You are not being singled out. The questions I posed are the same types of questions I ask myself and are being posed to anyone who reads the post. I do not expect much of anything from anybody else. We live in a relatively free country and I do not seek to impose any restrictions on those freedoms and do not seek to impose any of my beliefs on others. However people need to realize that when we have as a whole made choices that cause us to rely so much on oil from foreign sources then there are consequences and sometimes those consequences include going to war to increase oil supplies.

What exactly do you think our National Security Interests in the Middle East are? Desert sands and palm trees?

 

No. You think the truth lies somewhere other than where I believe it lies.

So now we see what you are concerned with. And when we steal everyone’s oil … what do we do next? There may actually be more than a couple of reasons to go to war ... but this is not one of them. How do you think Japan justified attacking the USA ... because we cut off their oil supply ... were they just too? Since when do the needs of the USG supersede the sovereignty of other nations. The truth of course is still lying under its rock … waiting for someone to uncover it or at least piece it together. It is the childhood adage we have all heard … do as I say not as I do. Are we now then the ‘parents’ of the world to do with it as we please? These miscreants in Washington do as they please as it is … Constitution be damned. And you feel the need to give the USG the benefit of the doubt … WHY? I do indeed know why we went to war in Iraq and the strategic importance of the Middle East but those change nothing in my book … we were the aggressors and we were wrong. The biggest problem with finding out the truth out is being prepared for it … it seems you are not thus the status quo is acceptable.

When did I say "steal" everyone's oil? Looks like the Iraqi government is in control of their countries oil resources. In the article it shows which companies are being awarded the contracts to build out the infrastructure. But with contracts at 2 to 4 dollars per barrel in a market when oil is about 100 dollars/barrel look like most of the money stays in Iraq. Is that stealing or actually opening up markets like I said earlier?

You may not think so and I don't think it is a good reason but its not about what you or I think. It is about what others thought and did. I don't think war is a good solution. I am not trying to justify the war just showing what the problem is and what others have done and may continue to do if we don't as a country try to solve it a different way. We have been told that our reliance on foreign oil sources is a national security issue and an economic issue. It is no joke. It is a big problem and if we don't fix it peacefully it may get fixed more and more aggressively.

How is ensuring free market oil supplies not in your best interest as well? How large a percentage of your budget and the cost of the goods you buy would you like transportation to be? So is this a question concerning the needs of the USG or one of the interests of its citizens?

I don't and never have. If I did I wouldn't come to such conclusions would I? They said it was about WMD's so I am certainly not giving them the benefit of the doubt am I?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who said anything about our best interest ... besides you? You do know the difference between right and wrong ... so what does going to war with 'our best interests' in mind have to do with the good and bad if it? “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” and “an eye for an eye” takes on the same meaning here ... and they shouldn't. So, it is not about what you and I think huh … then why do you? You may be willing to say that all is well that ends well (the ends justify the means) but I am not. As far as I am concerned, I am operating on the first principles and you are operating off the second principles. You are willing to allow the cretins in our government to make moral decisions for you … because you are powerless to ‘stop’ them … just sounds like a cop out to me is all. It sounds to me like you have little interest in getting from point A to point B … only in those events that preceded point A and in the results well after point B. And since my emphasis is based on things in between the points … we aren’t actually discussing the same thing.

Because people who make decisions at the level for which the topic of this thread is about do not make those decisions based on what individuals  think is morally "right or wrong" they make them based on what they believe is in the best interests of this country. The results may not accomplish that in the long run but only time will tell.

No its reality.

No I already know your point A and B are different from my Point A and B. I simply do not accept your theory and you have given me no information that leads me to believe otherwise.

Smoothseas, what theory of mine is it that you do not accept? I don't remember posting anything besides my expressed personal opinions ... what theory indeed? We seem to disagree on much in this thread but I still think we are comparing apples and oranges and that never works. As an example, try talking to Lula about the faults of the RCC … futility in the making … progress zero. If we don’t get on the same page here somehow … that is about all the progress we are going to make too. There is nothing to be gained if we cannot talk about the same thing ... at the same time.

Your theory that the questions you cannot answer about 9/11 can be answered by what actions followed.

It is what led up to the incident that answers many of them and many will never be explained because the forensics are gone and the incident happened in an uncontrolled environment which cannot be reproduced.

What happened after 9/11 is simply a matter of how the event was exploited by the government to achieve foreign policy objectives that were already in place. The policy objective of regime change in Iraq for example was put in place during the Clinton Administration.  

 

 

As seems to be the case here for us ... I made no mention of a theory. I made no mention of changing your mind. I made no mention that my "unanswered questions" (and there are not too many left  now) concerning the war in Iraq could be answered by what actions followed (whatever that means). All I said is the motive for going to war becomes more apparent by starting with the results and looking back as they developed. I never said there was no motive for the Muslims to do this ... I just said they didn't have the wherewithal to do it alone. Like I said before, you do the USG justice by believing in their ability to actually do something good (particularly for others) for a change. So the policy was already in place … would you mind explaining this statement because I believe this is where the policy developed. Unless of course you are bringing the nonsense the USG has been getting away with for decades now over the abuse of many other third world countries (with little if any oil) into the fray … is this the precedent you were discussing. What … grown up people cannot change policy simply because it already exists or they don’t want to or they constructed it themselves. Do you have any idea of the number of policy changes that accompany a change in Presidents … so don’t tell me this is a difficult process please. This is an outright fabrication as far as I am concerned ... unless you can back it up with a few more appropriate words.

You posted a list of things that you cannot explain about the way in which the buildings fell. Then you keep going back to getting from Point A to B.

If you don't have any ideas of what may have happened then maybe you don't have a theory, but thinking that they couldn't do it alone is obviously a theory is it not? Who exactly do you think helped them? Since their motive is to get US influence out of the region do you not think that those who provided such assistance would be groups who agree with the motive and not people who think otherwise?

It was policy that was passed by an act of congress and  signed by Clinton. So you may think it is a fabrication however all that shows is how little you know about the history of the subject matter.

Hint:Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Is this what you have been trying to tell me here with your oil tales and 'the Muslims deserve what they got' nonsense. No wonder I was confused? My list as you call it was in fact a listing of the highlights as presented by Dr. Judy Wood in the clip in question. All I asked is what was farfetched about it.Well, theory shmeory … is it your opinion then that everything we think is to be considered a theory, hahaha … I think not. Most just call them ideas or opinions I think. I don’t think you were actually asking me questions here … I think you were just baiting me, maybe later … but there are too many simple things to clear up first.This is at least meaningful ... at last. Yea, they really had their shit together then too, hahaha. Let's take a look at what Clinton thought about this, hehehe.

President Clinton stated in February 1998:

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998

You think there might have been a little speculation here … and how much turned out to be true hahaha. We don’t pay these guys the big bucks to speculate and confuse the issue … which has always been the oil.

Not everything. We are dealing with putting together a series of events and facts (while trying to weed out the misinformation), to see how they may or may not relate to each other. I would call that theory.

There is nothing farfetched about it. It is simply information that leads to what is now more than likely a dead end for the reasons which I have stated in prior posts. It is motives that often lead to "Who done it" when the crime scene is swept clean. Now as far as who probably wasn't involved I would say the potential for "leaks" and consequences of such things is something very important to consider.

I am not baiting at all, I assure you of that. I have simply stated questions which are meant as food for thought. You do not believe what others say nor do I expect you too. I do not take anything I hear for granted myself particularly when it comes out of the mouths of politicians. Questions are posed so that you don't have to take what I say for granted. It was meant to make you think for yourself about who may or may not be more likely to have participated in one way or another in the attack. 

 

It is much more than speculation. I would call it fear-mongering.

 

 

 

All I said was they couldn't have done it alone ... theory my arse, hahaha. Obviously then you do believe they designed, engineered, paid for and executed the plan almost flawlessly (3 out of 4) without assistance ... so what, this is just a difference in opinions. The theory part is supposed to come next ... after we state our opinions. We have to agree on some time slot or another for ease at least for me. This is like saying you want to discuss WWII with “starting at what led up to it” being left unsaid. If all you can do is go pre-war and produce motive for the attacks, then you have proved nothing of consequence because motive is just the first step in the chain of events and addresses none of the other requirements for this all to get accomplished. I will grant you they had motive … can we go on now.

 

Is it obvious? The Taliban at least sheltered Al Queda so one would think maybe what you think is obvious is indeed quite the contrary. Do I think they were the only ones? Probably not. Do I think it is more likely than not that if a government was involved it would be a foreign government? I'll leave that up to you to speculate in case you think that is obvious as well.

So maybe you shouldn't think what goes through others minds is so obvious because all you may end up proving is that you are obviously wrong.

It seems I take some things for granted and I suppose we all do at times. For instance, it would never even occur to me to question how the Muslim world would react ... at least openly. From the perspective of protection and/or hindrance … many throughout the Middle East helped both before and after 911. I don’t think Russia or China could have accomplished what was … without help and I am as certain as one can be that bin Laden couldn’t either? Call it an educated speculation if you will … but not a theory … just a direction. I will grant that the atmosphere throughout the region was a hate for America and most had plenty of motive to do the US damage. All I ask in return is that you acknowledge you understand that Bush and Co. had a hard on for Saddam and Iraq that well predated the war. Besides motive, I am not sure what more can be gleaned before the events of 911.

As did nearly every politician not named Ron Paul.  Wish I had a nickel for every time some pol was quoted trashing 41 for 'not finishing the job'.  So what's your point?