It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can a 4 star General Talk Like a Truther? Try to Debunk Brigadier General Wesley Clark! Ummmm WOW!

page: 3
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NadaCambia
 

True,,,,saying that the investigation was not complete is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. More of a truth seeker than a truther per se.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 

i blame the FBI not him as I am sure that Clinton pushed for it. He could have claimed posse comitatus but then he would also be disobeying his Commander In Chief. Tough call unless he knew what the outcome would be a priori.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


people call me a truther and I dont believe in all that crazy hologram missile stuff...just saying



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by strawberry91
 


It's nothing to do with believing in holograms. But if you think there was an "inside job", or that the towers were CD'd, or that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, then you're a Truther. There's no evidence that Wesley Clark believes any of those things. In fact it's my suspicion that he'd be pretty alarmed to be associated with them.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
So where is that part about hologram planes, magic super nano-thermites that somehow explode (but not really), demolition charges, shoot downs, no planes, some planes, fake planes, missiles, pads, planted eyewitnesses, video fakery, etc etc etc??

Nope didnt see him mention any of that.

Oh, he is talking about who may have dropped the ball regarding intel reports on AQ, the bureaucracy and red tape that assures nothing gets done on time. Oh and the interagency rivalry that is evident. Yeah, ok, that makes sense. Huh, doesnt sound like any of the truthers I've seen.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
This General is not asking for anything that I haven't been asking for.

He doesn't say the WTC were blown up, that's right. He didn't say they came down from planes either, people. He said we need a real investigation. And he's one of millions of Americans with this sentiment by the scientific Zogby polls and etc.


If you're one of the people here arguing daily with others who think there does need to be another investigation, this guy disagrees with you big time. You are not gaining anything by pointing out that he's not talking about controlled demolitions or any other specific conspiracy theory. That's beside the point he's making, which is that you still haven't had a real investigation into what actually happened, so you are all arguing from ignorance.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


He wants an investigation into the intel failures and the manner in which 9/11 was used as an excuse to attack Iraq. That's not the same as the investigation you and your ilk are asking for, into explosives and missiles and so on.

So no, he doesn't want the same thing as you.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
He wants an investigation into the intel failures and the manner in which 9/11 was used as an excuse to attack Iraq. That's not the same as the investigation you and your ilk are asking for, into explosives and missiles and so on.


He doesn't exclude investigation those things either, so troll on.

He doesn't want the same things as you.



Another video where he elaborates on how failing to act on intelligence of 9/11 in the first place is suspicious in so many ways:




Gets good around 1:25. He's not speculating, he's stating as fact that Washington had plenty of warning but chose not to act on any of those warnings, and that's why he feels 9/11 was never properly investigated, and that's his reasoning for re-opening investigations.
edit on 20-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
He wants an investigation into the intel failures and the manner in which 9/11 was used as an excuse to attack Iraq. That's not the same as the investigation you and your ilk are asking for, into explosives and missiles and so on.


He doesn't exclude investigation those things either, so troll on.

He doesn't want the same things as you.


So we can assume the stuff he mentions is what he wants, and that he also wants some other stuff that he doesn't mention? You're just making a basic assumption because he doesn't actively rule something out? Interesting. Perhaps he also wants an investigation into Patrick Swayze's involvement with 9/11. He doesn't exclude that either.

And actually, he does want the same things as me. Or rather, if I were American I'd want the same things as him. Not being from the US I don't care massively whether you have an investigation or not, but I can see why he wants one.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So we can assume the stuff he mentions is what he wants, and that he also wants some other stuff that he doesn't mention?


No, what he said he wanted is what I want too. He isn't speculating because he's probably dealt with tons of trolls such as yourself in both the political and military arena so he's just not opening your favorite can of worms. The implications are just the same and you only need so many reasons to re-open investigation in the first place. One of the most retarded mentalities I see "debunkers" propagate is that we have to prove everything first before any investigation is started. As far as the General is concerned, something as "small" as failing to act on a multitude of warnings is suspicious enough to warrant re-investigation on its own.



And actually, he does want the same things as me. Or rather, if I were American I'd want the same things as him. Not being from the US I don't care massively whether you have an investigation or not, but I can see why he wants one.


And until we get another investigation, that even you now admit you'd want, you're thrilled to talk trash to strangers online everyday pretending that you already know everything that a real investigation would reveal. Just goes to show that bottom-feeders don't know borders.
edit on 20-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
He's not speculating, he's stating as fact that Washington had plenty of warning but chose not to act on any of those warnings,


No, he doesn't say that. He claims that the information was known about and not acted upon. He makes no mention of the word "choice". This is a spin you've put on it in order to make it sound more suspicious.



and that's why he feels 9/11 was never properly investigated, and that's his reasoning for re-opening investigations.
edit on 20-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


And yet still no mention of CD, no plane at the Pentagon and so on. So you have a guy who is asking for an investigation based on intel failures - which I agree with - and you says he agrees with you because actually, although he doesn't mention it, he's concerned about the same offbeat things you are.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

No, what he said he wanted is what I want too. He isn't speculating because he's probably dealt with tons of trolls such as yourself in both the political and military arena so he's just not opening your favorite can of worms.


I think you should step away from the internet for a bit. "Trolls in the political and military arena". Lol. Just another similarity between you and Gen Clark, I guess, having to deal with all these "trolls".


And let me get this straight. He's not mentioning your concerns - even though of course he shares them - because he's worried about what people like me might say?

How very convenient! Perhaps everyone actually agrees with you but just won't say it.


The implications are just the same and you only need so many reasons to re-open investigation in the first place.


You can't be this naive. Do you really think that "an investigation into 9/11" is something you buy off the peg? That it will automatically include everything that anybody wants it to? Clark makes no mention of investigating all the Truther stuff that's close to your heart, so how can you assume he wants it included?

I guess he'll want space checked as well to find that beam weapon, and a thorough investigation of CGI companies, and the UFO sightings as well. After all, some people want that to be part of the new investigation, and you can't surely prioritise your concerns over theirs?




And until we get another investigation, that even you now admit you'd want, you're thrilled to talk trash to strangers online everyday pretending that you already know everything that a real investigation would reveal. Just goes to show that bottom-feeders don't know borders.
edit on 20-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


You just love a strawman, don't you? You imply that you know I was against a reinvestigation - of the kind that Gen Clark obviously envisages - which is nonsense. I know there's holes in what we were told about the intel failures and you'd have to be braindead to think that the administration weren't opportunist in linking Iraq to 9/11, albeit abstrusely. And this is what Clark, a politician inimical to Bush, is getting at.

Perhaps that's your problem. You pretend to know what I think, and you pretend to know what Clark thinks, even though he doesn't say it. I guess it's comforting or something.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I don't know, to me he seems as evasive to answer questions as any other officials...



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


That is what you guys constantly prattle on about...

When i think about it even those theories are as likely to happen as any one of the scenarios you believe in.

I am not worried, soon enough your style of thinking will be tossed from this earth,,, not a threat , but a realization



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by primus2012
4 Star General is not a Brigadier General, it's simply "General".

* = Brigadier General
** = Major General
*** = Lieutenant General
**** = General (Once was the highest possible rank and had title of General of the Army)
***** = General of the Army (Very rare rank)

I know it's just semantics...just sayin.
Actually, you are almost right. The title "General of The Armies" was only given to 2 officers. George Washington(posthumously) and "Blackjack" Pershing. Pershing actually designed the insignia as 4 gold stars instead of silver. 5 star generals(Generals of the Army) and 5 star Admirals(Fleet Admirals) had 5 silver stars in a pentagonal shape. This rank was enacted under FDR in order to provide parity with European Marshals and Grand Admirals. Both ranks were a lifetime appointment.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jesiaha
 


Yep, he seems very eager to distance himself from the ideas of the Truth Movement.

Still, I guess he didn't specifically say in that video that he doesn't think the towers were CD'd, so he probably does think it.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 

Re 5 Star General (of the Army): Dwight D. Eisenhower was a ***** also. And a 5 star rank can only be held in wartime.
PS Your list of Generals would look better in reverse order (ie High to Low from the top down).



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 

Re 5 Star General (of the Army): Dwight D. Eisenhower was a ***** also. And a 5 star rank can only be held in wartime.
PS Your list of Generals would look better in reverse order (ie High to Low from the top down).
I did not list the 5 stars, I only listed the two highest ranking officers; Pershing and Washington. 5 star generals are technically subordinate to the "Generals of the Army", signified by 4 gold stars. Only Pershing and Washington ever held that rank.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Ron Paul for President, Wesley Clark for Defense Secretary.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11
He's not speculating, he's stating as fact that Washington had plenty of warning but chose not to act on any of those warnings,


No, he doesn't say that.


Then you didn't watch the video. 1:25 "trick."


He claims that the information was known about and not acted upon.


Information... that was warning of an impending attack by "al Qaeda."

I'm not going to get into a semantic pissing contest with the likes of you. You're obviously taking the route of total pettiness on this thread.


If you agree that there should be a new investigation, then you agree with me. Period. Otherwise you are very confused, and you are, very, very confused.



new topics




 
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join