9-11 Conspiracy

The motives of why America would have deliberately stood down during an attack are absurd assumptions. Why would America, reputed to be the strongest and sole world super power, have deliberately embarrassed itself, having all its sophistication thwarted by 3rd World terrorists? As a mandate to go to war with Iraq? Does anyone really think that 9/11 was necessary to go to war with Iraq? An entirely other justification wasn't needed? Come on, now... Give me a break.But the most important question is, what evidence is there to suggest that this is case to begin with? None of the testimonies I've yet to heart are proof of any misconduct, as it relates 9/11. This is pure conjecture. I'm waiting for something substantive.

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

No worries GM I got nothing but time , and your post are always worth reading. The only problem I'm having is that NORAD's timelines can't just be wrong because the Commission and tapes said so and that's the end of the questioning. WHY did NORAD get those times wrong? It's not like someone at NORAD is writing down the times in a note pad.So how? How did they get those timelines wrong?This is the only thing that I have not been able to look past, as easy as you guys have.And no, we don't need to implement the entire FAA and NEADS, just the people who gave the final report. A report mind you that was the Bush/Cheney approved version.To you guys this is nothing more than a mistake realized and corrected by the Commission in their final report, and I agree, those are the facts, but how on earth did NORAD get those timelines wrong? It's not some half-ass operation. Even if we agree that they got the timelimes wrong, is there no reason to question why? And they held to those timelines for 3 years, shouldn't that make us question how accurate NORAD takes these time frames during an emergency? Semantics. Anyone that muders in the name of religion, political opinion, race, etc, is a fundamentalist. Religion need not be a factor at all. This is just limited by their budget. If "terrorist" had the funding that the US gives Israel they wouldn't be launching shitty missiles and blowing themselves up. They'd be a "highly organised and professional armed force", as you called the US/UK. Terrorism is one of those words that the UN hasn't wanted to define because (1) no one can agree what terrorism actually is, (2) it would show that the US/UK are terrorist.But they've taken a few stabes at it. Let's see if the US and their current invasion of Iraq, or, Israel and their current oppression of Palestine, fits the definition:

quote:

---

The United Nations states that "The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols. The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Proposed definitions include:

​

1. League of Nations Convention (1937): "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".
2. UN Resolution language (1999):"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed; 2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)
3. Short legal definition proposed by Alex P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992): Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime
4. Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 discusses terrorism and is a primary UN authority for terrorism because it was issued under Chapter VII UN authority.

​

Resolution 1566 refers to it as:

​

criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

​

UN Security Council Resolution 1566
On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

​

The General Assembly resolution 49/60, titled "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism," adopted on December 9, 1994, contains a provision describing terrorism:

​

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

​

According to Antonio Cassese, that provision "sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism."

---

So, according to Antonio Cassese and his approval of these definitions, I would say that the US and Israel are in an "acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."...the only difference is, we don't "see" it as criminal from this side of the fence, but it most certainly is criminal...and you know it. Not if the mistakes and cover-ups are found to be guilded by Bush/Cheney, who have ties with these Saudi oil folks, who have ties with OBL.And the funding of the attacks was never established, and no one is currently looking for it. It has been swept. It's enough.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

What if the "motive" was to invade Iraq, and we know from the Pearl Harbor incident that a single act of terrorism will lead Americans to support a war, wouldn't ignoring a threat from a known Islamic fundamentalist be worth ignoring to ignite a war in the Middel East? How else could we invade that area? A massive terrorist attack did exactly what was needed. Now, I don't think it was known when and where, so lets not go that route.Our troops, due to 911, are now in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have always been in Saudi Arabia, so what country does that place in the middle? - Iran. Plus Israel? Can you say "Total Fuck'n Control". Yes, I do...and why? Because you need the support of the American public, and that's what they got. 911 was the catalist to the Iraq invasion. There was no way anyone was going to support going back to war against Iraq. It's almost a known reason. 911 helped the Bush admin build a campaign against Iraq.You tell me, how else would our government been able to invade Iraq?- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

While it is true that the Bush administration used 9/11 to justify invading Iraq, had 9/11 not happened they still would have found other means to justify it.Pull out the inspectors and claim there are WMD.
Claim Saddam has a nuke.
Claim Saddam plans to attack Israel.
Claim Saddam has kidnapped the Olsen Twins.Or, realistically...Order dangerous air patrol missions over Iraq until a plane either is shot down or just simply crashes, then use that as justification.Would we have been as gung ho? No. Would they still have gotten us into the war. Absolutely.Remember, the entire middle of the country is controlled 100% by mega churchs, Rush Limbaugh and FoxNews. If 2/3 of them say "Iraq is planning on stealing the moon", we're at war.

Nuggin is exactly right. Any reason would have sufficed. The scale an scope of 9/11 would never have been allowed intentionally just as Pearl Harbor. The U.S. doesn't need its 7th Fleet destroyed at the tune of billions of dollars, nor does it need its symbols of economic stability or military might to be decimated as a justification to go to war.We all remember what happened when that time came. At least half the country was like, no fucking way! That was over 2 years after the fact, and it still did no good. This was the second most unpopular war in US history. So don't try and sell the idea that 9/11 was cooked up by the gov't to drum up support.And then there's that whole no proof thingy, too. That one's kind of a biggie.Look where were at right now? Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, etc clucked away and sold America on the ideal that they would get out of Iraq. They tarred and feathered Bush over the Iraq issue. But as you can see, they don't really disagree. They were just politicking like all of them do. Gosh, they were so vocal during election time about how they'd bring the troops the nano-second that anyone else was elected other than Bush or McCain. So as you can see... 9/11 was not necessary and did nothing to seduce any one, other than maybe crazed right-wingers, to war. But that's not all that remarkable. You could seduce them in to war by stealing a Snicker's bar. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

I've already provided you with this link.As one might expect, it's because a conversation about flight 11 got misinterpreted as a conversation about flight 175.

This would not have been enough to get the public behind going to war. In fact, even after 911 there was still apprehention by the genereal public, that's why the Bush admin increased the lies about Saddam and Iraq. So no, I don't think anything other than a massive homebase attack would have gotten the patriotic Americans to invade another country with brown people. Well if we're going to start setting up scenarios, sure, eventually you can come up with a scenario that might ignite a war, but this is irrelevant and seems like guessing at best. The closes example I can find is the attack on the USS. Cole, end result? Nothing.It took the towers to be attacked, and the Pentagon, but I imagine the towers would have been enough, to get us into Afgahnistan...not even the attacks on the USS. Cole did it. So what evidence do you have to support your guess work about other types of means to get the US into Iraq?Also, it seems that a consiracy theory is only good when trying to prove a point, eh? - The US is going to knowingly place a pilot in harms way just to go into Iraq? I don't buy it. That's a very weak arguement.Ignoring an at-home attack from a known Islamic fundie is the best way to go. And they did. And they attacked. And now we're in Iraq, Afgahnistan, and Saudi Arabia...conclusion: Iran is fucked. That's way off. While I'll agree that the middle of the country is usually pro-republican, it's way off from 100%, and mega church supporters. Don't let the media bullshit you about the south. They are still very educated people, not a bunch of dumb country rednecks who worship the every words of Limbaugh and FoxNews. I go through the south a lot, these people are smart, educated in current affairs and understand the current global issues. They get painted a picture of that doesn't accurately discribe them. In fact, I have encountered plenty of atheists throughout the south as well, the media doesn't do them justice.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Watch your tone.You SPECIFICALLY ASKED: I did.You don't get to bitch that it's speculation when YOU ASKED FOR SPECULATION.NOT getting attacked was sufficient to get us into Vietnam. NOT getting attacked was sufficient to get us into the Spanish/American War. NOT getting attacked was sufficient to get is into Iraq the first time. NOT getting attacked was sufficient to get us into Panama.News flash - We don't need to get attacked to attack "back".If the Bush admin wanted to go to war, they could have used ANY excuse to do it. 9/11 happened to be a good one. That doesn't mean that Bush and Cheney secretly snuck into the towers on their off hours and placed hundreds of tons of super secret invisible explosives. You are attributing an administration with intelligence and forethought which they ABSOLUTELY failed to display in EVER SINGLE OTHER ASPECT of their 8 years in office.You think a man who SHOOTS ANOTHER MAN POINT BLANK IN THE FACE is thinking 2 steps ahead?You think a man who watches a US City sink beneath the waves and DOESN'T CALL OFF HIS VACATION is crafy enough to anticipate future public opinion?If we wanted to get Iran, we didn't need to take out Iraq (their BIGGEST ENEMY).Iran WANTED us in Iraq. Iran was the MAIN SOURCE of bad intel about Iraq. If anything, Iran WON. We literally CAN'T attack Iran now. We have NO MONEY, NO TROOPS and NO WILL to go after them. Smart & educated & unwilling to stand up to their neighbors doesn't do the real America any good. I say let Texas leave. Good riddance.

Did you read the whole report?First, there a lot of "I don't remember" and "I don't recall". You are supporting your entire position on one persons testimony that there was a mistake in the mist of this same person saying repetedly that they don't recall a lot of what happened. How do we know she actually got this right? She doesn't recall a lot of what happened but got this part dead-balls on?I still feel that NORAD's timelines were accurate because NORAD takes down timelines accurately. If all you have is this one persons testimony then I personally am not convinced.Like I said, this isn't some half-ass operation. There isn't some dude at NORAD with a notepad writing down things as they happen in real time. This is all recorded by computers and printed to give the accurate timelines. This one person account, as vague as it is, does nothing in my eyes other than present her personal account of the situation. That -vs- NORAD's actual computerized timlines isn't enough to sway me.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Oh please. I see we're going to start on the wrong foot already... I was hoping for evidence based assertions, not: Or... In which we now have to believe that our government would willingly have a pilot, or group of military personel, killed in order to go into Iraq. That's no better than saying they planed 911 to go into Iraq. Fair enough, now this is a debatable point.The lesson learn from Vietnam was that if you don't have support of the US public you can't stay at war for a long time. A lesson learned and corrected here and now in Iraq. Source

quote:

---

In response to the anti-war movement, the U.S. Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment in June 1973 prohibiting further U.S. military intervention. In April 1975, North Vietnam captured Saigon. North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.

---

This current invasion of the Middle East is going to be for a long while. Therefore a huge support from the US public was needed, and like the lesson learned in Vietnam, if you don't have that support you can't stay there. Now, it has shifted to "if we leave the place gets chaotic", so now we have to stay so that future chatastrophy is avoided.The general public, even though they, for the most part, don't support the war against Iraq, still see that our presence is needed for stability - and a US presence in Iraq will be there for a long while - reduced, of course. But, Afgahnistan is a different animal. Due to the media demonization of OBL (and never actually finding out who financed the attacks) current public opinion is that we must finish the job we started in Afgahn. So there is still support of a strong US military presence in the Middle East.And this is all possible because of 911, or would have been also possible with any other at home attack. But not by simply stating that Iraq has WMD's, they needed something massive to point to. Many countries have WMD's, but we don't invade them. It took an attack by arabs on US soil to allow for an invasion into arab land. Who the fuck is saying this? Why don't you pay attention to what is being discussed before you ramble off into conspiracy theory accusations that no one is advocating for. You make this statment when our defense budget is currently the highest it's ever been?! Source

quote:

---

Defence expenditure in the US will equal that of the rest of the world combined within 12 months, making it "increasingly pressing" for European contractors to develop a "closer association" with the US, corporate finance group PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) says.

​

Its report - 'The Defence Industry in the 21st Century' by PwC's global aerospace and defence leader Richard Hooke - adds that "the US is in the driving seat", raising the prospect of a future scenario in which it could "dominate the supply of the world's arms completely".

​

The US defence budget reached US$417.4 billion in 2003 - 46 per cent of the global total.

​

Less than two per cent of the US defence budget is spent outside its home market, the report notes, and of this around one per cent goes to UK contractors.

​

Hooke says: "The message for management teams in all this - apart from the obvious for US contractors to monopolise the industry - is that they will fail to maximise value if they fail to define accurately the business segment in which they operate.

​

"For Europe and the UK in particular, it means, right now, an increasingly pressing need to develop a closer association with the US market."

---

Source

quote:

---

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday that he wants to "profoundly reform" the way the Pentagon does business, calling for more money for unmanned spy planes, helicopters and other items for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His new budget would eliminate a multibillion dollar satellite program and end production of the F-22 fighter jet.

---

Source

quote:

---

Fiscal Year 2009 Department Of Defense Budget Released

​

President George W. Bush today sent to Congress his Defense budget for Fiscal Year 2009. The budget provides $515.4 billion in discretionary authority for the Department of Defense (DoD), a $35.9 billion or 7.5 percent increase over the enacted level for Fiscal Year 2008.

​

The Fiscal Year 2009 budget reflects the President’s priorities and sustains his commitment to prevail in the Global War on Terror; increase ground combat capabilities; improve force readiness; develop the combat capabilities needed to meet future threats; and improve the quality of life for Service members and their families.

​

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said, the President’s budget for FY 2009 provides the resources necessary to maintain an agile, highly trained, and lethal fighting force, increase Army and Marine Corps end strength, and sustain the United States’ technological advantage over current and potential enemies. Specifically, the Department’s request:

​

*Maintains a highly trained fighting force of 2.2 million soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines;
*Recruits, trains and equips 65,000 additional active duty soldiers and 27,000 additional Marines over five years;
*Provides pay increases of 3.4 percent for military members, improves benefits for the all-volunteer force, and increases pay 2.9 percent for the civilian workforce;
*Provides world-class health care for 9.2 million eligible Service members, families, and retirees;
*Procures and maintains an arsenal of the world’s most advanced weapon systems;
*Improves warfighting capabilities and invests in science and technology to maintain U.S. advantage over the Nation’s enemies;
*Maintains 545,000 facilities at 5,300 sites in the U.S. and around the globe; and
*Maintains vital intelligence capabilities.

---

Wake up to the reality that war is a business. That war drives certain markets. That war is something of value to industires like the defense industry. If we want Iran we get Iran. They have Iran currently surrounded, look at a map. Even if no invasion of Iran takes place they are still controlled geographically.Here's is Plan B, if the diplomacy in Iran doesn't work. Source

quote:

---

Obama's Iran strategy contains a Plan B
By Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service
Published: February 24, 2009, 23:04

​

Tehran: President Barack Obama is working against time to untangle 30 years of enmity and prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, but even his own advisers know the chance of success is slim.

​

So they also have been working on Plan B: What do we do if Iran gets the bomb?

​

Today, the Obama administration is debating its Iran policy behind closed doors. Last year, however, four of its key appointees wrote about the issue as private citizens, and their writings suggest they are planning for how to handle a nuclear Iran.

​

Dennis Ross, the former Middle East peace negotiator, was recently appointed as adviser for Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Gulf states, as the administration seeks to strengthen ties.

​

"Maybe, even if we engage the Iranians, we will find that however we do so and whatever we try, the engagement simply does not work," Ross wrote in a September report published by the Centre for a New American Security, a think tank that has supplied several appointees to the new administration.

​

"We will need to hedge bets and set the stage for alternative policies either designed to prevent Iran from going nuclear or to blunt the impact if they do."

​

If diplomacy fails, another Obama adviser wrote in the same report, the alternative "is a strategy of containment and punishment". That was the conclusion of Ashton B. Carter, Obama's reported choice as an undersecretary of Defence, who also warned: "The challenge of containing Iranian ambitions and hubris would be as large as containing its nuclear arsenal".

​

Most (and maybe all) of Obama's advisers see the costs of attacking Iran as outweighing the benefits. If Iran gets closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, they have warned, military action will not look any more appetising than it did under George W. Bush.

​

But that does not mean the United States would do nothing. Instead, Obama aides suggested in their writings, the US should pursue an Arabian Gulf version of the containment strategy used against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. What would that mean? For starters, a nuclear-capable Iran would face continued, serious pressure from the United States and its allies to dismantle whatever it had built. Obama might declare that a nuclear attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the US homeland. And the US military would act to bolster Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other Arabian Gulf states against conventional-warfare threats from an emboldened Iranian regime.

---

The plans to contain Iran are already in the works. Current geographical positioning ensures that we, the US, will be able to do if Iran gets nuclear weapons. This stratagy is possible with our current occupation of Iraq, Afgahn, and Saudi Arabi...also, Israel. The media plays a role in keeping our classes and demographics divided. Individual people are much more educated than you think and have the same concerns you do.The problem comes when "elitist", such as what you are making yourself out to be, think they're one step ahead of the folks in the south just because they are in, what they feel, is a progressive state. Yet your "liberal" "progressive" state of Cali voted AGAINST gay marriage, and places like Iowa have ok'd it. So which state is the less progressive in terms of gay marriage?Overall, people are at the same level, it's the media that tries to divded us based on silly characterizations that don't paint an accurate picture.-Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Ah yes, I was forgetting that basic epistemological principle: "Someone who doesn't know everything doesn't know anything".This was first noted by the famous Creationist scholar I. M. A. Dumbass in his justly celebrated monograph, Why Gaps In The Fossil Record Mean That I Can Ignore All The Fossils That Paleontologists Have Actually Found. Er ... weren't you the guy who was arguing that NORAD's timeline was a lie? "Takes them down"? Are you imagining some person making a list of the events on 9/11 in real time ... ? Ah, no, that's not what you're imagining. You have an even more implausible idea.Srsly, d00d, wtf?How the heck would a computer be able to record what time who said what to who? It's not like someone at the FAA pressed the "flight 175 has been hijacked" button on their terminal, and the "flight 175 has been hijacked" light lit up at NORAD, and the datum was stored in the Big Central Hijack Computer. One guy told another, over the telephone. And the tapes show that he did so mere seconds before flight 175 hit the WTC.

This statement would be valid if the administration thought the Iraq war was going to take more than 14 minutes.They thought we would be in and out in a couple of weeks.W wanted to do what Daddy did in Panama. How much of that is surplus? None. We don't have the manpower or money to deploy another 100,000 troops, let alone keep them active. You need to look up the definition of "elite".The Red State Politic is based on the mantra "Dem cowledge boys think them so smurt jus cuz dem reeds buks".The Conservative movement in America knows that the dumber and less educated people are, the easier it is to get them to vote the way you want them to. The red states don't vote based on any sort of reasonable ideology. They vote the way they vote because that's how Rush Limbaugh TELLS them to vote. Beginning, middle and end of story.If it makes me an elitist to bother thinking for myself then so be it. I'm elitist. I am BETTER THAN those people. Iowa's SUPREME COURT ok'd it. The I.S.C. is made up ENTIRELY of educated "elitists".The Conservatives have long known that playing people's prejudices is an easy way to get support.Gays are the new blacks.

Hey, you presented this particular persons story as the basis for your position, and for the correction of the timelines. I believe it's cool for me to analize what the person is claiming and give my opinion, as you have with my evidence, on the claim, right? You may have misinterpreted my position. I claimed that either NORAD or the Commissions timelines were wrong. I also stated that NORAD doesn't "fuck up" like that. And I have held to the position that NORAD's timelines were right because those were the timelines they gave.You brought evidence against my position in the form of this persons testimony, which I have since replied to. Someone got the timelines wrong, you say NORAD did, and I'll agree with you, if you can give me something more substantial than one persons personal account of what happened on that cluster fuck of a day. No I am not. "Take down" as in a computer that records all incoming phone calls and accurately records the times. If the issue is in the dialog then cool, but that persons testimony came with a lot of "I don't recall's" and "I doon't remember's", so how accurate is it?However, I actually have no idea how they do it...do you? Because to simply say that a persons testimony trumps the official NORAD timelines requires us to believe that NORAD has a really shiity way of recording the times. As in "someone writting it down on a notepad."The discrepancy seems to be in what was conveyed in the phone calls, OK, but from the report that you gave me, the person didn't seem very sure of what they were actually saying happened. Lets not lose it now, Dr. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that this is how it happens. But, I will try to do some research on it and see what I can find as to how timelines are recorded at NORAD. If you are correct then I will bow to your better knowledge, and concede.Fair enough?- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Now you are claiming to know what they were thinking? Evidence, please... That's your opinion, and it's unsupported by evidence. Evidence, please.The breakdown of the budget that I gave you shows exactly what it's for. Weapons, fighter jets, increased troops, etc. This is media driven bullshit. This isn't the thread to get into this.In this thread Next world power one of the sub-topics is the political agenda of both the conservative and liberal party. Look at all of my posts and pick one that can be used to continue this debate. If not, then just re-post this reply to it and we'll get into it there. From that opinion alone I can tell you that you are not. What about black-gays?---------------------------------------------------------------I'll assume that you conceded on the Iran point. And that the Iraq invasion was for strategic, geographical positioning to control Iran. If you are conceding, then in the spirit of honest debate, please state it.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Were you even IN America during the run up to the war? The testimony before Congress gave estimates on cost and timeframe for the war.Does the phrase "doubt it will last six months" sound familiar? Sez the conspiracy theorist who's claiming that the government willfully allowed 9/11 to happen. Now you want evidence that troop levels are low? How about the fact that recruitment standards have been consistantly lowered over the years.People who literally couldn't get in 10 years ago are being actively recruited today. Are you deliberately trying to be dense? I'm saying that Rush Limbaugh/FoxNews controls these people.You are claiming that that's the media making it appear that way.What do you think FoxNews is? It's a CABLE CHANNEL. That's MEDIA.They say "Liberal Elitists"
The Red State goons parrot it.
You repeat it to me.
I point out that telling me that I'm better than you isn't exactly a way to convince me that I'm wrong.
Then you tell me it's the media.Obviously it's the media. It's the media telling these people what to say. That's my whole point! They can't think for themselves.