9/11 Inside Job or Not POLL

[feverpitch]

Would you agree that a lot do though. Including some who study islam 24/7 eg madrassas' date=' taliban etc. They spend there whole time studying koran and have this interperation. Dont they know better then you? As their whole life is devoted to islam![/quote'] One Hindu who was a great social reformer, who STUDIED IN A MADRASSAH : RAJA RAMMOHUN ROY.

[feverpitch]

Voted for the 2nd option. There is no way an industrialised nation's govt will butcher 3000+ of it's own citizens and get away with it in broad daylight.

Are you arguing that industrialization is a nation's buffer against organized butchery of one's own citizens? I believe I can provide you with counterexamples that will fill a thread here.

[feverpitch]

I will ask you a question - "If 9/11 was even remotely linked to US and not Al-Qaeda, why has OBL claimed responsibility for it?"

Sorry to jump in, but who wouldn't lap up some free publicity?

[King Tendulkar]

sorry feverpitch put you have been clearly brainwashed. living in a fantasy world

[feverpitch]

1) Gain Sympathy and use the world as wild west It is the strongest freaking nation in the world.....and the only country it didn't have objection to invade was afghanistan, which has no oil and there is no monetary or other interest for the US there.

a. But it serves as a good base to control the supply of ME oil to India and China. Both had been building pipelines from Iran thru Afghanistan. b. Good for threatening Iran c. In the aftermath of 9/11, US public bayed for blood. Afghanistan was easy meat. d. Also good for keeping an eye on Russian and Central Asian oil.

2) Justification to build the tallest building in NYC ( doesnt make sense ) Ya,really!!??

If all you are interested in is creating a straw man in order to demolish it, why don't you try the following: justification for WTC: try new demolition techniques.:giggle:

3) Actually root out terrorism with world support which wasn't normally possible Are they even trying?I never saw them freezing Saudi funds....Never saw a bomb drop in karachi. Afghanistan was just 1 of the 3 main spot of islamic terrorism and it just had training grounds. The bodies and funds are supplied by Saud and Pak, both are only gaining from this.

He he. So what is this 'war on terror' really about, eh?

4) Where is the pentagon airplane ( why did cops want this gas station camera which was facing the pentagon ) 1 Unknown where thousands could easily be up if it was a conspiracy.

Pretty big 'unknown', isn't it?

5) Did the airlane CEO give them the plane? Air traffic controllers were robots? Exactly!

Have you ever been stopped by US customs? Did you notice the avg IQ of these guys? Trust me, most of the people working in the ATC are no better. OK, joking, but it's quite close to the truth. Anyway, why is it difficult to cook up/simulate something to hush up these guys. Mind you, in a way it's not even necessary. In a nation where the population eats out of the hand of their village idiot Prez, no one will pay any heed to someone who will be diagnosed as a trauma/stress victim case, even if he came up with the real story if any.

6) Osama is a brilliant aghan actor, and Al-Jazeera is actually a basement office at CNN headquarters I thought thats wht Pak believed anyway.

So when the Merkins were bombing the AlJaz office in Baghdad, that was friendly fire?

Oil is the only resources anyone would want from the middle east. Afghanistan, where the fight took place doesnt have it. Is it really worth kiliing 5000 of your citizens to inflict fear among the population? All for what? There is nothing for the US to gain from all this.

See above.

If they wanted to use it as a reason to invade Iraq, evcn Cheny would have had the common sense to use Iraqi terrorists and not saudi one or atleast they cd have manipulated the news to report them as iraqi terrorists........you know,since they manipulated everything else.

Not everything needs to be perfectly stage managed. In fact, the possibility of a goof up would arise there. But just letting the nut cases to go on and do it, and then use that as an excuse is a pretty intelligent POA. You get to kill many birds with one stone.

[feverpitch]

sorry feverpitch put you have been clearly brainwashed. living in a fantasy world

which one of my posts are you referring to? Or is it all? In any case, please elaborate, instead of making ad-hominem attacks.

[CC1981]

But just letting the nut cases to go on and do it, and then use that as an excuse is a pretty intelligent POA. You get to kill many birds with one stone.

And that is the low-down of it. It pains me to see so many gullible Indians around in this issue. Pains me because it was an Indian ( Chanakya) who first described this form of governance which subsequently influenced governance and public control even in places like Iran and China. Not to mention, this is the logical course of action as well because as you said, it is the path of least resistance/logistical problems. Hence my position is that from the discrepancy in the govt. story, the phenomena and the subsequent evolution of events in the global stage, it is quite simply a case of US govt. finding out about some islamic nutters and their plan and just letting it happen. They 'primed it up a bit'- such as put a few bombs in the WTC, throw in a missile at the pentagon and then reap the rewards- reviving their biggest industry (defence). Nothing more than making money for yourself and it is logistically sound too- America *knows* its economic share of the global pie will diminish with Russia, China & India rapidly rising and the nation is in a slow economic decline. So might as well focus on its biggest damn industry to try and bail it out : defence. It provides a bonus too - by directly contributing towards instability, the defense merchandise is also 'stalling the inevitable' further.

[Donny]

Feverpitch & CC, you are wasting space. This is a poll. The topic is here: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=4005

[feverpitch]

Do u want the history of deeds done under the banner of "jihad" right since the arrival of great man himself.. Let us drop this charade of semantics' date=' can we..[/quote'] On this I agree. Let's also drop the semantics about freedom, democracy, feminism, progress, emancipation, enlightenment and other such high ideals.

[veer]

And yes, their are many religions in which their are terrorist groups performing their act under the name of their own religion. Just like 'Shiv Sena', now does that mean Hindus are not good are terrorists?: NO! I hope you will understand at least now.

amazing how pakis put shiv sena and al -qaida in same category.. unbelievable brain washing.. and sadly even some Indians think shiv sena and bal thakray as extremist groups.. shiv sena doesnt even have their hold in mumbai or mahashtra .. how can they influence anything anywhere??/ during '92 danga, they are the ones who protected Mumbai's hindus.. i have seen muslims from terrace running with swords and knives into hindu domiinated building but shiv sainiks ran after them.. shiv sena has its faults but they are no way near extremist group..

[coffee_rules]

It's amazing that there are people who still believe that U.S had a hand in 9/11. Triumph of conspiracy theorists over people who just believe in facts. I am pretty sure the same people also believe holocaust is a myth too.

[feverpitch]

i have seen muslims from terrace running with swords and knives into hindu domiinated building but shiv sainiks ran after them.

What did the SS do after they caught up with the sword totting Muslims? BTW, I have seen Hindus with swords and pickaxes in their hands marching through Ayodhya and pulling down a historical relic. I have also seen Hindu thugs murder, rape and pillage innocent Sikhs after Indira Gandhi's assassination.

[veer]

BTW, I have seen Hindus with swords and pickaxes in their hands marching through Ayodhya and pulling down a historical relic. I have also seen Hindu thugs murder, rape and pillage innocent Sikhs after Indira Gandhi's assassination.

and your point is??

[Guest dada_rocks]

That's classic ROPers they will keep testing the break point of ur tolerance and as and when it reaches they will say ahhhha .. you too not just me.. Shiv sena is ROPers creation if anyone has doubt then they need to check the list of riots and its details in mumbai before shiv sena's advent.

[feverpitch]

and your point is??

Same as your point about mossie fundies running with open swords in Mumbai.

[Guest dada_rocks]

I didn´t understand. Could you please explain? And yes' date=' [b']which great man were you mentioning? Please tell me.

U got to be kidding me.. Oke I will leave u alone with this playing dumb game..

[veer]

That's classic ROPers they will keep testing the break point of ur tolerance and as and when it reaches they will say ahhhha .. you too not just me.. Shiv sena is ROPers creation if anyone has doubt then they need to check the list of riots and its details in mumbai before shiv sena's advent.

exactly.. if they have 30 terrorist group and if we have one extrimist group.. for them its all equal.. and they wont understand that those 30 groups gave birth to this one group.. and we Indians buy into their propaganda.. one thing i like about pakis are they are very good at propaganda and PR.. fortunately they are fallng right under their own trap in world politics..

[Donny]

To me all are my brothers' date=' be it a Hindi, Christian, Sikh or any other.[/quote'] Well said, Rawal. Brothers & sisters. :regular_smile:

[Donny]

Can a mod maybe split the relevant posts over to the 9/11 discussion topic ? I'm getting tired of trying to follow this in two threads.

[feverpitch]

It takes inane optimism to see victory in Afghanistan http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2143788,00.html This war against the Taliban is part of a post-imperial spasm. The longer it is waged, the graver the consequences Simon Jenkins Wednesday August 8, 2007 The Guardian The British government is lining up Paddy Ashdown to rule Afghanistan. This is not a silly season story or a Gilbert and Sullivan spoof, merely a measure of the lunacy now polluting British foreign policy. Ashdown has time on his hands and Gordon Brown wants to show himself as firm a liberal interventionist as Tony Blair. He, too, wants to make Afghanistan a peaceful and prosperous democracy and may as well start now. So Paddy's the man. To the British left, Afghanistan was always the "good" war and Iraq the "bad" one. It is permitted for ministers to assert that they were "privately opposed" to Iraq so long as Afghanistan is seen as a worthy cause. With Britain at its helm, Afghanistan would be all it was not under the Americans. It would make Britain look macho. It would revitalise the UN and Nato after perceived debacles in former Yugoslavia and it would fulfil Britain's historic role as nation-builder to the world. Iraq is post-imperialism for fast learners, Afghanistan for slow ones. While the concept of a benign outcome in Iraq is strictly for armchair crazies, such an outcome remains received wisdom in Afghanistan. The British ambassador, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, is building himself an embassy to compare with America's in Baghdad and has forecast a British military presence of 30 years. Brigadier John Lorimer in Helmand says he can suppress insurgency in 10 years but will need "longer than 30" to establish good governance. Such things were being said in Iraq until two years ago, when the body bags began to talk. Paddy Ashdown returned recently from Kabul consumed with imperial zeal. On these pages he admitted the current chaos, a city awash with thousands of troops and aid workers from some 36 countries, all supposedly involved in "security and reconstruction" and almost none able to leave the capital by land. A reputed 10,000 NGO staff have turned Kabul into Klondike during the goldrush, building office blocks, driving up rents, cruising about in armoured jeeps and spending stupefying sums of other people's money, essentially on themselves. They take orders only from some distant agency, but then the same goes for the American army, Nato, the UN, the EU and the supposedly sovereign Afghan government. In the provinces, the Americans are running a guerrilla army out of Bagram, trying to kill as many "Taliban" or "al-Qaida" as possible, while the British heroically re-enact the Zulu wars down in Helmand. Neither takes any notice of President Hamid Karzai, whose deals with warlords, druglords, Iranians and Taliban collaborators are probably the best hope of stabilising Afghanistan when the foreign occupation is over. But since that is claimed by Britain to be virtually never, the only certainty is a rising tempo of insurgency. Ashdown said he found "bewildering ... the international community's tendency to repeat whatever fails". He then illustrated his own point by repeating the normal inane conditional optimism. Success, he wrote, was still "probable" if we "increase resources and redress the disastrous failure of the international community to get its act together". All that has been said and tried for six years with conspicuous failure. Kabul is not Bosnia, where Ashdown as UN "high representative" could behave like the leader of the Liberal party and do what he liked with the backing of a few big donors. Afghanistan is supposed to be an autonomous state. The idea that Kabul's Tower of Babel will ever replicate Bosnia is absurd. Ashdown's bewilderment shows that he does not understand occupation. Over time, the occupying force falls apart and its components fight for their own vested interests. Consider three policies now being pursued in Kabul. The first concerns drugs. There are 15 separate organisations devoting their time (and £200m of British money) to eradicating Afghanistan's one indigenous source of income, opium. In that time, the opium harvest has broken every record, while trying to suppress it has alienated farmers and fuelled insurgency. Everyone in Kabul knows the policy is both stupid and counter-productive, but since grants and jobs are tied to it, the policy is entrenched and will not change. Then there is the bombing of Pashtun villages for sheltering the Taliban. Thousands of civilians have died as a result, inducing hostility to occupying forces and a desire for revenge that recruits thousands to the cause of killing western troops. But soldiers sent to fight the Taliban have been ill-equipped and outgunned and needed air support, while air forces have craved a "battlefield role". Again, the policy is known to be counterproductive yet continues because it delivers a cheaper "kill rate" and satisfies military interests. A third policy is the most overhyped in British military history, that of "winning hearts and minds". Not only is it meaningless without adequate security, which would require 50,000 rather than 5,000 troops in Helmand alone, it also involves tipping large sums of cash into nervous tribal villages, tearing apart power structures and creating feuds and dissension, the money usually ending up with warlords or the Taliban. All this is known in Kabul, but the money has been allotted and must be spent, however counterproductive the outcome. In each of these cases, the mismatch between what makes sense and what is implemented is total. Ashdown is right that the same mistakes are constantly made. But his belief that they can be overcome by a British "coordinator" with enough money and power is naive. He will get neither. Kabul is already a monument to how vested interests can negate the best of interventionist intentions. Toppling foreign regimes is a dangerous and unpredictable business. But when invasion becomes occupation, freelance nation builders become freelance empire builders, each with budgets and jobs to protect. Getting out of Basra is now a firm diktat of British defence planning. The only sensible question in Kabul is how long before the same diktat applies there. The longer it takes to blow away Ashdown's "bewilderment" the weaker the alliances engineered by Karzai over the past three years will become and the more certain his fall will be. The longer Whitehall thinks it can win a war against the Taliban, the more it risks tearing Pakistan apart and sucking Iran into the conflict, both of which would be completely daft. Yet that is where liberal intervention is now leading. It is a post-imperial spasm, a knee-jerk jingoism and plain dumb. simon.jenkins@guardian.co.uk