Does our Govt put us first or $$MONEY $$

[fansince62]

Chief...that's my point...the implicit thrust of the article is that there was a series of complicit actions that were motivated by corporate globalism....more precisely....oil money.

the rest of the brief is old news in terms of the cultural, legal and technical barriers in respect to sharing intelligence nformation.....

the whole idea is a rather far-fetched, expensive formula for building a pipeline. there are easier ways....especially if big business controls our goevernment as so many suggest....

[Art]

Keeping an "open" mind and allowing oneself to give any government conspiracy theory immediate credence as meaningful are two different things. An open mind simply states that when there is evidence of something that contradicts something you believe, you are open and willing to accept it. It doesn't mean that you are gullible enough to give every anti-government web site and conspiracy theory great weight as if worth considering.

That said, ALL I ask is for each of you with an open mind to continue to have an open mind. Afterall, "The Raelians, who believe humans were cloned from aliens who landed on Earth 25,000 years ago, have been under international scrutiny since its company, Clonaid, announced on December 27 that a baby cloned from her mother was born the previous day."

Be open now. This could be. It was kind of an episode on Star Trek once, so how far fetched can it be? Hey, come to think of it, so was this Global Howler thing an episode on Star Trek. You know the one where those little bug like aliens would enter into the mouth of Star Fleet leaders and control their minds, making them act in such a way that was opposite humanity and the guidelines of Star Fleet?

Sometimes life imitates art I guess. I just hope someone at the Global Howler checks Bush's neck for the telling tail sticking out. We could stop this madness by killing the host creature. Probably Cheney.

[Art]

Now that I've actually read this thread, let me say this.....

Mike has a point on you Kurp. You are very "open" to the highly suspect Global Howler, but, the tape of Bin Laden speaking is very easy to doctor. In itself, the duplicity of these positions makes you on very shaky intellectual ground. Again, you seem to derive some intellectual capacity from your willingness to doubt the government and your open acceptance of positions that do the same.

I doubt the government on other grounds, such as, I'm better with my money than they are, but, by in large, it shows no intellectualism on either of our parts to display more weight to the Global Howler while expressing repeated doubt of the government.

I hate to break it to you, Kurp, but, it's not remotely intellectual to take the positions you have, by in large here. It's not intellectual to repeatedly doubt our government while giving the benefit of the doubt to Bin Laden or Saddam as you, even if you don't want to admit it, have. I'd ask that you express your intellectualism in a bit more of an even-handed way, less you diminish what can be a healthy desire to question your leaders and become Mel Gibson locking his coffee in the fridge type of Conspiracy Theory nutcase.

Of course, he was right, so, eye of the beholder I guess .

[TheKurp]

Art,

You've no leg to stand on here. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume because you've not read all of my posts (how could you when you're so busy responding to a variety of subjects) that your thinking is biased.

I have repeatedly stated on this particular thread that I'll abstain from drawing the same conclusion as the author of the presentation.

The thrust of my argument here is to address the substantiated points made in the presentation, and hope that people discuss those items in drawing their own conclusions. Simply to call someone a "moron" or trash the entire website without corroborating it with references lacks merit from where I stand. FanSince62 and Tex responded appropriately. Kudos to them. However they are responding to items that have no referenced sources. That's fine, but I'd give more weight to someone who can discredit statements made that DO have references.

I find no duplicity in my stance to regard information skeptically, regardless of its source. Let me make it clear. I view ALL information as equally suspect until I can verify it through numerous and hopefully unbiased resources. The presentation Chief Skin provided via a link, in many cases, provides more than one source to verify the quoted text. For there to be duplicity means I'd have to accept information, in this case, coming out of Iraq without question. Something I have not done.

The problem as I see it, is that people find it unacceptable that I question anything coming out of our own government.

Yes, I'll question the purported tape of Osama until I read that its authenticity has been confirmed.

You wrote:

I doubt the government on other grounds, such as, I'm better with my money than they are, but, by in large, it shows no intellectualism on either of our parts to display more weight to the Global Howler while expressing repeated doubt of the government.

With all due respect Art, I don't think you're qualified to set the standards by which I give weight to information. I'll repeat again. I give more weight to information that I can verify from a number of sources. The Howler did just that. The tape of Osama has yet, to the best of my knowledge, been independently authenticated by anyone. See the difference?

By the way, the presentation on the Howler did give references to our government being warned, repeatedly, about al Qaeda members operating and planning on U.S. soil. These references also come with more than one verifiable source. So again the double-standard rears its head. Meaning, we knowingly allow al Qaeda to operate on our soil yet we hold Saddam personally responsible for allowing al Qaeda to operate in a part of Iraq under Kurdish control.

But we won't go there now, will we?

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

Exibit A from the other thread. My quote of UBL....

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21823&pagenumber=3

quote:

And it doesn't harm in these conditions the interest of Muslims to agree with those of the socialists in fighting against the crusaders

Next? :laugh:

You want next? Fine.

You've repeated this line ad nauseum as your *proof* that a direct link exists between Osama's al Qaeda and Saddam. Apparently you feel this is the smoking gun that gives all the weight you need to unequivocally state your case.

Let's assume, for the purpose of this debate, that these are the words of Osama Bin Laden.

Perhaps it's slipped by your realm of limited knowledge to recognize that the use of the word "socialists" is a derogatory reference to Saddam's ruling Arab Baath Socialist Party. Perhaps your also unaware that Osama considers socialists "infidels", which means Saddam included.

Osama is calling on Iraqis to fight the attackers, regardless of whether Saddam remains in power.

From the tape:

The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of the national ideologies, nor seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq."

In case you have yet to still figure it out, the voice on the tape [Osama's], never endorses Saddam's dictatorship; it criticizes it.

Using your words Mad Mike.......

Next?

[Mad Mike]

Meaning, we knowingly allow al Qaeda to operate on our soil yet we hold Saddam personally responsible for allowing al Qaeda to operate in a part of Iraq under Kurdish control.

But we won't go there now, will we?

I will. :laugh:

Please show me any example of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US with our knowledge at this time. If you can do that I will be happy to concede a point to you. If not, it proves once and for all that you are openly biased in your willingness to believe anything which would discredit our government while dismissing any eveidence that would discredit the position of Iraq.

Care to play?

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by TheKurp

You want next? Fine.

You've repeated this line ad nauseum as your *proof* that a direct link exists between Osama's al Qaeda and Saddam. Apparently you feel this is the smoking gun that gives all the weight you need to unequivocally state your case.

Let's assume, for the purpose of this debate, that these are the words of Osama Bin Laden.

Perhaps it's slipped by your realm of limited knowledge to recognize that the use of the word "socialists" is a derogatory reference to Saddam's ruling Arab Baath Socialist Party. Perhaps your also unaware that Osama considers socialists "infidels", which means Saddam included.

Osama is calling on Iraqis to fight the attackers, regardless of whether Saddam remains in power.

From the tape:

In case you have yet to still figure it out, the voice on the tape [Osama's], never endorses Saddam's dictatorship; it criticizes it.

Using your words Mad Mike.......

Next?

Wow. Finaly an argument based in fact. I'm shocked.

To your argument I say the same thin I said in the other thread.

We have two choices.

1) We can assume there is a link, go in and take out a ruthless dictator who has spent his life aquiring WMD, and has gone so far as to attempt the assasination of a US president in his hatred for us, knowing that if he does have the link he WILL eventualy hand over weapons to Al Qaeda who will then use them to attack us.

or

2) We assume there is no link and that we are safe.

In the first case the worst thing that can happen is we take some casualties and remove a ruthless dictator who is crazy enough to try to assasinate an american president regardless of the consiquences should he be succesfull.

In the second, the worst thing that can happen is Sadam develops a nuke, hands it to Al Qaeda and they use it to whipe out DC and/or New York.

Now, which is the right course of action for the security of the United States?

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

Please show me any example of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US with our knowledge at this time. If you can do that I will be happy to concede a point to you. If not, it proves once and for all that you are openly biased in your willingness to believe anything which would discredit our government while dismissing any eveidence that would discredit the position of Iraq.

Care to play?

Straight from the Howler Mad Mike (did you even read it?):

According to a 13-page memo written by Minneapolis FBI legal officer Colleen Rowley, FBI headquarters ignored urgent warnings from French intelligence about imminent terrorist attacks. The FBI in Washington also appeared to be thwarting the Minneapolis office’s investigation ofZacarias Moussaoui, in one instance rewriting Rowley’s affidavit for a warrant to search Moussaoui’s laptop. Rowley describes her work being “suppressed”, “deliberately undercut”, “deliberately thwarted”, and “deliberately sabotaged”. Other Minneapolis agents desperately attempt to get action, but also get shut down. Rowley notes that the official from FBI headquarters who did most of the thwarting was actually promoted after Sept. 11th. [Agent Rowley’s Memo 5/21/02] [Time, 5/21/02] [sunday Herald, 5/28/02]

Another:

June 2001: BND, German intelligence, warns the CIA that Middle Eastern terrorists are “planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American culture.” [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01] [Washington Post, 9/14/01] l

And another:

July 2001: FBI Agent Ken Williams in Arizona writes a memo warning of the suspicious activities of a group of Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons in Arizona. Williams suggests the men might be planning to impersonate pilots, security guards or other personnel. The memo is sent to the FBI headquarters and two FBI field offices, but is ignored in all three places. [New York Times, 5/20/02] [Fortune, 5/22/02]

And yet another:

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil discovers that Osama bin Laden is planning a “huge attack” on America. Muttawakil sends a messenger to warn the US consul general, and the Kabul offices of UNSMA (a division of the UN). [independent, 9/7/02] [Reuters, 9/7/02]

Your turn.

[Mad Mike]

Please show me any example of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US with our knowledge at this time. .

Still waiting...

I'll be logging off for awhile but I'll check back later.

[RiggoDrill]

Kurp -

I'm left of center, but I read the PowerPoint presentation, and it got logarhythmically more absurd with every page. Any reasonable person, regardless of political persuasion, should grasp that such a website is, in substance and appearance, only a short step away from cult sites like Heaven's Gate.

Just because the guy throws out Newspaper names and dates doesn't mean jack.

Have you bothered to corroborate many of the references? Were the articles quoted properly and in context? Were the original articles written by an investigative reporter on site, regurgitated from agency wires, or is it just lazily parroted conjecture? There ARE a lot of stupid journalists, you know. Just pick up the Washington Times or the New York Post. :laugh:

For instance, Michael Moore's book, Stupid White Men, is a bestseller with numerous references to supposed coverups and scandals. However, an independent, left-leaning examination of his sources showed his research was lazy, shoddy, uncorroborated, and full of misquotes and poor contextual references throughout. It's a shame, as I've enjoyed some of his films ...

As the saying goes, believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see.

[RiggoDrill]

(dupe)

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

Kurp --

Have you bothered to corroborate many of the references? Were the articles quoted properly and in context? Were the original articles written by an investigative reporter on site, or just regurgitated from agency wires?

Yes. I took painstaking time to do so.

Again, just so we're clear on this.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE AUTHOR HAS MERIT!!!!

Excuse the shouting but no one here seems to allow the point to sink in.

Many of the points made in the presentation seem disturbing on their own. Taken individually many of the statements appear to indicate at the very least, a lack of competence on the part of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

I do have faith however that many of those glaring incompetencies have been addressed and minimized.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Many of the points made in the presentation seem disturbing on their own. Taken individually many of the statements appear to indicate at the very least, a lack of competence on the part of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

I do have faith however that many of those glaring incompetencies have been addressed and minimized.

Yes, the gaps in intelligence were what was exploited. It is alarming, but then again, hindsight is 20-20.

And, my point with journalism was that, even if a journalistic source is corroborated, the journalist may himself be grossly misstating things ... so all the supposed "facts" about "clear warnings" need to be taken with a grain of salt as well. To me, a citation two sources (often the case in the presentation) are not enough to insure accuracy and factuality in reporting.

[Skins24]

Here's a fact:

Around 3000 people died

But who cares, the government srewed us because they have nothing better to do than to watch innocent Americans die. And we need the oil.

That was a big waste of time. What is the purpose of that site?

Even if one bit of it is true, then what? Is that somehow going to magically change what happened?

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

To me, a citation two sources (often the case in the presentation) are not enough to insure accuracy and factuality in reporting.

But then isn't the onus to discredit the journalist on the person not agreeing with what has been written?

I have yet to see anyone do exactly this.

The entire presentation was reduced to "moron" and "garbage". The author presented sources for his information. Those who disagree with him have provided nothing of substance in return.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by TheKurp

But then isn't the onus to discredit the journalist on the person not agreeing with what has been written?

I have yet to see anyone do exactly this.

The entire presentation was reduced to "moron" and "garbage". The author presented sources for his information. Those who disagree with him have provided nothing of substance in return.

Well, Kurp, call it intuition ...

... but some of us can smell the difference between sh!t and shinola, and don't feel the need to go picking our way through the sh!t.

Face it, the presentation is composed of 30+ slides of one incredible, shocking revelation after another, with no shred of objectivity (or dare I say, reality) whatsoever. Do you honestly think that there is THAT much credible, yet shocking news out there that we ourselves couldn't "connect the dots"? Come On. This isn't an Eagles board.

The fact that you would lend any credence whatsoever to this lunatic and his master conspiracy astounds me. That you would chastise others for recognizing D-rated, half-assed conspiracy theories for what they are is stranger than fiction.

I don't trust this administration, nor do I think the government is altruistic. I'm against the war as we're going about it (I'm not a pacifist). But, come on man, get a hold of yourself.

It's Heaven's Gate/conspiracist wanking of the purest kind. Open your nose. Take a whiff.

[fansince62]

Kurp...the problem is that none of these events...strung together like a line of lampposts...really illuminates what was going on in anyone's mind or what intentions/motivations were.........the supposition that 3000 Americans are dead becasue a deal for oil went awry is fantasical to say the least.....and cynical in the extreme for anyone to believe..........where's the proof? this is conjecture....shouldn't the same standards of evidence you apply to Iraq apply here? where's the smoking gun? where's the pipeline?

[TheKurp]

Sometimes I'm left with no other choice but to :gus: .

I've said it more than once. I've said it in all UPPERCASE.

I'll say it one more time and then if anyone responds again in the same fashion I'll just have to assume that some people have trouble comprehending the written word.

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION MADE BY THE AUTHOR OF THE PRESENTATION!

Now, if anyone wants to discuss any of the individual points in the presentation, some of which I find to be interesting, revealing, and thought-provoking, I'll continue to contribute to this thread.

Otherwise, I'm out.

[fansince62]

kurp...we know that...you aren't listening....i for instance have pointed out that many of these news reports only go far as location coincidents...they don't speak to states of mind or intentions....much less offer proof of what the alignment of slide is tacitly suggesting......others have questioned from a common sense point-of-view alledged incidents (e.g., the station chief visist to the hospital). it's not clear what you are after here. there is nothing wrong in assessing both individual "facts" in the slides and arguiing the overall thrust. there is an intent in the presentation to drive readers toward a conspiracy conclusion based on oil interests. the subject line you wrote for the thread suggests as much. you're playing both sides of the fence on this one.

and yes...there has been agreement on some other points as you well know...but these points were known previously (i.e., fractures in the intelligence/law enforcement process). old information. a deeper analysis will lead us to how we got there. but you don't seem to want to walk down this road.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by fansince62

kurp...we know that...you aren't listening....i for instance have pointed out that many of these news reports only go far as location coincidents...they don't speak to states of mind or intentions....much less offer proof of what the alignment of slide is tacitly suggesting......

Fair enough. While I'm aghast at the number of pre-9/11 warnings that were issued by intelligence and law enforcement agencies both locally and abroad, I also recognize that understaffed and over-worked personnel might have contributed to the warnings being ignored.

On the other hand, we're about to spend billions on a war with Iraq and I have to wonder whether that same money wouldn't be better spent in protecting our borders from terrorists and properly staffing our homeland security. Also what has become obvious is that al Qaeda possesses a more sophisticated and higher degree of technology than our federal agencies. That must be addressed.

others have questioned from a common sense point-of-view alledged incidents (e.g., the station chief visist to the hospital). it's not clear what you are after here. there is nothing wrong in assessing both individual "facts" in the slides and arguiing the overall thrust.

I have no problem with people arguing the overall thrust of the presentation. But there's been very little of that. Mostly it's been reduced to name-calling. And those that do argue overall thrust are directing it towards me. An argument I want no part of since I happen to agree that the consipiracy theory is a bit far-fetched.

there is an intent in the presentation to drive readers toward a conspiracy conclusion based on oil interests. the subject line you wrote for the thread suggests as much. you're playing both sides of the fence on this one.

I'm not playing both sides of the fence. I didn't write the subject line, Chief Skins did.

and yes...there has been agreement on some other points as you well know...but these points were known previously (i.e., fractures in the intelligence/law enforcement process). old information. a deeper analysis will lead us to how we got there. but you don't seem to want to walk down this road. [/b]

I've been trying to walk down this road. But if you follow this thread from the beginning most have responded by sitting on the side of the road content in throwing rocks.

[fansince62]

kurp....i'm not throwing rocks (btw apologies on the subj line)....

irt intelligence/law enforcement......yes ......many of the problems owe to the internal political, funding turf battles that typify much of the bureaucratic agenices.........i was trying to drive you in the direction of asking about other systemic causes that have been exerting an influence for nearly 30 years now. intelligence and law enforcement have been separated BY LAW for decades when it comes to information sharing. it didn't get done unless folks wanted to go to jail. the collection side of the house has been systematically gutted for political reasons irt perceived abuses in the 60s & 70s. many of the failings (not all) you are upset by are the product of 30s years of policy failings. if you are going to be thorough, you need to go back and establish these connections as well. i can give you an initial steer: do some research on Frank Church.....