9.11 = burning reichstag, not pearl harbor

9/11 has been compared to pearl harbor. i would closer compare it to the burning of the reichstag. the CIA knew. Bush knew, or he's a moron. 9/11 pulled the wool over america's eyes and gave the government the excuse to invade afghanistan, a tiny pathetic country we have no interest in except for 90% of the world's poppies/heroin, key to funding terrorists and militants.

but we have not stopped the heroin. it would be prudent to stop it in afghanistan instead of Los Angeles or London.

i bet we told osama to hide out in afghanistan and told the taliban [that we once trained and paid] to refuse giving him to us until we invaded. all the important people got away. we got afghanistan and installed our puppet government over the poppies and rubble.

So our americanized terrorists get money from drug crops we protect. we inflate drug prices with our 'war on drugs' and then sell weapons to the terrorists or insurgents or whichever group of militants we favor. our CIA also trains them.

kosovo is a place where a lot of the world's heroin is processed and distributed. we helped our fundamentalist islamic militant terrorist organization known as the KLA overthrow milosevic, who we claimed was performing genocide. the truth shows that the KLA performed genocides and made mass graves and milosevic was defending his nation from invaders. invaders we supported.

we now have controlling agents in kosovo and afghanistan, tools in the black market drug trade, tools of terrorists whom we claim to be fighting, but whom we also seem to fund and sell weapons to and have a long history of doing so.

[Pooeypants]

Interesting take on the events. What do you propose we should do about it?

[Magpie]

It should be a pretty known fact that the KLA has its roots in the 'legendary' Skanderberg 21st Waffen-SS division, a mercenary band.
The KLA has not just been trained by the US, most instructors were German and British. That provides enough stuff now for conspiracy theories.

[tivodan1116]

Besides the fact that these are utterly baseless propositions, I don't really see a motivation for this. Everyone who holds elected office at the federal level in the United States, by nature of our electoral process and the cost of campaign financing, is already independantly wealthy. If someone wanted to gain more wealth and power, there are much easier and less dirty ways of doing it then the massive conspiracy you pose.

the CIA knew. Bush knew, or he's a moron.

Are you then calling yourself a moron, because you didn't know? Surely if anyone in the United States had known, they are guilty of murder, at least according to NYS law, which is where the bulk of the deaths occured. In NYS if you are complicit in a murder and do nothing to prevent it, you are also guilty of murder. The assumption that Bush "knew" about the attack is ridiculous. Considering the thousands of deaths that occurred, considering the money and financial security that was lost, even considering the hit that Bush's popularity has taken in the face of the ever-increasing realization that the "War on Terror" is probably unwinnable, why would he do this?

Again, I suggest that you made flip comments with no supporting basis of fact, and until you support your initial suppositions with facts, the rest of your argument is invalid.

[Nono]

Originally posted by tivodan1116 Why would he do this?

I'm skeptical about conspiracy theories (especially ones that serve to let off the hook such obvious villains as Milosevic) but there's a possible answer to this question that demands to be taken seriously: The Bushistas needed a cataclysmic event to use as a pretext for implementing their programme on a grand, ball-booting scale. In this respect, the Reichstag analogy has some validity.

If there weren't such a lot of fishy circumstances surrounding 911 I'd be tempted to consider cock-up far more likely than conspiracy. The question, as always with crime, is "Who benefited from it?"

Boy George lost the 2000 election by half a million votes. The circumstances of his twisted route to the White House are scarcely believable, even four years later, yet they're true. Why do you find monstrosity on the scale of complicity in 911 so hard to believe?

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Bob_Dobbs, 9.11 = burning reichstag, not pearl harbor

I read your post.
Have you ever considered to become a novelist ?
You would make a career on such books.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Rainbow,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rainbow,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Bob_Dobbs, 9.11 = burning reichstag, not pearl harbor

I read your post.
Have you ever considered to become a novelist ?
You would make a career on such books.[/b][/quote]

What was your point? If you HAD a point, you should make it, as a post which is just a cute little put down and nothing else is to be avoided, and you know that.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Scribbler1,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scribbler1,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> What was your point?  If you HAD a point, you should make it, as a post which is just a cute little put down and nothing else is to be avoided, and you know that.[/b]

What is to "comment" in this few lines ?

Originally posted by Bob_Dobbs@ 9/11 has been compared to pearl harbor. i would closer compare it to the burning of the reichstag. the CIA knew. Bush knew, or he's a moron. 9/11 pulled the wool over america's eyes and gave the government the excuse to invade afghanistan, a tiny pathetic country we have no interest in except for 90% of the world's poppies/heroin, key to funding terrorists and militants.

He (Bob_Dobbs) suggests that CIA and Bush new that attacks were going to be carried out to destroy WTC and did nothing, because the main objective was :
- get some drugs, guys, and pump them into Americans' brains

Here,there are few more.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bob_Dobbs

i bet we told osama to hide out in afghanistan and told the taliban [that we once trained and paid] to refuse giving him to us until we invaded. all the important people got away. we got afghanistan and installed our puppet government over the poppies and rubble.[/quote]
Since when Osama was on CIA payroll ?
Since when Osama was CIA agent, at all ?

What puppet government, in Afghanistan ?
Is there anybody on "Volcanvo" forum, that have some datails on Karzai ?

What U.S. should do, then ?
Let Thalibans rule in Afghanistan, and Osama stay there in their shelter to make some additional "missions" and bomb U.S. again ?

Either he (Bob_Dobbs) is under influence of "something", or is about to start his new career as a writer, and "exculsively" present his first pages to the public.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Rainbow, What is to "comment" in this few lines ? He (Bob_Dobbs) suggests that CIA and Bush new that attacks were going to be carried out to destroy WTC and did nothing, because the main objective was : - get some drugs, guys, and pump them into Americans' brains

Reread his post. He suggested no such thing and you "responded" with nothing more than a cute putdown.
(quote)"I read your post.
Have you ever considered to become a novelist ?
You would make a career on such books(unquote)

The bottom line is you should post with something debateable, or at least an analysis of the post you're quoting.

What puppet government, in Afghanistan ? Is there anybody on "Volcanvo" forum, that have some datails on Karzai ? What U.S. should do, then ? Let Thalibans rule in Afghanistan, and Osama stay there in their shelter to make some additional "missions" and bomb U.S. again ?

THAT'S what I mean! Perfectly legitimate questions. You didn't read Bob Dobbs' post the way I did, but that part of your post is fine. A post with nothing in it but a snide quip or an insult is verboten according to the Volconvo etiquette, that's all.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, Reread his post. The bottom line is you should post with something debateable, or at least an analysis of the post you're quoting. THAT'S what I mean!  Perfectly legitimate questions.  You didn't read Bob Dobbs' post the way I did, but that part of your post is fine.  A post with nothing in it but a snide quip or an insult is verboten according to the Volconvo etiquette, that's all.

#1
I did it, again.
I can not find any other options. All the outcomes lead to drugs' control and distribution all over the world.
Then, it is highly unlikely that for Bush and CIA a drug trafficking is a priority, while a state's security is on a stake (not too mention other more vital issues to a state's existance, at least).
#2
That is exactly what I mean in #1.
#3
There is nothing of any "quip" in my post addressed to Bob_Dobbs, or has ever been taking under any consideration.
All I wanted to point out was that these (Bob_Dobbs') views have no bases. We can guess or come up to such ones as the result of our own "developement".

I can polemize on Karzai, Osama's alleged work for CIA, ect.
We can debate many other issues, but some people seem not to have a fundamental knowledge in history, at least.

P.S.
Thanx for words of explanations on "Volcanvo"s general precedures, though.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Rainbow, #1 I did it, again. I can not find any other options. All the outcomes lead to drugs' control and distribution all over the world. Then, it is highly unlikely that for Bush and CIA a drug trafficking is a priority, while a state's security is on a stake (not too mention other more vital issues to a state's existance, at least).

I agree that it is not the government's priority to be involved with drug smuggling, and Bob Dobbs' post was a little unclear on that. I took it to mean WE support insurgencies by allowing drug smuggling, but not that we do it ourselves. It certainly wouldn't be for the money when all Bush has to do is spend more of what we've allowed him to in the first place. I don't agree with that, but if any group we LIKE is smuggling drugs we will surely look the other way. However, I can't accept that this government is trying to turn our population into a bunch of addicts.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, I can't accept that this government is trying to turn our population into a bunch of addicts.

I think that by "controlling" a drug smuggling, any government has access to some vital informations on those groups' activity, links, and above all the informations those people may have in fields a government is interested in.

That "underground world" has almost all the data on ANY people involved in ANY activity. That concerns terrorism, as well. That may be the reason a government seeks contacts with those groups.

Yet another part is the fact, that a government can destroy those groups. It would not be a "wise solution", because those groups will "re-group" and start new networks, but much tougher to track. That is why it is much "wiser" to allow them to continue their activity and "extract" the most vital informations from them, instead.

Having that in mind, it is not so easy to persuade into a common citizen's mind that it is the "most sufficient way" to gain some vital data from those groups. People mostly see it as a government's attempts to "mess with something" against its citizens. Additional aspect is a fact that we are all People (only), so among government personnel we may find some people who do not comply with its assigned job, but try to get some "extra profits" for their own. That is yet another matter.