How convenient for you. Seems to be your modus operandi. Ignore what you can't address because it doesn't fit your agenda. Kind of like how you ignored all the evidence I presented you in order to focus on the last two items. Ah, the good ol' truther tactic of taking someone's opinion of an unconfirmed possibility and pretending it is an absolute fact that must be punished. So where is your evidence the investigation got it fundamentally wrong? We spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an investigation truthers want to throw away because they don't like the conclusions it came up with, yet have no evidence to prove the investigation was in any way flawed. Since when is it considered moral to blame people for what you think they did but have no evidence of and can't even numerate? Seems to me that is a decidedly IMMORAL act. Where is yours? Since when is it considered patriotic to blame people without evidence to back it up? Since when is opinion enough to convict someone in the court of public opinion considered patriotic? Maybe the word you're looking for is pathetic. Allowing them to get away with "it". You can't even (*)(*)(*)(*)ing DEFINE "it", yet you preach they are guilty. You can't even defend who you are talking about! Last time I looked it was a cornerstone of American justice that one is innocent until proven guilty, yet here you are deciding SOMEONE SOMEWHERE is guilty of SOMETHING and DEMANDING people act on your paranoid delusions. You have no evidence, but you are DEMANDING people ACT or they are un-American. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You want to talk about un-American? How about fighting tooth and nail to let 19 hijackers and their terrorist organization off the hook so you can push your anti-government / anti-American agenda. Can you explain how that is in any way patriotic?
I am not sure if this is directed at me or not, if it is....ok. Once again, if this is directed at me, I don't find it anymore "manly" to be a truther. Also, considering I am 6ish posts old I highly doubt you have ANY idea what my thoughts are on 9/11. I'll give you a hint, politics mean nothing to me at all. I signed up here because I saw some great posts related to the 9/11 topic. Government doesn't interest me in the slightest. Secondly, I will fully admit that the government was caught with their pants down on 9/11. It happens, and we paid the price. You are right, they didn't do their jobs, but that doesn't mean they actively sought to have this tragedy happen. That's the difference between you and I, is I can be mad that the government wasn't able to prevent 9/11, I just don't actively seek the opportunity to blame them that 9/11 happens. I can promise you that the American Government and country as a whole have caught others with their pants down as well. It sucks, and my heart still bleeds for those victims families. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't be tossing rocks. I don't NEED an investigation to be done, because I don't NEED to know what specific balls were dropped. I know that, frankly, (*)(*)(*)(*) happens. I don't believe everything in the NIST and 9/11 commission reports but I believe it holds most of the answers we are asking. I don't look at miniscule inconsistenies and throw away the entire report as if it's nothing. It's even more ironic a truther says that since their "evidence" gets picked apart all the time, yet they cling to it like it's gospel. Lastly, you have zero, none, no right to question my morality while you blatanly accuse other people of disgusting crimes with no evidence. You cannot hold yourself on a pedestal above others like you are changing the world when you are doing NOTHING but posting on a forum. Truthers are the defenders of the despicable. They protect and defend the terrorists, and Usama stating that OUR government planned and performed the attacks. Truthers state that, despite 99.98% of the profressional world states that they are wrong, explosives brought down the trade centers. Truther will hand wave any evidence by any professional body and in the same breath implicate THOSE people as being part of a cover up. Don't talk to me about morality unless you've taken a solid look in the mirror and take note of which one of us is actually selling their morality to the highest bidder.
THIS It's amazing members at Lets Troll stay as long as they do. I understand getting suckered by con artists; that's what con artists do. Anyone can fall for bs if it's packaged right. What get me is why anyone would stay someplace that is obviously a con AND the administrator is psychotically abusive. A cult is the only explanation.
Like I've stated, I post on a Kindle. It is near impossible to reply to these large multi-quote posts, my apologies, rest assured though, I will address whatever it is that you want me to address. In reference to my talking about the loss of morality - the situation is like this: agencies like the CIA and FBI did better work protecting their jobs, their asses, and names then they did work in delivering the best report that America deserved after 9/11. It tells a lot of facts but is not nearly as in depth as it could possibly be, it leaves too many questions unanswered that should have been preliminary questions, but for some reason, have been avoided entirely. The loss of morality comes into play when Americans can acknowledge that fact and still not demand another investigation to be performed. You're looking the other way. Why?
That is your opinion, not fact. It is an opinion you can't even defend. Like what? He's not looking the other way. Truthers have their heads so far up their collective asses that it is no wonder all they can smell is (*)(*)(*)(*). You've already made so many claims you can't back up like there is no evidence Al Qaeda hijackers were on the planes, and now you want America to spend hundreds of millions MORE dollars on an investigation you will only ignore because it doesn't say what you want it to say? No (*)(*)(*)(*)ing way is my response to a new investigation! You, by your own admission, have no evidence to back up your opinions. What is the FBI to go on? Paranoid delusions? The retards over at Lets Roll? Can you even enumerate the supposed questions the FBI avoided entirely? Better log in to some conspiratard sites so they can tell you what to think on this.
"That is your opinion, not fact. It is an opinion you can't even defend." In previous discussions, you've even said that they protected themselves. I've read Tim Weiner, and his account on the CIA, and it details our clandestine worldly intelligence agency quite nicely and has something like one-hundred seventy pages of references. They've had a colorful history. They have never been quick to point out their mistakes, or willingly divulge *all* information that they have. They're secrets men. And as you've said, if they pointed out their mistakes, they'd likely get fired for it, hence, America got a biased report because people were looking out for #1 instead of delivering the ice-cold truth straight to the moon. It *is* wrong. And look at the FBI. Here comes one of those preliminary questions I have about all of the other evidence linking al Qaeda to the crime of 9/11, when did our government receive all of that evidence? I would like to know the date and time of every piece of evidence they have, of when 'they got it'. Just how long *did* the FBI know that 'really bad men' were inside of our country? Yes, they of course will roll up *their* sleeve and take the shot like a brave little boy, won't they? "Like what?" How about the ISI for starters. Mossad agents arrested after 9/11. The extent of war plans the government had against Afghanistan prior to 9/11. CIA projects in Pakistan, Afghanistan, coinside with ISI. *All* of the warnings we received and all of the subsequent reports and analysts analysis on the matter. *All* of the government ran war games that mirrored 9/11 events. The speech Rumsfeld gave on 9/10. The Pentagon Study about plane impacts. The governments knowledge of using planes as weapons. Operation Northwoods. Things like this. Quit playing games.
That is my opinion. I have no evidence. If i had evidence, I would act on it. I also understand that there is a very real possibility they didn't. So you want to blame the CIA for failing to stop Al Qaeda when it was the responsibility of the FBI? Or are you claiming the CIA was behind 9/11 and just isn't "divulging" that little "fact"? Where did I say that? I believe it is human nature not to voluntarily bring mistakes to life no matter how small or inconsequential. I don't believe there was anything someone could have done on 9/11 that would have resulted in a different outcome. REALLY?!? That is called an investigation. DUH! That is the FBI doing its job. All that is detailed in the 9/11 commission report. What about the ISI? Do you have evidence they were involved? Of course you don't because the source of the claims the ISI was involved originated in India, the enemy of Pakistan. Wait. Which is it? Are you blaming Al Qaeda (with help from the ISI) or are you blaming Israel? Can you even tell us what you actually believe or do you just believe every conspiracy theory in the blind hope ONE of them is right knowing the rest are wrong? So what is your evidence they had "extensive" war plans prior to 9/11? Are you so seriously naive that you think the government would have to stage 9/11 just to attack a country with no resources? Like what? Don't give vague generalities and pretend you're talking about something real. So you can point to a warning that detailed when, where and how they would attack, right? WRONG. If you could, it would be national news. In other words, you're lying your ass off once again. NO war games on 9/11 mirrored 9/11 events. I've gone over that with you before and you got your ass handed to you then. Apparently you didn't learn. The only thing on 9/11 that mirrored 9/11 was a drill at the NRO office where the scenario was suppose to be how they would react if a small plane from Dulles lost power and crashed into the building. They canceled the event and no plane was involved. You have had numerous opportunities to tell us how the war games affected 9/11 and you have failed miserably at doing so. You mean the one where he said funds were unaccounted for and I showed you where they accounted for the money and you STILL insist it was stolen instead? Yeah. REAL good example of you turning your nose up at hard evidence because you blindly want to believe your anti-American bull(*)(*)(*)(*). What about it? The towers had a study on what would happen with a plane impact. Does that mean the conspiracy goes back to the 60s? Knowing something can be used as a weapon doesn't stop an attack. Almost everything can be used as a weapon. Fortunately the vast majority of people aren't as paranoid as truthers and don't try to guard against every perceived threat. Instead they go off the most likely threats. Yes, because EVERYONE knows that if someone else thinks up something semi similar that this is proof positive someone completely different actually did it. You mean things that have already been gone over in great detail but you absolutely refuse to listen or look at the evidence? Yeah, that is a reason to have another investigation you would ignore. The only one playing games are the truthers, except it is a very dangerous game. Truthers don't like to talk about what it is they are actually preaching because then it looks like treason, especially when they are constantly caught lying their asses off.
You quit playing games,your rampant paranoia borders on the ludicrous.....like all truthers,you take hundreds of random events and try to connect them into one vast conspiracy......
Paranoia? Give it a rest, old man. The ISI connection and history lesson would show a hand in who financed al Qaeda, our involvement in the creation of the Taliban, which was propped up by the ISI, which has working relations with our CIA, all the way back to Operation Cyclone, maybe further. Point being, there is a lot of data in there that wasn't investigated, explored further, what have you. It boils down to the "who finances terrorism," and whether or not people want that question answered. And by the result of the 9/11 Commission, that answer was no. IIRC, knowing who financed al Qaeda, "served no practical purpose." Shall I continue?
Paranoia is the correct word to use. Paranoia is defined as suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification. Shall I continue?[/QUOTE] Sure. It is exposing the extreme ignorance and paranoia of your posts. You're not the first fool to fall for the false hysteria over the ISI. Of course, it wasn't really the ISI that was accused; just the head of the ISI. Truthers never bother with the details do they. BTW, why do you even care about who financed the terrorism? You claim it was the government, not Al Qaeda that was behind 9/11. Or was it the Israelis masquerading as art students illegally occupying an abandoned floor and throwing mannequins out because the building had already been evacuated? You need to figure out which theory you believe in and stick with it. All the massive flip flopping between various theories only shows that truthers don't care which "truth" they believe in as long as it shows the government lied.
Sure. It is exposing the extreme ignorance and paranoia of your posts. You're not the first fool to fall for the false hysteria over the ISI. Of course, it wasn't really the ISI that was accused; just the head of the ISI. Truthers never bother with the details do they. BTW, why do you even care about who financed the terrorism? You claim it was the government, not Al Qaeda that was behind 9/11. Or was it the Israelis masquerading as art students illegally occupying an abandoned floor and throwing mannequins out because the building had already been evacuated? You need to figure out which theory you believe in and stick with it. All the massive flip flopping between various theories only shows that truthers don't care which "truth" they believe in as long as it shows the government lied. [/QUOTE] You just keep reading things and shrug them away, eh? As if they do not matter. Dude. And, where am I flip-flopping?
I addressed each of them in turn. I gave you specifics as to why you were wrong. I didn't shrug a single one off. That is YOUR pathetic excuse for why you can't refute my claims. Did you find a source that claims the entire ISI was in on it instead of just Mahmoud? No? Did you find any source that doesn't resolve back to the Times of India article the Times of India couldn't back up? No? Color me su Pick who you claim is behind 9/11 and stick with it. If you believe the ISI is guilty of helping fund Al Qaeda, great. You believe Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. Stop blaming the government. If you believe the government is guilty, then the ISI and Al Qaeda are innocent since the government would have no need for ISI or Al Qaeda involvement. If you believe the Israeli students (a.k.a Mossad) were behind 9/11, then great. Stop blaming the government, Al Qaeda and the ISI for being behind 9/11. Pick a theory and stand behind it. Truthers who do nothing but champion every conspiracy theory that comes along no matter how ridiculous or how much it conflicts with previous theories the truthers just swore up and down were true only shows the dishonesty and complete lack of intellectual integrity of the truther movement.
When the director of a spy agency pushes for their foreign policy to be one way, the agency takes that direction because of the pull of the director at top. The ISI connection does not absolve our government of anything. On the contrary, I think it most certainly suggests LIHOP.
When exactly did I insult you?.......consequently.don't play if you can't do it without insulting. The Taliban was created in the power vacumn WE left when the Russians left, and their puppet government collapsed,that was comprised of fundamentalist elements of the mujahadeen...
Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Want me to pull up all the threads where you directly blame the government? Just more flip flopping by you. Truthers can never get their stories straight because as soon as they get their ass kicked on one theory, they have to have other theories to fall back on.
If you had actually read Steve Coll's book you would be more familiar with the off again/on again relationship between the ISI and CIA. It hit it's lowest points in the 90's and hasn't significantly improved since then (outside threats to force action made by the US). They were always allies of convenience rather than one's of shared "values" and were running their own game in Central Asia. Look up a proposed map of Pashtunistan if you want to know why. As to how the Taliban was created, I suggest Ahmed Rashid's excellent book. The US had very little, if any, direct involvement in their creation. As to the investigation on the financing and such, I might somewhat be in the ballpark with you on it. I suspect this is possibly one area where a coverup occurred. Not to hide US complicity, but to coverup some of their erstwhile allies' actions. They still "needed" those allies post 9/11, and it was more politically expedient to keep some of their dirty dealings under wraps.
These kinds of "alliances" are almost always of convenience or for some common goal that has nothing to do with shared values, or any values for that matter. But according to wikipedia the 90's were hardly a low point, only towards the end of the 90's did the US distance itself: "The United States supported the Taliban through its allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia between 1994 and 1996 because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and pro-Western.[263] Washington furthermore hoped that the Taliban would support development planned by the U.S.-based oil company Unocal.[264] For example, it made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995, and expelled thousands of girls from schools;[265] the Taliban began killing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras), and restricting the rights of women.[174] In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban. The next year, the American-based oil company Unocal withdrew from negotiations on pipeline construction from Central Asia.[266]" I understood the claim as Al Qaida being a possibly creation or co-creation of an intelligence service, not the Taliban. IMO the Taliban is obviously a species of homegrown fanaticism. Such organizations are often exploited by other interests. I'm in general agreement with this sentiment. This was alluded to in Michael Moore's film which "truthers" oddly pan as "disinfo" or "gatekeeping". Few well read people can ignore the CIA involvement in the Middle East....from Wiki Re: Taliban : the US and CIA: Allegations of connection to CIA There have been many claims that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or al-Qaeda. In the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms and money, and the ISI helped gather radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviet invaders.[276] Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. "By 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war." An external link goes to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/26/news/26iht-stinger_ed3_.html The Stingers, fired from tubes six feet (nearly two meters) long, would be difficult to smuggle or conceal near Western airports amid the now-enhanced security that often includes security around the runways and airfield perimeters. It is unclear exactly how many of the Stingers remain in Afghan hands and what condition they are in. The Taliban so far seem to have refrained from selling their missiles in terrorist weapons markets. "The Stingers are not sold or passed on by Afghan war clans, who prize them as symbols of prestige and as real deterrents against low-level air attacks," said a former CIA officer who specialized in the region. Despite reports that the Stingers in Afghanistan might be unusable now, after a decade of wear and tear, the CIA source said that a test-firing in 1999 in the United States showed that the vintage Stingers were still working perfectly. "They may have battery problems, but they are fixable," he said. The Stingers enjoyed "mythological" status because they turned the tide in Afghanistan, according to Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA official who was involved in the 1986 decision to provide the Stingers to the Afghans fighting Soviet invaders. As a result they have always commanded political attention. Perhaps too much, according to critics of the CIA, who have blamed the agency for concentrating on recovering the hardware that had done so much damage to the Soviet military forces and neglecting the larger problems of the political vacuum left in Afghanistan when the Soviet forces pulled out in 1989. This reminds me of people feeding bears in Yellow Stone Park...then being surprised when the bears start taking food by force. Intelligence services introduced the Taliban organizations to the arms suppliers and networks; it was only a matter of time before the Taliban made their own arrangements. This is no way proves an "INSIDE JOB" btw. This is a subtle "truthers" miss; culpability in creating a volatile situation leading to a crime, does not equal culpability in that crime. Though in some circumstances maybe it should.
I recall the CIA publicly critcizing the ISI in the late 90's, but I'm referring to some specific incidents reference in Steve Coll's book (that Jango said he read). During the Clinton admin the CIA was attempting to work with the ISI to form assasination squads to go after Bin Laden and quickly realized they were getting the run-around, so to speak. They initiated their own squads without the knowledge of the ISI via Ahmed Shah Massoud and Uzbek groups. That type of contentious relationship grew worse and worse in the following years, but the relationship wasn't hunky-dory during the Soviet Occupation either. The lowest point, obviously, was the nuclear program and the actions of A.Q. Kahn. The details surrounding the lack of information (re: none) to the ISI concerning the Bin Laden raid last year shows that the US finally learned their lesson. It only took about 20 or so years.......your tax dollars at work. The Taliban did actually start as a grass-roots movement, but the ISI quickly co-opted it early in it's inception. It's not like they didn't already have strong roots with many of the founders following the Soviet Occupation. Utimately, the Stinger issue has become a bit of a non-issue at this late date (doubt many even work anymore). The CIA did have a pretty aggressive Stinger buy-back policy in the 90's, which they got soaked on by their "allies". Throwing money at the problems has been one consistent policy starting with Carter that continues today. It takes more than that to solve a real problem, which, imho, is why there was some form of a coverup by the USG. There is a lot of embarassing information out there to try and keep underwraps. Unfortunately for Truthers, none of them point at an Inside Job, but they do point at a lot of incompetence and mis-management. Again, your tax dollars at work.
I could use a refresher, yes. Nevertheless, the point remains. The 9/11 Commission Report did not address the ISI's history with our CIA. Or vice versa. The CIA shares "values" with no one, really. Not the Mossad, MI6, FBI, etc. Like in recent events, President Obama signs S2165 into law, an 'enhanced security act' for Israel - two days later, it is revealed that there has been a theft from the CIA station chief's private safe in Tel Aviv. Point being, countries go through rocky stages, which if you want to talk about the US and Pakistan, starts long before the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. But the US' involvement in that affair should have made the report as well, don't you think? It certainly had relevance.
