Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are Our Leaders Really Incompetent … Or Just Pretending?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Completely agree with you here.. Even gave you a star..
edit on 23-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
reply to post by -PLB-
 

Either you are intentionally trying to be misleading, or you will benefit from continued exploration of creative thinking and creative strategy.

Operation Northwoods


How am I misleading? Apart from your incorrect logic, I get the impression you are not reading my post.

Lets first address your erroneous logic.It is the same kind of error you made in the other thread. There your logic was: the government lied before, therefore they could be lying now. In that thread I explained to you that even if they never lied, they still could be lying now.

This operation northwood thing is the same kind of error. Even if this whole operation northwood never existed, there could still be government sanctioned terrorist attacks or false flag operations. The existence of this 50 year old project has no bearing whatsoever on the actions of our government nowadays

Secondly, the post you are replying to I agree that the government can be behind terrorist attacks. Of course they can. Whether there is an operation northwood or not. What I am saying is that the conspiracy theories on you read on this site are impossible to pull off, by anyone.

You then come with the reply that the hijackers also pulled it off. Then I answered that yes, they gave their lives doing so, so if the people in power did those terrorist attacks instead, they must have given their lives also. If they did not gave their liver during the attack, we again enter the realm of impossible conspiracy theories.

You see, that is the major difference. The hijackers didn't hide any evidence, they didn't have to bribe all those people, they didn't require any super secret technology etc. If you are going to believe that the people in power were behind it, you either have to believe that they did do all those things, making the conspiracy an impossibility, or you have to believe the people in power hijacked the planes themselves, and thus they died, just like the hijackers.

Unless of course you can come up with a theory that does not require all those impossible actions. But still then, you need to have the evidence to support that theory. And that evidence as we know does not exist.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

If you aren't aware and attentive enough to keep the people you are replying to straight, I don't think that leaves you in a great position regarding your own reasoning and the task you are performing.

I responded directly to your assertion that the planners would have had to die... and provided the people in this thread an example (aka evidence) proposed where the people who planned it and pulled it off would have clearly not died while at the same time making it look like people from another country did it. This example (evidence) being just one that is public... much less any others that aren't in the public record yet.

My vote is currently leaning towards intentionally misleading. Best to you.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





You then come with the reply that the hijackers also pulled it off. Then I answered that yes, they gave their lives doing so, so if the people in power did those terrorist attacks instead, they must have given their lives also. If they did not gave their liver during the attack, we again enter the realm of impossible conspiracy theories.



Hahaha

The troops took us to war in Iraq not Bush because he didn't die in Operation Enduring Freedom.
edit on 23-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
My reply is not intended to reflect really any opinion about terrorism or 911.....
but the title of your thread.
Yes, IMO, they are beauty queens pretending to be incompetent, while fully knowing the fruition of actions in the environment, they have helped to create. But my belief is we are all manipulated to be complicit in said environment, so that we can be held responsible for the creation of it, and punished for it.

Have you seen the Geico ad where the chameleon is addressing congress, with no one there in the seats of the hall?

A message to all who do not realize, yes, the reality of what IS in this world is really on televison and a product of advertising, as this world is all about buying and selling....hmmm...where is your mark, for you are not allowed to survive without it, and this is about slavery, and nothing less.

The Gecho talks to an empty political arena about cake and parties......
heads up.....



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
reply to post by -PLB-
 

If you aren't aware and attentive enough to keep the people you are replying to straight, I don't think that leaves you in a great position regarding your own reasoning and the task you are performing.

I responded directly to your assertion that the planners would have had to die... and provided the people in this thread an example (aka evidence) proposed where the people who planned it and pulled it off would have clearly not died while at the same time making it look like people from another country did it. This example (evidence) being just one that is public... much less any others that aren't in the public record yet.

My vote is currently leaning towards intentionally misleading. Best to you.


I already explained to you why operation northwood is not evidence for the thing you want it to be evidence for. I explained that if operation northwood never existed, it would just be as possible that people in power pull off terrorist attacks and not die in the process. They would not need a 50 year old project in order to come to that idea. They can come with such an idea completely independently.

I can understand why I may appear misleading to you, as you don't seem to understand what I post. I can't really help that though.
edit on 23-10-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Hahaha

The troops took us to war in Iraq not Bush because he didn't die in Operation Enduring Freedom.
edit on 23-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



Hahaha

No idea what you are trying to say.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Star and Flag to you for a different and interesting way to discuss the 9/11 conspiracy.

Simple incompetence from these Jackals? I wish.
Law of averages should allow for some of these "incompetencies", at least 50% to work in the publics favor and promote the cause of freedom. From my perspective this is never the case.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

Haha...

Keep up the "good" work.
edit on 23-10-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: Good luck!



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion
 


You're welcome



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





No idea what you are trying to say.


If our leaders didn't sacrifice themselves and the troops did doesn't it mean that the troops started the war and not the government?

I'm surprised you didn't get it because all I did is apply logic from your planet.
edit on 23-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914
reply to post by maxella1
 


Star and Flag to you for a different and interesting way to discuss the 9/11 conspiracy.

Simple incompetence from these Jackals? I wish.
Law of averages should allow for some of these "incompetencies", at least 50% to work in the publics favor and promote the cause of freedom. From my perspective this is never the case.


9/11 discussions are always interesting to me, I'm glad you like it.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


As of 23 Oct 2012, the United States Navy has 287 ships in commission. I have no clue where you came up with 1,500 ships. The People's Liberation Navy, has 962, of which 138 are considered major combat vessels. Your subsequent information is just as bad.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I think you'll find that is how many are active, not how many they have.

They have many more that are not in deployment, but can be if needed. Have you never heard of the reserve fleet?

But regardless look at what ships the US has compared to others. Carriers are far more expensive to build and run than the smaller ships of other navies. 1000 PT boats does not compare to even 12 carriers.


The USA's military spending accounted for 41 per cent of the world total in 2011, followed by China with 8.2 per cent, Russia with 4.1% and the UK and France with 3.6 per cent each.

www.sipri.org...

Even though the US has decreased spending, and others increased, it still spends more than they do.


The US remains by far the biggest military spender, with a defence budget of $711bn last year...


www.guardian.co.uk...






The United States spent $728 billion on its military in 2010, about 45% of the world’s $1.6 trillion total (blue portion). U.S. spending amounts to more than the next fourteen largest military spending countries combined (bar chart). In fact, the U.S. spends nearly 6 times more than the next largest military spender, China. In addition, most of the top-spending countries are American allies.

With or without the automatic cuts to defense from the Budget Control Act of 2011, the United States will remain the biggest player on the defense field.




You're just here to defend the government aren't you?



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 




Are Our Leaders Really Incompetent … Or Just Pretending?

Niether...Just the incompetent people that vote them in office.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastProphet527

Niether...Just the incompetent people that vote them in office.


You can't blame the people when the government chooses who they get to vote for.

Whoever you vote for government wins. The people are not incompetent, just misinformed and manipulated.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by -PLB-
 





No idea what you are trying to say.


If our leaders didn't sacrifice themselves and the troops did doesn't it mean that the troops started the war and not the government?

I'm surprised you didn't get it because all I did is apply logic from your planet.
edit on 23-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


Ah I see. I didn't understand because your logic is severly flawed. You seem to ignore the fact that the terrorist attacks on 911 were a suicide mission. That means that the persons doing the attack die. The invasion of Irak was not, besides the fact its not even remotely comparable to those attacks.

If you do not think it was a suicide attack, you must invent all kind of impossible conspiracy theories, involving all the things I wrote in a previous post, of which you have no evidence at all.

So you have the option between suicide of the hijackers, or impossible conspiracy with no evidence.
edit on 24-10-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




They have many more that are not in deployment, but can be if needed. Have you never heard of the reserve fleet?


The reserve fleet is not what you think it is.



The program consists primarily of dry cargo ships with some tankers and military auxiliaries. As of June 30, 2012, there were 142 vessels in the NDRF.

Source



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Are Our Leaders Really Incompetent … Or Just Pretending

From the state the world is in I'd say that they are really incompetent .. or corrupt .. or both. Considering that the leadership comes from a pool of 'the common people', could you say that the people are also incompetent or corrupt or maybe just 'asleep'?? Supposedly the leaders represent the best of us ... that's kind of a spooky thought.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
To the origional topic:

They are not incompetent they are at their best when reacting to past events.
They are horrible at predicting the future and preparing for it. Just like the rest of us.
We have example after example where they couldn't put all the pieces together to prevent a worst case from happening.

USS Cole
Katrina
Kansas City

I'm sure you can add many more to the list.
Plus we are guilt of the same traits. Example: Flood insurance.
What was that line in the song?? What ever will be, will be. That is the common attitude.
None of us want to believe something bad can happen therefore we don't plan for each and every possible senerio.

All the bad guys have to do is think of something they have not thought of or don't look for. Think about it for a minute.
Can you think of a way to bring down another passenger plane that they have not prepared for??
How about a Stinger missile comming across the US/Mexican border? If thousands of peasants per year can sneek across with a backpack of clothes how about a well thought out plan from cave dwellers?

Or is that the next conspiracy section on ATS?









 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join