Scotland and/or Israel warned about London bombings?

[Ghost of]

Bac, here is something for you to consider and I'm familiar with this 'warning' from previous reading.

Now, this doesn't fit in with Jews(not saying you, but what some people will make of the Israel angle) or the omnipotent US or UK or some Illuminati conspiracy. It fits in with what our enemies say and what they do.

Question: Do the 700 people killed in Thailand in the south of that country and the Buddhist couple beheaded just recently point to a conspiracy or is this WHAT OUR ENEMY DOES?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/britainattackswarning;_ylt=AnB_3cuHwEvPaJdgXP1n.VCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

slamic leader warned of London attack 15 months ago

Fri Jul 8, 6:32 PM ET

An Islamic leader warned in a Portuguese newspaper interview 15 months ago that a London-based group, Al-Qaeda Europe, was on the verge of a major attack.

"Here in London there is a very well-organized group, which calls itself Al-Qaeda-Europe," Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, the Syrian head of the London-based group Al-Muhajiroun, told the Portuguese daily Publico in an interview published April 18 last year.

"I know they are on the verge of launching a big operation."

Bakri, 46, is suspected of having links with Abu Qatada, the alleged Al-Qaeda leader in Europe.

Speaking a month after the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings, Bakri said it was "inevitable" that London would be hit by a large attack "because they are being prepared by various groups."

British Home Secretary Charles Clarke had said the London attacks "came out of the blue" and insisted they did not represent a failure by intelligence services.

"As far as the general threat assessment was concerned, we didn't have prior knowledge of this attack," he said, after questions were raised about the alertness status of the security services.

"We obviously are looking very carefully at all our intelligence to see if anything was missed but in fact we don't believe anything was missed. It just came out of the blue," Clarke told Sky News television.

In the newspaper interview, Bakri said the Madrid bombings, in which 10 blasts killed 191 people in four trains, were carried out by a group of independent actors who backed Osama bin Laden's organization.

"There are many youths who dream of joining Al-Qaeda, but worse than that, there are many 'freelancers' who are willing to launch operations similar to those by Al-Qaeda," he said.

"The attack in Madrid was carried out by one of those groups."

Asked if Al-Qaeda had a connection to the Madrid attacks, Bakri told the newspaper: "Perhaps they did but the operation got out of their control."

He said the network had some 11,000 members around the world working towards the aim of establishing a grand pan-Islamic caliphate covering several countries with majority Muslim populations.

"With September 11, Al-Qaeda convinced Muslims that it has the power to put its plan in practice," he said.

Spanish authorities believe the Madrid train bombings were carried out by a group called the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM), suspected of Al-Qaeda links.

During the investigation into the London bomb attacks some reports said the British police were hunting for a radical Muslim cleric suspected of leading the GICM.

Police have refused to comment on the reports about the cleric, Mohammed al Garbuzi, a Moroccan who lived in Britain for 16 years and is said to have vanished from his home in north London last year.

Reports suggested he may have travelled to France.

Abu Qatada, the alleged Al-Qaeda leader in Europe, is a Palestinian whose real name is Omar Othman.

Sentenced in his absence to life in prison in Jordan for his alleged role in a series of attacks, Qatada is under house arrest after spending two and a half years in the Belmarsh high security prison in London.

The British government said last year that he was a radical preacher and the most important "inspiration" for terrorists in the country, including the men of Mohammed Atta, the leader of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

In his prayers, notably at Finsbury Park mosque, he established links with Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, and Zacharias Moussaoui, who was linked to the 9/11 plot and is being held in the United States awaiting trial.

[herrmag]

Originally posted by Baculus

No, that isn't what I said. Please re-read my post and not just the last line.

Oh, such as Iraq and WMDs? The argument is that it's *possible* that Saddam may supply these weapons to Al Queda. We didn't have any facts that Saddam did, but there we are....

There is that pesky fact that he DID at one time have those weapons, but didn't bother to prove to the U.N. that he had gotten rid of them.

[dreamingwolf]

herrmag, the details are irrelevant. Its an anti-administration stance, its truthfull partisian dissent unwittingly participating in pro terrorist propaganda. Atleast I hope bac is doing what hes doing unwittingly and doing just to get his guys elected.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Bac, here is something for you to consider and I'm familiar with this 'warning' from previous reading.

Now, this doesn't fit in with Jews(not saying you, but what some people will make of the Israel angle) or the omnipotent US or UK or some Illuminati conspiracy. It fits in with what our enemies say and what they do.

Question: Do the 700 people killed in Thailand in the south of that country and the Buddhist couple beheaded just recently point to a conspiracy or is this WHAT OUR ENEMY DOES?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/britainattackswarning;_ylt=AnB_3cuHwEvPaJdgXP1n.VCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

slamic leader warned of London attack 15 months ago

Fri Jul 8, 6:32 PM ET

An Islamic leader warned in a Portuguese newspaper interview 15 months ago that a London-based group, Al-Qaeda Europe, was on the verge of a major attack.

"Here in London there is a very well-organized group, which calls itself Al-Qaeda-Europe," Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, the Syrian head of the London-based group Al-Muhajiroun, told the Portuguese daily Publico in an interview published April 18 last year.

"I know they are on the verge of launching a big operation."

Bakri, 46, is suspected of having links with Abu Qatada, the alleged Al-Qaeda leader in Europe.

Speaking a month after the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings, Bakri said it was "inevitable" that London would be hit by a large attack "because they are being prepared by various groups."

British Home Secretary Charles Clarke had said the London attacks "came out of the blue" and insisted they did not represent a failure by intelligence services.

"As far as the general threat assessment was concerned, we didn't have prior knowledge of this attack," he said, after questions were raised about the alertness status of the security services.

"We obviously are looking very carefully at all our intelligence to see if anything was missed but in fact we don't believe anything was missed. It just came out of the blue," Clarke told Sky News television.

In the newspaper interview, Bakri said the Madrid bombings, in which 10 blasts killed 191 people in four trains, were carried out by a group of independent actors who backed Osama bin Laden's organization.

"There are many youths who dream of joining Al-Qaeda, but worse than that, there are many 'freelancers' who are willing to launch operations similar to those by Al-Qaeda," he said.

"The attack in Madrid was carried out by one of those groups."

Asked if Al-Qaeda had a connection to the Madrid attacks, Bakri told the newspaper: "Perhaps they did but the operation got out of their control."

He said the network had some 11,000 members around the world working towards the aim of establishing a grand pan-Islamic caliphate covering several countries with majority Muslim populations.

"With September 11, Al-Qaeda convinced Muslims that it has the power to put its plan in practice," he said.

Spanish authorities believe the Madrid train bombings were carried out by a group called the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM), suspected of Al-Qaeda links.

During the investigation into the London bomb attacks some reports said the British police were hunting for a radical Muslim cleric suspected of leading the GICM.

Police have refused to comment on the reports about the cleric, Mohammed al Garbuzi, a Moroccan who lived in Britain for 16 years and is said to have vanished from his home in north London last year.

Reports suggested he may have travelled to France.

Abu Qatada, the alleged Al-Qaeda leader in Europe, is a Palestinian whose real name is Omar Othman.

Sentenced in his absence to life in prison in Jordan for his alleged role in a series of attacks, Qatada is under house arrest after spending two and a half years in the Belmarsh high security prison in London.

The British government said last year that he was a radical preacher and the most important "inspiration" for terrorists in the country, including the men of Mohammed Atta, the leader of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

In his prayers, notably at Finsbury Park mosque, he established links with Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, and Zacharias Moussaoui, who was linked to the 9/11 plot and is being held in the United States awaiting trial.

And yet we (the West) let them live among us

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by dreamingwolf

herrmag, the details are irrelevant. Its an anti-administration stance, its truthfull partisian dissent unwittingly participating in pro terrorist propaganda. Atleast I hope bac is doing what hes doing unwittingly and doing just to get his guys elected.

In fairness, Bac is pretty libertarian in his stance. Not pro-Bush and perhaps wrong on terrorism, but not pro-terrorist.

He's not friendly to the administration and I think he's SO anti-government that he puts aside the naturally skeptical mind of the libertarian and embraces the more conspiratorial bent of what's out there.

But he's not a big Lefty or anything like that.

[herrmag]

Originally posted by dreamingwolf

herrmag, the details are irrelevant. Its an anti-administration stance, its truthfull partisian dissent unwittingly participating in pro terrorist propaganda. Atleast I hope bac is doing what hes doing unwittingly and doing just to get his guys elected.

I know, and you're right. I'm okay with a debate, but given the initial stance he took at the beginning of the post (before hypothisizing that the Brit/American gov. were involved), I thought we could lay off the partisan crap for at least a week. However, I'm just as guilty as he is. I helped egg on the politcal debate. Right now the only thing that is important is finding whomever did this, bringing them to justice, and in doing so, giving those who suffered at least a little peace of mind (although probably not much). For that reason, I think I'll avoid this thread for at least a little while

[dreamingwolf]

friday night

[Baculus]

Listen, Dreaming. You don't know SQUAT about me. First, you accuse me of being anti-semetic. Then, you say my views are "an anti-administration stance, its truthfull partisian dissent unwittingly participating in pro terrorist propaganda." Yeah, I AM anti-administration...that much is obvious. Also, I didn't vote for the democrats, so I am not just being partisan. Then, you accuse me of being pro-terrorist? You were wrong about me being anti-semetic, you we wrong about me just being partisan (since I am not a democrat), and you are wrong about me being pro-terrorist. You are just wrong all around, so you may want to start over.

He's not friendly to the administration and I think he's SO anti-government that he puts aside the naturally skeptical mind of the libertarian and embraces the more conspiratorial bent of what's out there.

Thank for actually giving me a defense, Ghost. :-)

Actually, some of stances are formed *because* of my natural skepticism - that is the thing you miss, Ghost. And, ironically, I think you may be missing some natural skepticism when it comes to certain things. The thing is, you guys are so closed-minded to stories that deviate from the norm, such as what I posted, that you immediately react in a knee-jerk manner, not even bothering to read what I posted. You don't read the context, but look for meanings behind the words that aren't there. And you call me the conspiricist? Ha!

Incidentally, what I've posted really has little to do with events such as the Bali bombing. I never said that terrorism doesn't exist, or that somehow the goverment was involved with events such as the aforementioned Bali attack. You are expanding my own suggestions past the scope that I even portrayed. It's an exaggeration of my own position. There are threats out there, and groups and organizations who will and do harm others with terrorism. That, I know, or I would be a moron to suggest otherwise.

My fear is that we have been one of those organizations.

But I probably spend more time then most people reading about terrorism, and I have probably spent more time reading and watching material on events such as 9-11 then the average joe. My own thoughts do not come out of a vacuum of ignorance. I know about the many threats around the world, which is a dangerous place. I am also worried about the threats within this nation as well.

By the way, the Libertarian national candidate for 2004, Michael Badnarik, actually agrees with many of my views. He's been on the Alex Jones show as well, talking about matters that are definitely anti-administration, including skepticism of the 9-11 administration story. So, no, I am not some lone wolf in the libertarian party....there are many such as myself.

If you read articles, such as these, by former administration members or military men...yeah, you may start becoming skeptical. Heck, they are more extreme then me!:

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28552.htm

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/17041.htm

I will say, that this thread went further then my intended scope. I wasn't trying to create an assessment with further details, which is what ended up happening. That wasn't my intention, especially with new casulties still being located in London. It's far too early for me to try spinning this in one way or another, nor does it do the situation justice. That, unto itself, would be wrong.

[Bang]

You know, it's amazing how fast people jump to the worst of possible conclusions rather that try to reason thru things.

Ask yourself

How many threats do you suppose come in on a regular basis, especially since 9/11?

How many times have we ourselves learned of 'credible threats', only to have nothing happen?

I think we can all agree that the various governments involved in this war receive quite a few threats on a regular basis. It stands to reason that the guard relaxed, and that's human nature i guess.. and it's something our enemy counts on.

Now, say one of these threats also happens to be in an area where a visiting statesman is going to be. Or even within a half a mile of any important political figure.

Do you think the authorities receiving the threat MIGHT warn their people, but stand by on other warnings because 99% of the threats turn out to be nothing?

Perhaps they simply followed a threat protocol when it comes to VIPs, and this is the 1% that disaster actually happens.

If they evacuated everyone every time a reasonably credible threat came along, how often do you think we'd be evacuated?

How many times does GWBs motorcade take an alternate route, or maybe plans are changed slightly due to threats that turn out to be nothing? How many times should they clear the streets, subways and busses due to threats?

It's unfortunate that it appears to be some sort of trickery going on, but most likely it isn't, and if we should have learned anything in the last 4 years it's scapegoating doesn't do ANYTHING to unite our people against this very real and very dangerous enemy. I think it's pretty obvious that HE is committed to his war.

someone asked before what Al Qaeda could possibly gain from this.. well for one, they may have killed a prominent Israeli, and throw a heavy spike into the attempted peace between Israel and Palestine... keep that fight going and their cause stays alive...

remember while wondering over the evil of our politics that they have their politics, too, and they have PLENTY of reason to do these acts for their own political end. I've heard some surmise that perhaps we ourselves have been behind some of these attacks to further our own agenda, OK, I suppose that is possible, but if you view THEIR politics, those sorts of tactics are MUCH more likely on their side of the fence.\

First off, they have no qualms at all about using bombs to make a statement. Never have. Do it right out in the open in fact.

Secondly, of the two combatting ideals, ONE of them is fighting for it's existance, and its NOT OURS> The people we fight want totalitarian rule over their people. These rulers we've deposed have ruled as oppressors. Power is the root of their struggle, and they are losing it.

Of course, some of the insurgents and foot soldiers in Al Qaeda do believe they are fighting for some higher ideal, but their leaders don't. Their leaders are fighting for power.

Why would it be so easy for some to believe GW and Tony Blair cooked up a bombing for political gain, but these other guys won't?

Or the more obvious reason... to continue to drive a wedge between our own peoples, to continue to have us focus on fighting one another rather than them, and of course, to disrupt and terrorize our daily lives.

And it doesn't take much to accomplish those ends. The tactics of the enemy don't strike at our soldiers, they strike at us, and it is us that can fight back by steeling our resolve to finish the battle. To not tolerate this barbarism anymore.

~Bang

[twa]

Great post bang

The only way we can be defeated is division within.

[Baculus]

How many threats do you suppose come in on a regular basis, especially since 9/11?

How many times have we ourselves learned of 'credible threats', only to have nothing happen?

A number of times - good way to use fear to control the population. How many of these threats have actually been credible? As credible as the supposed WMD intelligence? Or as credible as the intel that said a fellow from Washington state was involved with the Madrid bombings? (He wasn't.)

I am positive there are credible threats that are neutralized, which we never hear about. That cannot be denied. But it also cannot be denied that there have also been bogus threats that were nothing but vaporware and speculation - example: yellowcake uranium

Sorry Bang, but I do not agree with the war in Iraq. I want the situation to end in a positive manner, for our troops and for Iraq, but I cannot ignore events leading up to the conflict. And, yes, there are terrorists that are very willing to use bombs and violence, but many anti-war dissents feel that Bush and Blair have also been eager to use violence to further their own agenda. (Case in point, the Downing Street Memo.) In fact, what you're asking is to silence dissent and suggesting that, otherwise, you may be aiding the enemy, terrorists, whatever, in some way. You're basically purveying the Bush administration's line of thinking: You're either with us, or against us.

You're basically saying, "Don't criticize, or you're just helping THEM." Considering the secretive nature of the Bush administration, and their unwillingness to answer citizens questions and inquiries, it's no wonder that folks such as myself have such a distrust of the President and his administration. And considering the unconstitutional nature of this administration in particular, and the presidency in general over the last number of years...Yeah, no wonder I am a little paranoid.

Also, I am of the opinion that the entire 9-11 story purveyed by the government isn't quite true, as well as the reasons for the Iraqi conflict. If I cannot believe their reasoning behind either event, how much can I actually have faith in the government? During the 80's, when I used to come home and watch the Iran-Contra events on T.V. I also become disgusted by Clinton with his actions, such as Bosnia, which I saw as "wagging the dog" to escape the Monica Lewinsky affair. It is also the same sinking feeling I get these days when I ponder past, and future, events. And the Bush administration has done nothing to lighten that sinking feeling.

Just think how it is for someone such as me: I am aware of terrorist threats that lurk around the world, and I am also fearful of the threats that our own government can pose. I do not see threats under every rock, but I am very wary; I can't trust the terrorists, of course, and I cannot trust Bush and Blair.

The people we fight want totalitarian rule over their people. These rulers we've deposed have ruled as oppressors. Power is the root of their struggle, and they are losing it.

Some may say the exact same thing about the Bush administration, too. By the way, you are talking about a leader, Saddam Hussein, that we've had a possible relationship with since the 50's and helped support for years. Sorry, but I just can't forget about the past just because of "terrorist threats." How can we make judgements about the future if we are seemingly operating from day to day, ignoring our own history and past?

Why would it be so easy for some to believe GW and Tony Blair cooked up a bombing for political gain, but these other guys won't?

I never said the "other guys" wouldn't do this. I never said that once. Ever. What I did speculate was the reality that this DOES help Bush and Blair, if you look at it with a speculative, open mind. It's not hard to reach that conclusion. But I never, ever dismissed the notion that this was an Al Queda-driven attack. That'd be stupid. My first reaction wasn't even "the government did it!," when I first heard about the London bombings, but it was the same reaction I felt during 9-11, which was "Those dirty terrorist ****s!"

Or the more obvious reason... to continue to drive a wedge between our own peoples, to continue to have us focus on fighting one another rather than them, and of course, to disrupt and terrorize our daily lives.

Hmm...remember the Karl Rove comments? Do you really feel that Bush has actually forged the American people together, or has he succeeded in alienating many of his fellow citizens? We expect folks called "terrorists" to try disrupt our lives - it's what they have been doing for years in the name of one cause or another. We would hope that our own government wouldn't do the same thing.

I do not have blind trust in Bush.

And I do not see the world as just "us vs them." Why? Because, through research and years of reading, I know our nation's involvement in events. And it ain't always pretty. And while I keep a perspective on external threats, I very much also keep a perspective on what our nation has done, as well as what it may do in the future. I have zero control over these external groups, but I can most certainly have a say, for the time being, about my own government. I cannot help but speak my mind and voice what I believe is the truth. And if I take flak for it, then so be it. To speak how I feel otherwise would make me a coward.

So you know, Bang, I was not trying to quote you out of context, but it is a lot to respond. And in order to understand how I've come to my current position, I'd have to post, and e-mail you, mountains of information. There is not much that can be said to change my own mind, but I can perhaps help others to become more aware of what changed my mind in the first place.

And there we have it.

[Sarge]

Here ya go Bac. You'll feel at home on these sites

http://rense.com/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/

[Cdowwe]

Originally posted by Sarge

Here ya go Bac. You'll feel at home on these sites

http://rense.com/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/

That rense site is screwed up. Hollywood smoke was used for the twin towers burning...wow, what a load of crap.

[stevenaa]

if you look at it with a speculative, open mind. It's not hard to reach that conclusion

In the end, all you have is speculation. It seems to me you've made up your mind as to what means the adminstration will go, and thus look to gather "evidence" to support your supposition.

To suggest that this administration or the Blair administration had anything to do with this bombing is complete lunacy and shows clearly the type of person you are. Cynical and afraid. You cite the fake cuban terrorist plot, without considering it was FAKE. The government didn't commit a terrorist act and blame it on the Cubans.

And I'm not clear on what you read in to our past dealings with Saddam and how our enabling him through past relationships has anything to do with this administration. If anything, that just bolsters the case for going in and removing him. At some point you have to take responsibility for your actions. You look at all the Iraqi's that he gassed, and you have to know we are partially to blame for that situation.

I find it laughable that you might actually believe your Libertarian candidates will somehow be immune to the trevails of power. That somehow they will rise above past governmental failures and right the great wrongs of the past. Who is more naive here? A libertarian government just means more of the same. Once in power, the power they will wield!!

[twa]

Baculus...Where you one of the ones banned at Kos?....even THEY have limits

/9/132549/5405'>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7

/9/132549/5405

Here is a better one

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/7/8/114856/8349

[Baculus]

I am laughing at these responses, thanks for giving me a good chortle. I may be cynical, but if I was afraid, I wouldn't even bother posting here, since taking an unpopular position isn't an easy thing to do. I am not the one that walks with fear - I think many of you are just as fearful, if not more.

What's odd is, many times, when I have posted information, it hasn't necessarily been refuted. But instead of engaging some of the information that I think it is factual, you simply pick away at my own personal position. It isn't a very clever strategy. For example, I posted about the connection between UK and IRA terrorism, and not a word was uttered by any of you to dispute it. In fact, it was all but ignored in the zeal to prove that my ideas are "crazy."

Mock me, think want you want - so be it. I don't think much of some of your positions either, so it goes both ways, eh? You may think I'm crazy, but perhaps I feel the same way about many of your positions. I know many people feel the exact same way as I do, which gives me hope for the future.

To suggest that this administration or the Blair administration had anything to do with this bombing is complete lunacy and shows clearly the type of person you are. Cynical and afraid. You cite the fake cuban terrorist plot, without considering it was FAKE. The government didn't commit a terrorist act and blame it on the Cubans.

Consider WHAT was fake? Operation Northwood was a real proposed plan - Kennedy decided against it. It was a REAL plan that was never implemented, but the fakery was to create a cuban terrorist cell in this nation. And you contradicted yourself - you said it is lunacy to suggest that Bush and Blair was involved (which, by the way, I had already admitted it is MADNESS to suggest this), and then you mention the fact that government operatives HAD suggested terrorist attacks. So, which is it?

And I'm not clear on what you read in to our past dealings with Saddam and how our enabling him through past relationships has anything to do with this administration. If anything, that just bolsters the case for going in and removing him. At some point you have to take responsibility for your actions. You look at all the Iraqi's that he gassed, and you have to know we are partially to blame for that situation.

I think it's odd that you say "you have to take responsibility for your actions," and yet, every time I broach a subject that discusses this and past administrations taking responsibility for their actions, it is filed under "conspiracy theories." Bush is a president that rarely takes responsibility for his actions, in particular if they weren't the best choices. I am not a huge fan of Reagan, but he was was willing to admit when he's "done bad." This is not George W. Bush.

To know where you're going, you have to know where you've been. How can we avoid future political and military mistakes if we ignore the past? This especially applies to real deal anti-terrorist efforts.

I find it laughable that you might actually believe your Libertarian candidates will somehow be immune to the trevails of power. That somehow they will rise above past governmental failures and right the great wrongs of the past. Who is more naive here? A libertarian government just means more of the same. Once in power, the power they will wield!!

Eh?

You know, more than once, I have had the folks who responded to my thread by attempting to put words in my mouth. If you are going to engage me in debate, please be honest. It is amazing that some of you cannot give me the same courtesy that I have given you. If your disdain for me over-rides your sense of fair play (which it already has at this point), then it is pointless to engage with me.

I never, ever said that Michael Badnarik or any other Libertarian candidate would be immune from the abuse of power. I never even mentioned that subject. But the Libertarians believe in a stricter , constitutional government - remember the constitutioin, which has built-in safe guards to hopefully avoid an abuse of power? Yeah, that crazy little document we seemed to have forgotten when Presidents started writing Presidential and National Security Directives, which is an abuse of power and unconstitutional, I may add. There is never a guarantee that a President may not abuse power, but hopefully a more constitutional-oriented government would make it more difficult for that to happen. And I believe in Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik, who was a constitutional scholar, and his quick grasp of the situation we are facing.

I never sais that the Libertarians, or any third-party, was a cure all for the ills of politics. But it would be less probable for abuse of power with a smaller, more aware government.

Sarge, I have already posted videos from rense.com so you are too late. And the folks at DU would want to ban me since I am pro-firearms, and feel that Planned Parenthood is a form of eugenics. So neither the Right or Left will take me - I guess I found a good middle-ground.

[Baculus]

I never visit any KOS boards, but I do read that website at times. Nothing I am saying is even considered outrageous by many people. After all, it was found that at least half of the New Yorkers didn't believe the official US government story surrounding 9-11. I guess New Yorkers are just as wacky and zany as me, eh?

[stevenaa]

wouldn't even bother posting here, since taking an unpopular position isn't an easy thing to do.

Are you kidding. Not only is it easy, it's a very popular thing to do.

I think it's odd that you say "you have to take responsibility for your actions," and yet, every time I broach a subject that discusses this and past administrations taking responsibility for their actions, it is filed under "conspiracy theories."

You're looking for responsibility from this Administration for wrongs you are convinced occurred, or are occurring. Those of us who don't feel this way certainly won't agree with you on this point.

and then you mention the fact that government operatives HAD suggested terrorist attacks. So, which is it?

Uh-I suggested no such thing

To know where you're going, you have to know where you've been. How can we avoid future political and military mistakes if we ignore the past? This especially applies to real deal anti-terrorist efforts.

I agree 100%. But I don't blame the current Administration for the sins of a past it had nothing to do with.

And I believe in Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik, who was a constitutional scholar, and his quick grasp of the situation we are facing.

And I believe in the President. But belief in either doesn't strengthen our position.

If your disdain for me over-rides your sense of fair play (which it already has at this point), then it is pointless to engage with me.

It's your political opinion I have disdain for. You probably a great guy. Or a great girl. I don't really know.

I have a rather simplistic view of things. The Presidency is beyond comprehension in complexity. I expect any president to do the best job he can do and make the best decisions he can with the available information. I don't expect apologies when those decision don't work out or aren't in agreement with how I'd like things done. I didn't join the bandwagon when people were screaming Clinton was making political decsions to shift focus from the Lewinsky affair. He may have been doing that, but there isn't proof so he get's the benefit of the doubt. Even if I can't stand him, I respect that he held the most difficult job anyone can hold.

[Bang]

Bac, my message is not "shut up and get in line" which is basically what you've boiled it down to.

It's to understand that there are forces at work here that DO want to do us greivous harm, and for all your political posturing, they will continue to do it.

They don't care if you want a positive end to the war.

they do care whether or not you're afraid.

Thyey don't care who the president is. they don't care what our position is.

My message is simply this.

Like it or not, we're at war.

Like it or not, our enemy is real, and very dangerous.

Like it or not, he'd kill you, too.

Like it or not, we have two choices. Fight, or not fight.

Well, for 30 years we've decided to not fight. (Other than a raid on Tripoli 23 years ago that did have a profound effect on the world.. or in case no one noticed, Muammar Qaddafi is not only a voice of moderation, but also a voice for positive change and his country is becoming a model of capitalistic enterprise... we did fight the Gulf War at the head of a UN force, and we did so by the book and left as promised when our objective was accomplished.)

This problem of international Islamic terrorism is not unique to George Bush's regime, It's not unique to Tony Blair's regime. Islamic terrorism has been targetting the west for decades.

By and large, we've relied on UN sanctions to help stop this problem. Unfortunately, force sometimes must be met with force.

I don't care about your political reasoning for why you don't like the war in Iraq, I've read it, and it seems to me you are incapable of viewing any of this beyond the realm of politics. You say you have anc open mind, well, show it. Understand that in war things will happen that you won't understand, and won't be told about, Secrets happen. Nasty things happen to people. It is not a civilized thing to do. It's savage business, and if engaged in it, must be done accordingly. As far as i can see, we've been very careful in pursuing this war. Decisions will be made outside of the area of politics,, decisions will be made completely for strategic and tactical purposes.

I explained a few days ago why invading Iraq when we did was a perfectly sound militarily strategic move in the pursuit of this campaign, yet you give it absolutely no credibility, even when militarily it makes perfect sense.

I respect your right to not agree with the war, but that is done on a philosophical level, whereas military tactics and strategy are very much real-world objectives. Beyond the philosophical desires that the war not occur, you have to be able to see that the war in Iraq is merely a battle in the overall war on these terrorist extremists that we are undertaking. We can disagree with it all we want, but that doesn't change the tactical necessity of subduing the Iraqi armed forces in order to puirsue the campaign.

I don't put forth a political message when I speak on this topic.

I put forth the same message I've always put forth on this topic.

UNITY. Not just united as republicans and Democrats (of which i am neither) not just united as Americans, but united as civilized people across this world who agree that enough is enough, and that this sort of thing must be stopped once and for all. We're not the only ones threatened by these extremists, and it's never been more obvious. (Here's a nice conspiracy theory,, I think Al Qaeda was behind that huge explosion in North Korea about a year and a half ago, trying to touch off a war there. Divide and conquer, y'know)

I don't care if anyone supports the president, I'd feel the same way if John Kerry had won. I think this goes beyond "being American" (Frankly, i hate all the symbolism and blind nationalism.. it smells bad). It's not us alone who is targeted.

Like it or not, we're in a fight. And a divided people are MUCH easier to conquer.

Does this mean that i say follow blindly? Nope, I am all for watching our freedoms very carefully, and I am well aware of the government's propensity to lie. I don't trust GW any more than you do.

But unfortunately, the way of the world means sometimes you must fight. Now seems to be that time, and it's best to do that together rather than divided.

I do realize you never said Bush or Blair had anything to do with it. which is why I said "SOME" around here would be apt to believe it. And SOME are. the fact is, you did surmise that they may have planned it, and you toss up past plans to prove that the gov't is capable of it,, fine, i agree it's possible, but aside from suppositions, the GLARING fact is, our enemy is quite capable, willing and historically proven to do these things. This sort of tactic is well known in his arsenal.

Which is why my first thought is "why so quick to find the worst possible scenario" when the obvious may be the answer. Not everything is cloak and dagger cover up,, sometimes the bad guys really do bad things... and frankly, finding out Benjamin Netanyahu was due to be in the building right above one of the bombs pretty much cinches it for me.

I do find it slightly perturbing that you say that the goals of our government could be construed to be the same as the terrorists. Our governemt does not oppress it's people, execute it's people in football stadiums by the dozens, ignore the rights of the downtrodden, dehumanize women, persecute religiously, or exterminate the populace with gas. I think that if given the choice, the peope of the middle east wouldn't either. But these religious strongmen that have ruled over there have had no problem with it. LAnd it doesn't matter who supported who twenty five years ago. As i said,, Qaddafi is much different than he was then,, even courting US favor,, our relationship with Vietnam is looking better and better, and the Russian premier has a Super Bowl ring.

Things do change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

No matter what you may think about our government, if you think it is comparable to the regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, you are seriously mistaken.

I find this specifically interesting

"Also, I am of the opinion that the entire 9-11 story purveyed by the government isn't quite true,"

Why? I mean, seriously, these groups had tried to knock over the towers before. these groups have been responsible for uncounted acts of terrorism worldwide. Those responsible made sure we knew they were responsible for it. And have since made sure we know they'd try it again.

Oh, and the whole thing happened right in front of our eyes! There was no shadow reports,, no hidden sources,, no conflicting images,,, we all saw the planes hit the buildings, we all saw the buildings fall.

I've seen the pictures of the Pentagon, where they say it's not a plane, that it's a missile, and I agree it's compelling. However, I wonder if anyone remembers about 7 or 8 years go, several apartments in Crystal City were discovered to be held by governments of unfriendly nations and other groups, with China being named specifically, and being the focus of the report. These apartments looked basically right into the windows of the Pentagon. A simple telescope was all that was needed to spy. (At the same time, there was concern over the Chinese buying up interests surrounding the Panama Canal. ) To me it wouldn't be too hard to figure some of these sleepers may have held some of those apartments and indeedfired a missile.

I also agree that if that were the case, the gov't might not want to tell us for the panic it may cause. It's one things for a few extremists to have died while committing their acts, but if the government lets out that perhaps soldiers of the enemy were still here and alive after that? Man, the witch hunt would have been ten times worse than it was, People are only human, after all. Sometimes, knowing everything may not be in the best interest of the public.

But, there's a lot of folks who say they saw a plane,, and try as they may, I doubt the gov't can control the stories and vision of a highway full of people at rush hour.. probably a few on this board may have seen it.

What do you think happened?

I mean, there gets to be a point where it becomes absurd, no?

~Bang

[Ghost of]

Bang

Great post. We must keep in mind that similar theories were developed about Oklahoma City. The same nonsense. A couple similar ones floated around about Waco. The more moderate theories(CS gas ignited, helicopter snipers did fire) can be blurred in with the ridiculous ones(there's a man impaled on the tank)

But to ignore that for DECADES these same a-holes in various guises, be they Marxist Arabs(some Palie groups) or Arab national socialists (Ba'athist boys) or outright Islamists this has happened for years.

Sudan, Bangladesh(have any idea what the Pakistanis did there?), Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, in India itself, Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria....the US and UK and Madrid.

Let me ask: Is the US behind some Chinese Indonesian getting raped and forced to convert to Islam? Is the US or a government behind bands of crazy drugged-up Muslims jihadists in southern THailand?

Occam's RAzor, Bac. If someone tells you they hate you(not just Americans or Westerners, either) acts on that hatred through murder, often does the same thing(explosives, suicide bombers, etc) and then claims responsibility, why the F are you going to look to Israel, the UK or US governments to blame?

STOP. Bac, you're a good guy. You've got a lot of issues right. But you need to back off a little from the Dale Gribble Report and tune out the likes of Justin Raimondo and Lew Rockwell and be a little more sensible and rational. That's it.

[jrockster21]

Originally posted by Bang

What do you think happened?

I mean, there gets to be a point where it becomes absurd, no?

I was wondering the same thing. What exactly is it about "the government's story" that you don't think rings true?

As much as I dislike Bush and his entire administration, I find it extremely hard to accept that he might even entertain the idea of hatching a terrorist plot on U.S. soil (or British soil for that matter). I mean, the guy may be a bastage, but you certainly can't argue that he's not 100% red-blooded American.

Very nice posts, bang. I completely agree with your assessment of early warnings; it would be impossible to act on every one of them. We had early warning of 9/11 for crying out loud! But I'm sure there have been many threats to the WTC towers since after the first bombing in the early 90's (94?). It would have been impossible to evacuate the WTC towers for every possible threat.

I also agree that Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden have a lot to gain from these attacks, which is a big reason they carry them out. It is all about divide and conquer. Although as we Americans have demonstrated and the British are demonstrating now, these fear tactics will not work. I don't foresee any end to the terrorist attacks, however. There are so many cells in so many places, it would be impossible to get them all. The over-used 'many heads of the hydra' analogy comes to mind. Cut one off, another one pops up. Also, I find it very possible that phantom attacks are planned all the time just to throw authorities off.

And I don't think you're anti-semetic, Bac. There's been a lot of those types of accusations going around lately...

[Baculus]

I should get something straight that seems to have been misconstrued. (By the way, thanks to everyone that has taken the time out to respond with their views and takes on the situation.) It was never my implication to somehow deny the existence of Real World terrorism. I don't recall ever saying that our government was behind Terrorism as we know it. Maybe I was misunderstood, but I do not recall saying that, and if I inferred that, it wasn't my intention and a failure on my part to communicate. I very well know that there ARE terrorists in the real world: I do not live in a fantasy land where the U.S., U.K, etc., are the evil in on the planet and responsible for actions that are carried out by real terrorist groups. When 9-11 happened, I wanted revenge, and I was for military action. There is no denying that terrorism around the globe is an issue, and I don't have romantic views on murderers willing to murder others in the name of their goals. Just today, talking with my nephew, I basically said, "We do have to worry about real threats, and the danger of worrying about internal threats and the government is that you sometimes miss the bad guy lurking by your door and ready to kill you." I have nothing in common with anti-democratic, fascist terrorists.

That being said, I also understand our role from past actions, and I am not willing to simply forget history in the name of the War on Terrorism. To me, it is very easy: Those who forget the past are bound to repeat their mistakes, and we have made mistakes, whether it is military or political. It seems far too easy in this political, and military climate, to forget such actions, especially recent ones, just to achieve our objectives. I also oppose a mentality that we should do whatever it takes to win, whether it is extreme measures that infringe upon American liberties or actions that would be seem as extreme and criminal. We've been in a struggle with these elements for a long time, but it is our job to make sure we also don't feed their recruitment mill, or conduct actions that others do in the same light as the terrorists. I expect us to use ration and reason in our actions. I haven't always seen this with our government, and it gives me great concern.

Furthermore, if we are involved in a long-term war, we need long term planning, and that includes wise use of our military and political power. I do not agree, Bang, that the Iraqi invasion was a wise move, militarily. The Israeli army took years to recover from their experiences in Lebanon after their pullout, and I fear the same thing occurring with our military. Recruitment drops, our military becomes spread thin, and we become even more vulnerable to a situation that requires military action, in addition to the need for troops in certain regions where we are already engage, such as Afghanistan. Military preparedness, oddly enough, often drops during wartime.

My beef has always been with the leaders in charge, and not the soldiers and their commanders. Our military has done an incredible job, especially considering the difficulty of their task, and I read many of their stories of their experiences in Iraq, which often makes me proud when I hear of their work to help Iraqis.

I will not go into too much detail about why I do not believe the government story. There are a number of reasons, and we've had these threads before, with it basically boiling down to if you believe it or not. Whether it is the improbability of jet fuel being responsible for the destruction of the WTC, multiple reports of secondary explosions at the WTC, 7 out of the 19 hijackers still being alive, or the engine parts of the disappearing at the Pentagon being id'ed as belonging to a smaller military type craft, the list is long and numerous. And it isn't based upon just a few ideas that only kooks in their basement are analyzing. There are engineers, pilots, military men, and professionals, who agree with this sentiment. Even long-time Republicans have started to question the official story. The retired marine col. I referenced earlier had composed, along with two dozen other professionals, a document which they sent to the Whitehouse, why they felt like 9-11 was an inside job. If you think that the 9-11 conspiracy theories are simply believed by fringe elements, you are wrong. Why is it believed? Because of the amount of information that is more credible then the government explanation, which is virtually zero, producing little physical evidence at all. Have you ever heard of the government producing parts from any of the aircraft, black boxes (which one was recovered), or anything else? No, because they haven't, and if they wanted to dispel such conspiracy rumors, then it would be easy enough to produce this physical evidence to support the official explanation.

I will not go any further about this, because it does become divisive, so I will just leave a few links, which examine these subjects in great detail:

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/page/page/1518131.htm

http://physics911.net/

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

http://www.letsroll911.org/

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/

There are many other pages - some good, some bad - but these pages will give an idea of some investigations regarding this subject.

It took me a long, long time to start to even believe that our government would do such an action. I remember, soon after 9-11, a friend and I was lifting, and he made an offhanded comment about our government was involved. I laughed and said, "Yeah man, whatever." It is natural to have that reaction, and I don't blame anyone that also has that reaction. It does seem hard to believe and improbable that this would occur, but if you've read about some of the actions that the CIA has done, and even about operation Northwood, then one may realize that, yes, there may be certain people ruthless enough to do this.

The events of 9-11 have affected and bothered me enough that, four years later, I am still reading a great deal of information on the attacks. So I would ask folks on this thread: What do you know about the attack, and what information has the government provided you that was convincing? What Federal investigations have you read that made you say, "It's a slam dunk case."

I know you guys are having the patience to try understanding where I am coming from, and I appreciate that. Someone said it is easy to take an unpopular stance, but it really isn't, unless someone is doing it just to be a rebel. I was raised a Boy Scout, taught to love my nation by my parents, especially being a Sons of the American Revolution member, and it gives me little pleasure to feel that our government may have done such a terrible act.

By the way, if the mods feel this thread has gone for too long, feel free to close it, if it does get out of hand. :-)

[dreamingwolf]

wow I didnt even have to discredit bac, thanks bac for saving me the trouble

[twa]

Since I was bored I visited all the links provided....As my dad used to say "I did not know bs could be piled so high"

If you have TOO open a mind your brains might fall out.

[Baculus]

Explain, twa, how is it BS? Once again, you didn't even attempt a response to any of the theories. Did you even bother to read any of it?

I like how these theories are instantly refuted with a sentence or two. You convinced me there!

Dreamingwolf - oh brother. Let me guess, my post was attacking jews, right? Gonna question the validity of my links again? You may want to e-mail some of my sources and make sure they aren't bogus articles.