View Full Version : 9/11 in retrospect.
John Little
12-Sep-10, 14:39
No- it's not a memorial thread.
Robert Fisk wrote an article yesterday that I found so disturbing and yet so clear and well thought through, that I thought I would post a link to it. He is a correspondent of great experience, deep intelligence and well connected in all sorts of areas, political, religious and social- not to be dismissed lightly.
I thought it might be worth some discussion.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-nine-years-two-wars-hundreds-of-thousands-dead-ndash-and-nothing-learnt-2076450.html
In 19th century Britain, before Left wing and right wing and Communist labels were thought up, there was a party called Radicals. In general they did not believe everything they were told.....
They did not 'revise' the prevailing world view. They saw it through a different glass.
Fisk is most definitely a radical and I find myself much in agreement with him.
I don't mean to spam your thread if it looks like that, but 9/11 was undoubtedly known about by the Americans.
For the time when the whole world turned on extremest Muslims everything seemed merry and we had more than enough reason to destroy the middle east and rape them of there oil.
Unfortunately the worlds ignorance and blind following has led them to turn on Islam as a religion under the impression that this was an attack on freedom - or America.
I believe as next year will mark 10 years, more and more people will believe that 9/11 was carried out by those "evil Muslims". I don't see anything being learnt from this and only more unrest, trouble and hate.
Woops, I only read half the article lol thought it finished there.
I shall insight some more wisdom when I finish it to the end ;)
John Little
12-Sep-10, 15:33
I think we may go too far in what you say about the Americans 'knowing' about the plot to attack the world trade centre. It is a matter of record that the CIA knew about the plot beforehand, but their failure to stop it has been put down to incompetence and I believe it.
From what I have read of the CIA there have been many occasions when they have simply acted in a stupid fashion.
Remember this is the organisation whose chief was pressed by Eisenhower as to exactly where his intelligence estimates of Soviet strength were coming from - and was finally forced to admit that the US had never managed to put a single agent into the Soviet sphere. Not one.
As to the administration deliberately orchestrating it, I give that no credence at all. I think it was a godsend for them in the same way as Pearl Harbor was for Roosevelt and the Zimmermann Telegram was for Wilson, and the sinking of the USS Maine was to those who wanted war with Spain in 1898. But I think what followed was a manipulation of a set of 'fortunate' circumstances rather that a deliberate plot.
I know there is a lot of McGubbins about on the net 'proving' that it was a US government plot, but I do not buy it - any more than I buy the 'war on terror' - both bogeymen to scare the credulous.
An excellent article and, unfortunately, very true.
A little more substanciated proof that we, as a race, are crazy.
John Little
12-Sep-10, 15:38
An excellent article and, unfortunately, very true.
A little more substanciated proof that we, as a race, are crazy.
You do have a tendency to extrapolate.
But extrapolation is not always accurate.
Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon when it got hit, I got the feeling he took it very personally to get revenge.
USA much criticised for their reaction to 9/11.
I'd be interested to know from the detractors what they feel an appropriate reaction should be.
Personally, I feel that going after the perpetrators and their sponsors on 'home soil' seems exactly appropriate, particularly if you don't want it to happen again.
You do have a tendency to extrapolate.
But extrapolation is not always accurate.
When trying to 'see' a future with the evidence of today, what can one do but extrapolate? And what extrapolation can be deemed accurate until after the event. Your extrapolation differs from mine. So what?
The thoughts, conclusions and facts laid out by the article are very close to my extrapolated thoughts of five years or more ago.
I remember warching a movie nine years ago when it was interupted by the news flash about the attack and my immediate remark was that this was truly the beginning of the end and we are still perpetuating the myth that we are fighting the Eastern wars for very altruistic reasons. For two attacks on America and not many more in Europe, we have killed un- numbered Afghans and Iraqis who were as innocent as the people who died in 9/11 and condemned hundreds of our brave soldiers to an ugly death
John Little
12-Sep-10, 17:07
I was not disputing your agreement with the article, but taking issue with your view that it somehow proves the human race is crazy.
It does not follow.
Ducati.
Iraq was not Al Quaeda's home ground. Nor did Saddam give them a haven - he hated them and they him.
I was not disputing your agreement with the article, but taking issue with your view that it somehow proves the human race is crazy.
It does not follow.
Ducati.
Iraq was not Al Quaeda's home ground. Nor did Saddam give them a haven - he hated them and they him.
I don't believe Iraq was connected with 9/11. Afghanistan was/is
[quote=John Little;759771]I was not disputing your agreement with the article, but taking issue with your view that it somehow proves the human race is crazy.
It does not follow.
quote]
Just another symptom, just another bullet in the gun. If you wish to be pedantic, I stated 'a little more proof', not that a little proof proves anything.
John Little
12-Sep-10, 17:25
That's twice you have accused me of pedantry.
I don't suppose you would consider that bending every example of human error or bad behaviour to 'prove' your continuing generalisation would smack of pedantry?
Or Faddism?
Or obsessive fixation?
That's twice you have accused me of pedantry.
I don't suppose you would consider that bending every example of human error or bad behaviour to 'prove' your continuing generalisation would smack of pedantry?
Or Faddism?
Or obsessive fixation?
No.........
One brick is one brick but many bricks can build a wall.
John Little
12-Sep-10, 18:04
That's little more than a saloon bar aphorism. It certainly does not support the second part of this statement- and I do not believe that I have to be a pedant to point that out. What you have said does not follow.
An excellent article and, unfortunately, very true.
A little more substanciated proof that we, as a race, are crazy.
Whilst it might say something about our leaders or about the policies of our governments, as pertaining to the entire race it says, let alone gives,substantiated proof of precisely nothing.
You were generalising.
Come now - admit it......
That's little more than a saloon bar aphorism. It certainly does not support the second part of this statement- and I do not believe that I have to be a pedant to point that out. What you have said does not follow.
Whilst it might say something about our leaders or about the policies of our governments, as pertaining to the entire race it says, let alone gives,substantiated proof of precisely nothing.
You were generalising.
Come now - admit it......
I admit nothing, particularly your statements repudiating everything I say.
You are purely stating your interpretation of my posts, an interpretaion you seem to becoming obsessed with. Our leaders are human beings, members of the human race and when I talk of the human race, of course I am generalising. The facts pointed out by the article in question are bits of evidence which, although they back up my original surmise, do not, by any stretch of the imagination complete the case for the sectioning of the human race. If a man goes so crazy as to kill his wife, they do not lock up the hand he used to do the deed but lock up the entire being.
John Little
12-Sep-10, 18:32
Why then if you are generalising we may not speak of 'substantiated proof'
which is a very strong statement. If you had said 'indicate' then your meaning would have been broader and far less definite and I would not have taken issue with it.
I am not obsessed with your interpretations - you are the one who followed your thesis from one thread to another.....
Why then if you are generalising we may not speak of 'substantiated proof'
which is a very strong statement. If you had said 'indicate' then your meaning would have been broader and far less definite and I would not have taken issue with it.
I am not obsessed with your interpretations - you are the one who followed your thesis from one thread to another.....
One piece of substanciated truth to add to the other mountain of truth.
I posted my opinion as to the content of your original post and the link you gave, no more.That my conclusion refers to another thread, so what?
BTW, read a bit closer, it was your interpretation of my posts that you seem to be obsessed with.
John Little
12-Sep-10, 18:49
Ah, so if you make comments on my thread pertaining to ideas you were putting forward on another thread, it follows that I must be obsessed with interpreting your posts if I reply.
I remind you that I withdrew from further comment on your thread when you objected to precisely that.
Yet you followed me here.
Who is obsessed?
Ah, so if you make comments on my thread pertaining to ideas you were putting forward on another thread, it follows that I must be obsessed with interpreting your posts if I reply.
I remind you that I withdrew from further comment on your thread when you objected to precisely that.
Yet you followed me here.
Who is obsessed?
I did not follow you here. I commented on your thread. Is that not what everyone does? You saw fit to reply which sets things in motion does it not. Obsessed? With you? I think not.
'Your thread' become everyones thread as soon as it is posted does it not?
John Little
12-Sep-10, 19:40
I do not imply that you are obsessed with me.
Heaven forfend!
You had a thread dealing with some rather gloomy prognostications on the nature of humanity.
I started a thread relating to the legacy of 9/11.
You then used the thread to....... make some rather gloomy prognostications on the nature of humanity.
So your comments were not merely a comment. They were a link to what you had already said on your own thread.
Which was not really my intention, so since you have now done to this thread what you said that I did to your thread, I suggest we both refrain from further comment on this until and if two further pages have gone by.
We are now even.
In this way, people who wish to comment on the legacy of 9/11 may do so without having to endure our circular arguments.
Agreed?
Hello? Hello? I said the USA was right to invade Afghanistan. Hello? :confused
Hello? Hello? I said the USA was right to invade Afghanistan. Hello? :confused
You looking for a secondary argument?:confused
We can talk about how disgusting that comment is considering there have been thousands of unnecessary deaths as a result.:(
But I was going to leave these two to battle this one out.
Just so everyone knows.... I shall remain neutral throughout the length of this battle.
Which was not really my intention, so since you have now done to this thread what you said I did to your thread, I suggest we both refrain from further comment on this until and if two further pages have gone by.
We are now even.
In this way, people who wish to comment on the legacy of 9/11 may do so without having to endure our circular arguments.
Agreed?
OK, agreed. But even? This smacks of a very childish attitude but I will not post after this one.
I have just glanced back at the Crazy thread and cannot find a post from me which states that you did anytrhing to my thread. Could you point out the post where I accused you.
Ha! First time visiting the org for a while... I see that things haven't changed. :lol:
Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon when it got hit, I got the feeling he took it very personally to get revenge.
Pft, Oh how blinded by the media you all are:lol:
I find it funny that the pentagon was hit in the only empty section of the building - the section undergoing repairs. And these passengers that "took over" from the hijackers have never been named, also a little weird considering there were no bodies in the crash.......
Pft, Oh how blinded by the media you all are:lol:
I find it funny that the pentagon was hit in the only empty section of the building - the section undergoing repairs. And these passengers that "took over" from the hijackers have never been named, also a little weird considering there were no bodies in the crash.......
And your information comes from...........?
And your information comes from...........?
Gawsh you really hate me,
OK, so its not like the government have an official document with all the information in it now is it.
My information comes from the original news reports and footage which are harder and harder to come by -how strange- and various credible books and documentary's. But in honesty much of it comes around due to speculation, but there would be no other way for it to come out when dealing with a sensitive subject like this would there?
I'm not really planning to go for a full on, all out argument since you are still a tad emotional after my cat comments.:lol:
So if you want to leave it there and agree to disagree I am more than happy to do that but otherwise, "let the games begin!"
Gawsh you really hate me,
OK, so its not like the government have an official document with all the information in it now is it.
My information comes from the original news reports and footage which are harder and harder to come by -how strange- and various credible books and documentary's. But in honesty much of it comes around due to speculation, but there would be no other way for it to come out when dealing with a sensitive subject like this would there?
I'm not really planning to go for a full on, all out argument since you are still a tad emotional after my cat comments.:lol:
So if you want to leave it there and agree to disagree I am more than happy to do that but otherwise, "let the games begin!"
Oh, the internet then ?
Oh, the internet then ?
:lol: Cant tell if you be trolling or not.
I shall keep my replies level headed and short(ish)
Here it goes,
No, believe it or not, there are such things as books, with words, and if your lucky maybe some pictures.
There are also respectable sources out on the internet, but yes admittedly there is plenty of wacky stuff on the internet.
I think this thread is suffering from a too narrow perspective.
What is really happening in Afghanistan and much of the Arab world and the Indo/Pakistani sub continent is a process of modernization.
By modernization I mean antibiotics, painless surgery, televsion, movies, freedom of speech freedom for women and free access to great music, and, of course, tolerance tolerance tolerance. What I guess you could call the lexicon of democracy.
That this modernization is being carried out largely by armies from the USA and NATO is an example of the irony that always accompanies great change.
And so to Robert Fisk. He clearly should be able to sit down with an Old Pultney; he certainly has earned one. Some of you out there in ORGland might like to modify your denunciation of the media (at least the print part of it!) .
As for the taliban - well, that reminds me of the Church of Scotland.
I recently read a book on the Scottish Enlightenment (sorry the name eludes me - there are a few!). Some poor divinity student was hanged (in the middle part of the 18th century for taking the Lord's name in vain. A mere ten years later and Adam Smith and David Hume created the modern world. (So says my enthusiastic reading companion)
And the Scottish Taliban? They vanished into the fogs of theological speculation - Anyone for Confessions and Memoirs of a Justified Sinner? I hope somone is writing the Afghan version...
Dog-eared
13-Sep-10, 20:37
People living in fear of Western-inflamed terrorism are much more likely to accept CCTV's, chipped passports and chipped identity cards ( which could be read anywhere if a scanner is nearby. )
If that threat is demonstrated by real terrorism or events staged by western governments it helps the governments to take away an individual's freedom by monitoring his every movement, bank and buying transaction and choice of book from the library or bookstore.
There have been computers powerful enough to handle this information and to run programs on peoples profiles for years, as well as face mapping and reading car licence plates.
People living in fear of Western-inflamed terrorism are much more likely to accept CCTV's, chipped passports and chipped identity cards ( which could be read anywhere if a scanner is nearby. )
If that threat is demonstrated by real terrorism or events staged by western governments it helps the governments to take away an individual's freedom by monitoring his every movement, bank and buying transaction and choice of book from the library or bookstore.
There have been computers powerful enough to handle this information and to run programs on peoples profiles for years, as well as face mapping and reading car licence plates.
Gosh, paranoiasville. I thought the ID card idea had been scrapped, the use of CCTV is reducing, GATSOs will shortly be a thing of the past. There has been a radical change of Government recently both here and in the States, the paranoid’s nightmare is upon us-nothing to fear [lol]
Dog-eared
13-Sep-10, 21:09
Not paranoia, just stating the facts.
I take your point, but the technology is there.
Not paranoia, just stating the facts.
I take your point, but the technology is there.
It is, and the UK is one of the most watched country's in the world.
Just for you Ducati, I got that from the internet.
Source here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8159141.stm
This thread must have broken all records for swiftly and unerringly losing the point.
9/11 naturally must lead on to conspiracy theories and from thereon the possibilities are endless.
Dog-eared
13-Sep-10, 21:52
Anything connected to 9\11 is a conspiracy theory?
Dog-eared
13-Sep-10, 21:57
This thread must have broken all records for swiftly and unerringly losing the point.
The original poster's link is here - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-nine-years-two-wars-hundreds-of-thousands-dead-ndash-and-nothing-learnt-2076450.html
Anything connected to 9\11 is a conspiracy theory?
No, but the uncertainty surrounding 9/11 ends up a talk about conspiracy theories (in my case anyway) and when you start talking about conspiracy's there are many, many branches from there. Such as the Titanic...
And don't be posting original links, that's like interrupting me when I'm speaking:lol:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.