How do you guys feel about the Lone Gunman episode "Pilot." Check the link for more information: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/lonegunmen.html

This is pretty god damn amazing in my view. Any thoughts?

Originally posted by thetruth05

This is pretty god damn amazing in my view. Any thoughts?

Any society made up of ostensibly sane and rational indidiuals who are incapable of recognizing that their political leaders are LYING --blatantly, and obviously-- is one that has lost its way.


"I don't think anybody could have predicted that...they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,"--- said National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice." -CBS (05/17/02)

A few months prior to that statement, George Bush was in Genoa Italy at a summit meeting.

U.S. officials were SO concerned that terrorists might crash a commercial airliner into the Genoa Summit while Bush was there that they refused to allow Bush to sleep in the city, and removed him to an aircraft carrier far out in the sea.

In 1996. U.S. officials considered possibility of terrorists hijacking a commercial airliner and slamming it into the Olympic games in Atlanta.

In September 1999, a report commissioned by the government mentioned possibility that terrorists could hijack commercial jets, load them with explosives and crash them into the Pentagon, CIA, or White House.

In August 2000, Italian intelligence intercepted communications indicating that al Qaeda was preparing for a large-scale attack involving airports or airplanes, possibly in the U.S.

Security officials for 2000 Olympic games in Sydney considered possibility of terrorists crashing a hijacked jet into the opening ceremony.

In August 2001, U.S. intelligence learned of plot against the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi involving a highjacked aircraft.

Prior to 9-11, NORAD had considered the possibility that hijackers might crash a jet into a target on American soil.

Buried within some 350,000 pages of documents handed over by the CIA to the Congressional 9-11 investigation, were “Reports discussing the possibility of suicide bombings, plots to fly planes into buildings and strikes against the Pentagon, World Trade Center and other high-profile targets.” (cited in Diamond 6-3-2002)

Yet the incredibly blind American Public sits and listens to Condoleeza Rice LYING about one of the most significant eevents in America's long history and says nothing.

Chris Carter often based his episodes on real life rumors and conspiracies (I had heard about flying airplanes into buildings in intelligence reports first in 1998). There were episodes based on the Chupacabra (goat sucker), meteorite microbes, Kennedy assassination theories, etc.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Alright Free. The government knew and let it happen.

Why? (Anyone new here? Sit back, you're gonna enjoy this)

Hey I know exactly what you’re saying, I posted, in the site recommendation threads, that people should check out www.infowars.com

What you said is pretty good information, but your just scratching the surface. It's more than the fact they knew about it happening, but they funded it. It's all part of the cause and effect clause and the Hegelian principle.
Hegelian Principle (Not the exact words, more of my interpretation of it)
Step 1. Create a problem. Or take one that doesn't exist and build upon it.
Step 2. Publicize the problem. Make sure it is shown around the media everyday. From T.V. to newspapers to magazines to radio.
Step 3. Offer a solution. Even if it causes the people to be stripped of their rights.

9/11=Blame of terrorism (Osama Bin Laden), That=Afghanistan, Afghanistan=$$ (it's not all about oil)
Watch Road to Tyranny by Alex Jones.
Michael Moore only scratches the surface.

If anybody who opposes or disagrees with my ideas, feel free to say something. I wouldn't mind having a nice debate over this issue.

My first post was towards freethinker. This one is towards Brooks.

First of all do you have an open mind in this issue?

Now if there is anybody who doesn't believe in U.S. knowing about 9/11 prior to attacks, show me a rebuttal and I will show you why the U.S. did know.

Originally posted by Brooks
Alright Free. The government knew (about the planned 9/11 attack) and let it happen.

I agree. The evidence for it is indisputable.

Originally posted by Brooks
Why?

In order to have an excuse for massively increasing the Defense budget.

It was not even being kept secret.

Their intentions were outlined quite clearly in a paper by the "Project for a New American Century".........the neocon manifesto "Rebuilding America's Defenses" spells out a vast, ambitious plan for foreign military adventures, regime changes, and an endless "war" in the Middle East aimed at securing control of the oil resources there.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/let_it_happen.htm


The Project for the New American Century was established in 1997 by Robert Kagan and William Kristol and funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and weapons and defense industries. Calling themselves, "Neoconservatives" this small group of ideologues penned a Statement of Principles outlining their plan for a New American Century wherein the United States, as the world's lone superpower would use its military might to topple regimes in the middle East and elsewhere that were unfriendly to U.S. corporate interests.

"The process of transformation," the plan said, "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, asst. director of the PNAC about what was meant by the "need for a new Pearl Harbor" (15): "They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities," Maletz said. "Without some disaster or catastrophic event," neither the politicians nor the military would have approved. The first leg of the PNAC imperialistic agenda was to secure the oil supply of the Middle East. As far back as 1998 The PNAC was pressuring President Bill Clinton for the invasion of Iraq.

Who belongs to this neoconservative think tank?

Dick Cheney Vice President

Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense

Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense

Elliott Abrams Deputy Secretary of state

William J. Bennett Presidential speech writer

Jeb Bush Governor of Florida

I. Lewis Libby Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs.

Aaron Friedberg Vice President Cheney’s deputy National Security advisor

Frank Gaffney Pentagon's Defense Policy Board

Fred C. Ikle Pentagon's Defense Policy Board

Eliot A. Cohen Pentagon's Defense Policy Board

Henry S. Rowen Pentagon's Defense Policy Board

Paula Dobriansky Undersecretary of State

So here we have the top levels of the Whitehouse and Pentagon appointed by a President who displays a blatant disregard for Congress and the rule of law, who belong to a powerful and well funded organization who's agenda centers around the necessity of a "new Pearl Harbor" to fulfill their agenda, letting our defenses down in the face of 52 warnings of an impending terrorist attack, lying about it before Congress and the American people. If this doesn't exemplify every bit of evidence you would need to assume that the 9-11 attacks were allowed to occur, I don't know what else you could possibly need.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Originally posted by Brooks
(Anyone new here? Sit back, you're gonna enjoy this)

For anyone who is new here, if you can for one minute be open-minded and honest with yourself, I do not think that you will ---as Brooks seems to think--- "enjoy" hearing about the involvement of officials in the highest levels of government and the heinous crime ---the 9/11 attack--- that they helped to bring about.

Freethinker,

I've read some of your links, note that word R-E-A-D your links, and your bilge that Bush and company wanted a 9/11 to happen so they can freely spend on military weaponry and such is bogus.

First off, there was the charge that "neo-conservatives" were pressing for an invasion of Iraq before 9/11. Were they? Well, yes. Why? They were worried about Saddam's WMDs, the failure, FAILURE of inspections, the erosion coalition support in the Mid East that made Gulf War 1 possible and the persistent worry that Saddam may be acquiring nuclear weapons which would be devastating for Israel and other "modern" Mid East countries. This whole thing was outlined in a letter to Bill Clinton for him to take into consideration before he made a State of the Union address. I'll post that link.

Then there is the idea that "neo conservatives" wished for another "Pearl Harbor" so they could advance an imperialistic agenda, topple governments and of course spend, spend, spend for military weapons. WELL, it's not quite that simple. It depends on how it's read, again R-E-A-D. The Project for the New American Century was about trying to bring peace and stablilty to the Middle East and it was being planned before 9/11. The people working PNAC saw Iran as a threat (as we do now) as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, they wished to eliminate those threats. To do so, they needed to build up the military which had been lanquishing since Bill Clinton took over and the PNAC folk KNEW that military spending would be almost impossible to get through Congress without some kind of attack. But even the link I read didn't say that they were hoping or planning to let such an attack happen. It's just that PNAC saw a problem with various thugs in the Middle East and an oppurtunity to extend the freedom we take for granted here.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Radical Islam isn't going to leave the West alone. If we don't fight it now, it's going to come to our shores, as it did on 9/11 and before that NOTHING was done to take that threat seriously.

I'm going to post two links that was linked to freethinker's original link (that was confusing!) I urge people like Brooks to go through it with a fine tooth comb. They'll see that Bush and Co were NOT out to spread imperialistic powers, but to get rid of thugs and extend democracy. Also, about the idea of attacking Saddam before 9/11, that link will prove that those who wrote that letter were concerned that Saddam was arming himself with WMDs, was evading weapon inspectors and was a threat to Israel and other Mid East countries. I'll also post Richard Clarke's resignation which praises George Bush's leadership. Odd, seeing as how he was supposedly unhappy about what George Bush was doing. When Gary Aldrich left the Clinton Administration, he was no where NEAR happy about the way Bill Clinton ran things. Food for thought, dammit!


Clark's Resignation (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0323042clarke1.html)

Letter to Clinton, concerned about Saddam (http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/pnacletter.html)

The PNAC stuff, what was planned (http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html)

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Freethinker....... Food for thought, dammit!



The PNAC stuff, what was planned (http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html)

Food for thought, indeed.

Quoted verbatim from your last link---

""“This (PNAC plan entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century") is a blueprint for U.S. world domination—a new world order of their making,” Tam Dalyell, British parliamentarian and critic of the war policy from the Labor Party said. “These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.

“This is garbage from think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks,” Dalyell said, “men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. ""

A quick point, in addition to what I wrote. I don't want to edit. The PNAC, which Rumsfield and Cheney supported, noted that it would be almost impossible to acquire the money needed to modernize our forces to deal with the threat of Radical Islam. At least without some kind of major attack on the U.S.

You see, it was noted that it would've been difficult to make the Congress believe that America was threatened by the likes of Bin Laden. Unfortunately, America HAD to be attacked first before the American people realized the threat of Radical Islam.

It's a point of contention. The Left (read freethinker) saw this as the neocons hoping that America got attacked, the Right (read Darth Be'lal) sees this as someone seeing a major threat to the U.S. and damn if anybody else was going to see this threat UNLESS America got attacked. It's your call how you want to interpret this.

I'll go on record now stating that China is a HUGE threat and WILL attack us sooner or later over the issue of Taiwan. And the libs are not going to see China as a threat TILL America is attacked. Note that I'm not hoping America gets attacked by the Chi-Coms, but China is a threat and we DO need to build up our military to meet it. That's another country that is not simply going to leave us alone, no matter what we do, dammit.

No Freethinker,

That article you refer to is written by a bunch of lefties that are putting words into the mouths of the PNAC people. It isn't what the guys who founded PNAC SAID, there is a major difference. It's the way the PNAC report was spun.

Gee, I hoped the "spin" would be outdated when Clinton left office.

Darth - I love how you admit that Neo-Cons now run the government and are fullfilling their every wish thanks to 9-11. But you still adamently deny that they (at the very least) let "a new pearl harbor" happen.

Their words are quite obvious with everything we know about Pearl harbor today. Pearl harbor was also allowed to happen so that we could go to war.

You seem to be confusing ambitions (bringing democracy/liberation etc.) with reality (100,000 dead Iraqis, endless war, torture appoved at the highest levels). You need to have your idealism and reality coexist, not constantly conflict with each other and deny such when its convienent.

Radical Islam isn't going to leave the West alone. If we don't fight it now, it's going to come to our shores, as it did on 9/11 and before that NOTHING was done to take that threat seriously Bwhwhahhaha...gee lets see why wont they leave us alone?....Could it possibly be that the US has constantly harassed, influenced and controled the middle east? Could it be that after you bomb people and hand them over to fascists that they get pissed off after a while? Quit putting the cart before the mule.

Guerilla,

First off, just how many damn times do I need to point out that the actual death toll in Iraq is closer to twenty thousand rather than one hundred thousdand? You are not fooling me. I've posted to a site that counted the actual deaths and it's about 20,000. Can you give it a rest?

The Neo Cons being in control. If you mean that the Republicans have a majority in both houses of Congress PLUS a Republican President, then yes, I'd agree with you. The Republicans have a majority.

Did a certain group of conservtives decide it was time to try and do something about Saddam and Radical Islam in the Middle East? Yes, they did. The results? Saddam is gone, the Taliban no longer control Afghanistan, Lybia has stopped supporting terrorism, Lebanon has decided that Syrian troops, terrorists and intelligence agents are not welcome there anymore and there have been protests in Iraq AGAINST terrorists, not against the U.S. but against terrorists. Not bad, really.

Radical Islam.

The way of thinking that drives the Bin Ladens of the world are way more complex than simply the U.S. interfering in the Mid East or its support for Israel, the Radical Islamists fear that the cultural INFLUENCE (no military, but culture, ideas) of the U.S. could be devastating to their ideas of a 14th Century Islamic empire and are fighting agaisnt THAT. No matter what the West does, it can't help but influence the thoughts of those in the Middle East and the Bin Laden types do NOT want that kind of influence in their part of the world. So their only course of action is a terrorist campaign against the West, which they are losing, dammit.

Iraqi Civilian deaths, AGAIN! (http://iraqbodycount.net/)

In order to have an excuse for massively increasing the Defense budget.
FT, why? What's the point?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
You see, it was noted that it would've been difficult to make the Congress believe that America was threatened by the likes of Bin Laden.

True.

It would have been difficult to make the Congress ---or any other grouping of human beings--- believe that America was threatened by the likes of Bin Laden......

....for the simple reason that, we were NOT in any way endangered by the likes of bin Laden.


Bush and his people fucking LIED to the gullible sheep and TOLD THEM, falsely, that we WERE threatened by them.


But then , every person in America is now aware that that was NOT the case.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Note that I'm not hoping America gets attacked by the Chi-Coms, but China is a threat and we DO need to build up our military to meet it.

Oh.

Riiiiight.

Let's **"build up them gawlderned miluuhtary forces!!"**"

Ab-so-goddamned-lutely.

I mean, 20 or 30 trillion dollars spent over the past few years on our military couldn't POSSIBLY fucking be, in any way, sufficient to thwart an attack from these fiendish "Chi-Coms".

NOOOOOO!!....we need to "build up!!" thuh 'Muuuurican military!! QUICKLY!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Freethinker,

Are you aware that the European Union is about to break its arms embargo with China and start selling them the most advanced weapons they are capable of producing? This is the one time I agree with the peace activists, and its the one time the peace activists have been consistent. This arms embargo started after the Tianemen square massacre, it was done in the hopes that China would improve its human rights. That hasn't happened, but the economy in Europe is very, very sluggish and the European government desires another source of income. So weapons could be sold as early as this June.

There is also the fact that China has built neclear weapons and ballistic missles. They have some six hundred of them and they are getting better at making them, both in range and in payload.

THEN there is the fact that China WANTS Taiwan. Their congress (forgot the proper word, pardon me) has passed a law stating that if Taiwan starts making moves toward independence, the Chi-Coms are coming after them.

America WILL defend Taiwan, that is the crux of the problem, and China is gearing up to meet the American threat, they are buying submarines from Russian and are working on their own aircraft carrier as well as building a superb naval surface fleet.

NOW, with all these things happening, do you not see why I wish the U.S. to get a bit more serious about defending itself?

Bin Laden not much of a threat? All he did was manage to strike at the financial heart of America, force the U.S. to spend millions in security measure and stall the American economy. Not bad for a terrorist hiding in a cave, no?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Freethinker,

Are you aware that the European Union is about to break its arms embargo with China and start selling them the most advanced weapons they are capable of producing? This is the one time I agree with the peace activists, and its the one time the peace activists have been consistent. This arms embargo started after the Tianemen square massacre, it was done in the hopes that China would improve its human rights. That hasn't happened, but the economy in Europe is very, very sluggish and the European government desires another source of income. So weapons could be sold as early as this June.

There is also the fact that China has built neclear weapons and ballistic missles. They have some six hundred of them and they are getting better at making them, both in range and in payload.

THEN there is the fact that China WANTS Taiwan. Their congress (forgot the proper word, pardon me) has passed a law stating that if Taiwan starts making moves toward independence, the Chi-Coms are coming after them.

America WILL defend Taiwan, that is the crux of the problem, and China is gearing up to meet the American threat, they are buying submarines from Russian and are working on their own aircraft carrier as well as building a superb naval surface fleet.

NOW, with all these things happening, do you not see why I wish the U.S. to get a bit more serious about defending itself?

Bin Laden not much of a threat? All he did was manage to strike at the financial heart of America, force the U.S. to spend millions in security measure and stall the American economy. Not bad for a terrorist hiding in a cave, no?

China is a power in ascendance - it's perfectly normal for them to build up their armed forces. It's exactly what we would do. Unless you have a powerful military then your position in the world is not taken as seriously. China's aim is to be a super power, just like the US.

Now, does that mean they are an agressor nation? no, it doesn't.

Even with a build up it will take decades for China to reach the level of the US in terms of world power. It is a very populous nation with a lot of poverty.

China's record on human rights has improved significantly, but you also have to understand the process that China is going thru. You cannot change a nation so big over night. Clearly China is heading toward a capitalistic society - but they are doing it their own way. They are not aiming to follow the Russian example of chaos and disorder. It is a reality that strong controls - which can impact human rights are needed to move China toward a prosperous future - a future that includes the types of human rights we enjoy.

China will not attack Taiwan. The recent law was to appease hard liners and in fact it has langauge in it that makes an attack even less likely. It forbids the use of force until every other avenue has been "exhausted".

The potential clash between China and the US is not Taiwan - it is Oil. China imports a lot of oil and will in the next 10 - 20 years be in direct competition for the same oil we want to buy. If Oil production does not increase to match the growth of both economies - it could spell difficulties. China could walk into the middle east very easily.

I agree that the main competition between China and the U.S. will be economic. Economics has been the root cause of many wars. They nearly all have a flash point however. There are a number of potential flash points with China, including China and Korea. We can be certain that none of them will be allowed to spiral into war until China feels they can win.
Another interesting point is the consequence of China's population control program interacting with their traditional culture. Many people, when faced with being limited to one child, opted for a son. This has resulted in an excess of young men in China. One solution to this might be a war.

Darth and FT, both of you point out some very good points. It's hell for someone like me to lean one way or another on this topic. I can certainly see both sides and would, in no way, discount either theory.

I wonder why, before coming to Allforums and reading some of these posts, I'd never heard of the PNAC. The PNAC has never been talked about, written about, etc. in our local publications or aired on the radio. I guess I never really gave it too much credit until I delved into FT's links. But now...it's hard to just toss it aside.

Darth, Besides Europe's military dealings with China, everyone forgot about the Loral Corporation. Bernard Schwartz, the biggest single contributor to the DNC and President Clinton's campaign who even got to have his birthday party at the White House in 1997, got to trade satellite technology with China, over the objections of the Justice Department, when President Clinton made an exception for him.

Loral hired the PRC to launch one of their satellites, saving them millions of dollars (again, over the objections of the Justice Department). "Unfortunately", the Long March rocket crashed. When Loral recovered their satellite, the "radiation hardened" chips were missing from it. These chips are vital for nuclear weapons. Until that point, China didn't have them.

Originally posted by Brooks
Alright Free. The government knew and let it happen. Why?

Originally posted by Freethinker
In order to have an excuse for massively increasing the Defense budget.


Originally posted by BlibBlob
FT, why? What's the point?

The *point* is the basis for the entire con-game known as the "United States of America; namely, the efficient and continuous transfer of wealth and resources out of the hands of the middle classes and the common folk/working class and into the pockets of the owners of the Military/Industrial complex.

You are not fooling me. I've posted to a site that counted the actual deaths and it's about 20,000. Can you give it a rest? The 20,000 death toll is the absolute confirmed dead. It is a count of people for which they saw 2 media accounts of it or the body themselves. So? How many reporters were in Falluja on the day of the bombing runs? virtually none. What are the chances that they counted all the bodies? Again, virtually none. The 100,000 account I am talking about is from a scientific statistical study that was done by a group that the US repeatedly quotes at the UN for body counts in places like Dufur. They studied about 1000 homes (which is considered adaquate in statistics) and determined that between 8,000 and 200,000 had been killed. The number they say is somewhere very close to the middle. The 20,000 figure is an absolute minimum based on media accounts (and we all know how realiable they are...). The 100,000 number is far closer to the truth. But just so youll stop bitching I'll go for 75,000 how does that sound?