To the "OS'ers" and "Truthers", I Think we can all Agree..

Wether you believe that the Al Qaeda/ Taliban were responsible for the tragic events that took place on 9/11, 2001, or you believe that the official story is wrong (demolition, foreknowledge of attacks, ...holograms) I think we can all agree on the following:

After 9/11, we launched several wars that have spent more money then one could even imagine. These same wars have also killed more civillians than the terrorist groups could have even hoped to slaughter.

9/11 Justified the Patriot Act, which has severely limited our rights, and given more power to a select few in a time of martial law.


In my opinion, the terrorists are winning.

Wether you believe this was caused by Osama Bin Laden, or the Illuminati, either side has won this battle because; we have lost rights, we have spent so much money, and at least a million civillians have been killed in the name of "national security".

I am simply stating my opinion, and would love to hear yours.

reply to post by theshepherd2

In my opinion, the terrorists are winning.

I agree 100%. I think the disagreement will come from the people who will argue that those wars are justified. But none the less, if the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms" they are winning as they are being restricted. If the terrorists wanted to remove a large chunk of the worlds population at home and abroad, they are winning hands down. If the terrorists wanted to destroy the western "capitalist" system, they appear to be winning. If the terrorists wanted to destroy America, they appear to be winning.

Terrorist, in the true sense of the world and in the context of my post up there, can refer to the OS or Conspiracy perpetrators.

reply to post by theshepherd2


well after 10 years in Afghanistan I bet a lot of people are thinking " was there a smarter way we could have done this?" But dont forget Iraq has used up a lot of money and that war was optional.

What's the alternative to invading Afghanistan?

1. concentrate on securing our own borders
2. play the long game against AQ like infiltration/intelligence to track down OBL & friends and take them out special ops style , question is would we have gained the intelligence to track him down without invading afghanistan?
3. If we didn't invade Afghanistan the Taliban would still run it and potentially provide a safe haven for Islamic terrorists.

If you haven't watched it i recommend the BBC documentary " The power of nightmares" it basically lays down a case for governments over exaggerating the threat posed by AQ and actually helping build them up through fear mongering. You can find it on youtube .

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by theshepherd2

 

well after 10 years in Afghanistan I bet a lot of people are thinking " was there a smarter way we could have done this?" But dont forget Iraq has used up a lot of money and that war was optional.

What's the alternative to invading Afghanistan?

1. concentrate on securing our own borders
2. play the long game against AQ like infiltration/intelligence gathering to track down OBL & friends and take them out special ops style , question is would we have gained the intelligence to track him down without invading afghanistan?
3. If we didn't invade Afghanistan the Taliban would still run it and potentially provide a safe haven for Islamic terrorists.

If you haven't watched it i recommend the BBC documentary " The power of nightmares" it basically lays down a case for governments over exaggerating the threat posed by AQ and actually helping build them up through fear mongering. You can find it on youtube.

edit on 16-9-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

Good points and I haven't even heard of that documentary before but am now very interested in it. I will watch it when I can get a better computer

I agree, if they didn't do it themselves, then it must have been like gift from heaven for them.
And a lot of rich, powerful people got a lot richer and more powerful of the back of 9/11.

I don't believe the controlled demo theory, but I'm open to the idea that the C.I.A., or a rogue part of the C.I.A. may have had a hand in it somewhere along the way.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by theshepherd2

 

well after 10 years in Afghanistan I bet a lot of people are thinking " was there a smarter way we could have done this?" But dont forget Iraq has used up a lot of money and that war was optional.

What's the alternative to invading Afghanistan?

Here's what was "winning"

The Use of small unit Spec Ops in Afghanistan in support of the Afghan Northern Alliance who were fighting the Taliban all the while before 9/11. Then after the Taliban were toppled [which they were] We should have helped the Afghans rebuild their country while continuing THEIR struggle for THEIR country without sending in massive amounts of conventional ground troops leading to the situation we are in now

Iraq was a cluster F#$%

Originally posted by theshepherd2
...

9/11 Justified the Patriot Act, which has severely limited our rights, and given more power to a select few in a time of martial law.

I think the Patriot Act should be revoked, but I think it would be hard to argue that it has severely limited my rights. It's a bad law, sure, but it has not crippled my ability to lead the life I want to live in the manner I want to live it.

Martial Law is already an extreme/worst case scenario. If the goal of TPTB is to control us Martial Law is probably one of the worst possible routes they could take. Changes to the Martial Law protocol have almost zero effect on our lives.

I believe it was stated somewhere that the goal of the attack was to "Bleed the Dragon," in which case they were successful in their efforts in just about every measure of the term. So with that point, I tend to agree with you.

I am thick as a brick, I know what a truther is but what is an OS'er !? Please clarify that for me, thank you.

Originally posted by Heartisblack
I am thick as a brick, I know what a truther is but what is an OS'er !? Please clarify that for me, thank you.

Official Story

I feel the west will never win the war on terror because the more civilians it kills, the more terrorists it creates. This is due to the families of the dead wanting to take revenge on what they would call the terrorists.

Originally posted by TimeSpiral

Originally posted by Heartisblack
I am thick as a brick, I know what a truther is but what is an OS'er !? Please clarify that for me, thank you.

Official Story

Thank you, I bloody love you now. I am a truther because something just doesn't add up.

reply to post by SLAYER69


The thing is could Bush & co sell this strategy to the american people after 9/11 happened?

in some ways i think they would have been committing political suicide if after those attacks they basically said " yeah we're on it".

It would have taken someone a lot smarter & braver than bush to opt for the long game strategy. The pressure to do soemthing after 9/11 was almost impossible to ignore.

But I agree i think we should have played the long game , supported northern alliance, infiltrated AQ . It seems a much better option than what's happened - the lives we've lost by invading & the monetary cost too.

reply to post by theshepherd2

I wish it were possible for us all to agree on something...anything.

I am disappointed that so many OS believers are so quick to minimize the LIHOP conspiracy. It is proven fact that there was foreknowledge of the attacks and that our government chose to blatantly ignore those warnings. The PNAC document which seemed to wish or call for a "new Pearl Harbor" to galvanize our population to war. The rush to attack Iraq, this would have been like the US attacking China after the real Pearl Harbor! The war profiteering and resource grabs are clear motive for 9/11 yet some still cling to the "holy war" and "hate our freedoms" justifications which seem pathetic excuses for the greed of a select few. 9/11 was a great success for those few.

Originally posted by Heartisblack
I am a truther because something just doesn't add up.

Just doesn't add up & It didn't make sense


A far as the this thread goes. Dealing with ones enemies on a term they understand is not a failure. They are winning if you let them win.

Al Qaeda is like a mad dog that slipped it's chain and mauled some people.
It doesn't matter why or how it did, it was still our dog.
When they first started talking about invading Afghanistan I remember thinking that Russia couldn't conquer them and they were right next door. It would've been ever harder for us to succeed and it's proven to be true. Afghanistan remains unconquerable.
Iraq was even worse because removing Saddam upset the balance of power between Iran and Iraq. Now we feel as if it's our responsibility to maintain that balance.
Entering in to un-winable wars and creating a power vacuum was the height of arrogance and stupidity.
If I knew better than the Pentagon what the outcomes of these would be then they were obviously unqualified to be leading our Nation's military.
You're right of course, the terrorists did win either way you look at it.
Still no-one will be held to account for the failures of 9/11 or of the response to it.
What does that tell us?

reply to post by theshepherd2


My opinion is,
that by using words/phrases like "OSers" and "Truthers" we are ALL being labeled,catagorized, and forced into a box. It does NOTHING for either mindset and only serves to divide even further.

I don't think that 911 had such a big impact on the US foreign policy, there would have been similar wars if 911 didn't happen. Of course 911 was exploited to sell it to the public, but as we saw with Iraq its not that hard to find other reasons. I think the patriot act is an actual overreaction to 911, and was not something that was already in the pipeline.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Al Qaeda is like a mad dog that slipped it's chain and mauled some people.
It doesn't matter why or how it did, it was still our dog.
When they first started talking about invading Afghanistan I remember thinking that Russia couldn't conquer them and they were right next door. It would've been ever harder for us to succeed and it's proven to be true. Afghanistan remains unconquerable.
Iraq was even worse because removing Saddam upset the balance of power between Iran and Iraq. Now we feel as if it's our responsibility to maintain that balance.
Entering in to un-winable wars and creating a power vacuum was the height of arrogance and stupidity.
If I knew better than the Pentagon what the outcomes of these would be then they were obviously unqualified to be leading our Nation's military.
You're right of course, the terrorists did win either way you look at it.
Still no-one will be held to account for the failures of 9/11 or of the response to it.
What does that tell us?

Do you have a link to a recording of this?

forums.randi.org...

Bill:

If you caught our radio show Saturday Night (online and in two AM broadcast markets), we ran a special 9/11 show. We spent an entire hour eviscerating the "bombs in the building"/"controlled demolition" theories with a structural engineer and two other experts.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


Do you have a link to a recording of this?

forums.randi.org...

Bill:

If you caught our radio show Saturday Night (online and in two AM broadcast markets), we ran a special 9/11 show. We spent an entire hour eviscerating the "bombs in the building"/"controlled demolition" theories with a structural engineer and two other experts.

Your link brings me to a registry page.
I'm sorry I don't follow the connection between my comments and what you've linked.
Can you elaborate? Should I listen to an archived show?
Thanks.

The war profiteering and resource grabs are clear motive for 9/11 yet some still cling to the "holy war" and "hate our freedoms" justifications which seem pathetic excuses for the greed of a select few.

Oh, "they" hate our freedoms alright. It is just a matter of identifying who "they" are. Hint: Patriot Act.