this think tank. In 2001 a Pearl Harbour type of event happens, the official explanation of the event has more holes in it than swiss cheese, and by 2003 we're in Iraq.

I think the biggest problem people have with looking at 9/11 objectively is that they can't believe their gov't would ever be involved in such a thing. But dig a little bit into project Northwood:

"Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a U.S false flag plan from 1962 as a "preliminary submission suitable for planning purposes" for the agenda of generating U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The plan says, "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by the Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, to the Secretary of Defense.

Several proposals were listed. One was terrorism against the 'Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington'. Others were actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed."

What this shows is that there are powerful people who support terrorising it's own people if that gets them what they want (the end justify the means). JFK wasn't on board so it never got executed. But with Bush and his cronies in power, recognizing the fact that they need a "Pearl Harbour" to get the people behind their plans for Iraq, the end justified the means.

[ufojoe]

McCaddy, keep up the good fight. Several of us have posted the links/documents to Northwoods but
people just don't care or don't want to believe that some people can be so evil. I do NOT know that
a conspiracy took place on 911 but I would not be shocked if certain people felt that the ends did
justify the means. Collateral damage. None of us think that way but certain people in power do,
IMO.

The "You Hate America" cries from people like Frog are so old and overused by now. This is not
America we are talking about. If anything happened different than the official story on 911, it
was a rogue group that was involved, IMO. PNAC members? Maybe. IMO, 99% of our elected
officials are corrupt or power mongers, but they are not so evil that they would accept any
American death (outside of a necessary war) as collateral damage in order to achieve a
goal.

[cyberdude557]

Iraq's oil was secure. Saddam was a homicidal madman but he kept the peace in that country and he was a enemy of Iran which was our enemy. And you know how the old saying goes..."the enemy of my enemy is my friend." That's why you see all those pictures of Rumsfeld over there shaking hands with Saddam back in the 80s. Many of those weapons of mass destruction Saddam had and used were given to him by the United States. We wanted him to keep Iran in check.

But you see, guys like Saddam are never satisfied. They become a loose cannon and want more and more power and money. So he invaded Kuwait and threated to invade more countries. That sparked Operation Dessert Storm. We pushed him back into his corner. He was fine for a few years then tried screwing around again in 1996 and 1997. So President Clinton launched Operation Dessert Fox which bombed Baghdad for several nights. The goal again was simply to put Saddam back in his place. But that opertation was not very successful. Saddam still was defient. This is when, in 1998, the United States officially shifted Iraq policy from containment to regime change. The Pentagon and the CIA wanted a leader in there that they can control. However, in 1998, Clinton was involved in various scandals (white-water, Paula Jones, Lewinsky, etc) and the public did not favor any type of war with Iraq. So the plans to overthrow Saddam were put on hold.....until 9/11 which presented an excuse to invade.

[Balls Out]

Runole, you are right on with all that you posted.. Another point, we have never ever taken over a country and made it our own. We have always liberated and then set the country free..
We even rebuild our enemies after they attack us.
You guy's that do not love our country remind me of the Gruden haters. He can do nothing right and the USA can do nothing right in your eyes....

The U.S. gov't is no different than any other historical empire...it's too greedy...and it will fall just like every other empire because of it.

Do you ever wonder why the nations with the most oil have some of the poorest populations? It's because the rich/powerful take far more than they give back and at some point the exploited people have enough and fight back. If they would just give back a little and quit being so greedy, the population would never even think of fighting.