One for Parky

[Renton 22409]

Can anyone name a single major conspiracy theory that has subsequently be found to be true?

 

For me, the whole concept of a large group of people keeping clandestine secrets in a free society where investigative journalism is allowed lacks credibility.

 

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history.

 

Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened.

 

The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services.

 

The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is.

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya.

 

What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism?

 

No, just one or two CIA officials.

 

Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers?

 

Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats?

 

The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow and blamed it on the Chechens. This is info that Litvenenko was meant to possess. The woman journalist that was murdered also had this info.

 

'Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain?'. In the context of the current war in Iraq, that statement doesnt really fit in this argument. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people.

 

How many US soldiers have been sacrificed so far in this war and on what basis were they sacrificed?

 

Have you got a link from a credible source about these Moscow bombings?

 

As for the last point, whatever the motives for the war (not a war against terrorism I suspect), it's ridiculous to compare that to the events of 9/11.

[Guest alex]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

[Renton 22409]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

 

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure.

[Guest alex]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

 

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure.

Quite, but those are the sorts of questions that should be asked, to help try and make sure it doesn't happen again.

[Renton 22409]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

 

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure.

Quite, but those are the sorts of questions that should be asked, to help try and make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

Yes. But like you said earlier, the existence of the loons does take the heat off their incompetence somewhat.

 

Ateotd, people are going to believe in what they want to believe on the matter, and we won't find out what really happened behind the closed doors of the CIA until we are old men, if ever. Personally, I choose to believe that they cocked up though rather than accept they were willing to kill hundreds of their own staff (Pentagon building) and thousands of citizens for some unknown motive.

[spongebob toonpants 4183]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

 

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure.

 

 

You seem very trusting Renty. The "governmental incompetence" hasnt adversely affected the ammount of money made or the concentration of power since 9/11

[ChezGiven 0]

Can anyone name a single major conspiracy theory that has subsequently be found to be true?

 

For me, the whole concept of a large group of people keeping clandestine secrets in a free society where investigative journalism is allowed lacks credibility.

 

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history.

 

Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened.

 

The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services.

 

The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is.

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya.

 

What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism?

 

No, just one or two CIA officials.

 

Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers?

 

Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats?

 

The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow and blamed it on the Chechens. This is info that Litvenenko was meant to possess. The woman journalist that was murdered also had this info.

 

'Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain?'. In the context of the current war in Iraq, that statement doesnt really fit in this argument. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people.

 

How many US soldiers have been sacrificed so far in this war and on what basis were they sacrificed?

 

Have you got a link from a credible source about these Moscow bombings?

 

As for the last point, whatever the motives for the war (not a war against terrorism I suspect), it's ridiculous to compare that to the events of 9/11.

 

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnist...icle2001509.ece

 

Is a starter, i think it was only alluded to in the stories about the death of Anna Politkovskaya. I will have another look.

 

I also cant see how you seperate the sacrifice of death in one case from another. Its certainly not ridiculous to compare the two.

[Renton 22409]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

 

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure.

 

 

You seem very trusting Renty. The "governmental incompetence" hasnt adversely affected the ammount of money made or the concentration of power since 9/11

 

Not denying people have made monetary and political capital out of it, that doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to murder thousands of civilians in the process. Why did they not frame Iraq with WMD btw if they are capable of such fantastic plots televised live on TV to billions of people? Surely this would have suited them well?

[Renton 22409]

Can anyone name a single major conspiracy theory that has subsequently be found to be true?

 

For me, the whole concept of a large group of people keeping clandestine secrets in a free society where investigative journalism is allowed lacks credibility.

 

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history.

 

Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened.

 

The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services.

 

The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is.

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya.

 

What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism?

 

No, just one or two CIA officials.

 

Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers?

 

Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats?

 

The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow and blamed it on the Chechens. This is info that Litvenenko was meant to possess. The woman journalist that was murdered also had this info.

 

'Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain?'. In the context of the current war in Iraq, that statement doesnt really fit in this argument. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people.

 

How many US soldiers have been sacrificed so far in this war and on what basis were they sacrificed?

 

Have you got a link from a credible source about these Moscow bombings?

 

As for the last point, whatever the motives for the war (not a war against terrorism I suspect), it's ridiculous to compare that to the events of 9/11.

 

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnist...icle2001509.ece

 

Is a starter, i think it was only alluded to in the stories about the death of Anna Politkovskaya. I will have another look.

 

I also cant see how you seperate the sacrifice of death in one case from another. Its certainly not ridiculous to compare the two.

 

Well I can think of plenty of examples where the UK and the US have been willing to allow their soldiers being killed in a war, but not a single case where it is proven they deliberately massacred their own citizens, Surely you can see the difference?

[Ketsbaia 0]

Can anyone name a single major conspiracy theory that has subsequently be found to be true?

 

For me, the whole concept of a large group of people keeping clandestine secrets in a free society where investigative journalism is allowed lacks credibility.

 

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history.

 

Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened.

 

The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services.

 

The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is.

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya.

 

What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism?

 

No, just one or two CIA officials.

 

Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers?

 

Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats?

 

The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow and blamed it on the Chechens. This is info that Litvenenko was meant to possess. The woman journalist that was murdered also had this info.

 

'Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain?'. In the context of the current war in Iraq, that statement doesnt really fit in this argument. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people.

 

How many US soldiers have been sacrificed so far in this war and on what basis were they sacrificed?

 

It's not looking good for you then.

[ChezGiven 0]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

 

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure.

Quite, but those are the sorts of questions that should be asked, to help try and make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

Yes. But like you said earlier, the existence of the loons does take the heat off their incompetence somewhat.

 

Ateotd, people are going to believe in what they want to believe on the matter, and we won't find out what really happened behind the closed doors of the CIA until we are old men, if ever. Personally, I choose to believe that they cocked up though rather than accept they were willing to kill hundreds of their own staff (Pentagon building) and thousands of citizens for some unknown motive.

 

Maybe the incompetence was in not anticipating such a devastating attack. I would have thought agents might be allowed to carry out certain acts if it meant gaining an upper hand in another area - like middle east foreign policy, the most economically important region for US energy supply.

 

Maybe the incompetence was not realising the scale of what was about to happen. I would still contest that the CIA (having helped set up al qaeda via Pakistan in the first place) knew that something was going to happen and didnt seem to try very hard to stop it.

[spongebob toonpants 4183]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

 

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure.

 

 

You seem very trusting Renty. The "governmental incompetence" hasnt adversely affected the ammount of money made or the concentration of power since 9/11

 

Not denying people have made monetary and political capital out of it, that doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to murder thousands of civilians in the process. Why did they not frame Iraq with WMD btw if they are capable of such fantastic plots televised live on TV to billions of people? Surely this would have suited them well?

 

They dont really need to frame Iraq, they have got what they were after

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Can anyone name a single major conspiracy theory that has subsequently be found to be true?

 

For me, the whole concept of a large group of people keeping clandestine secrets in a free society where investigative journalism is allowed lacks credibility.

 

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history.

 

Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened.

 

The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services.

 

The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is.

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya.

 

What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism?

 

No, just one or two CIA officials.

 

Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers?

 

Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats?

 

The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow and blamed it on the Chechens. This is info that Litvenenko was meant to possess. The woman journalist that was murdered also had this info.

 

'Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain?'. In the context of the current war in Iraq, that statement doesnt really fit in this argument. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people.

 

How many US soldiers have been sacrificed so far in this war and on what basis were they sacrificed?

 

The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow

 

Is this a proven conspiracy, or another theory?

 

this statement doesnt really fit in this argument.

 

I think it does if you are implying that a few individuals did not prevent 9/11 for reasons best known to themselves. It is something they would have had to conciously weigh up in their mind beforehand, and come up with an answer that justified it.

 

Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people.

 

Whatever the downsides of the order for war, there were clear and public motivations and claimed benefits to the decision, in contrast to a supposed CIA plot. The moral culpability of both actions does not even compare in my opinion. Saying one could happen because the other happened is a leap too far, unless you attribute the logic of a Baghdad market truck bomb sponsor to that of CIA agents.

[Guest alex]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

 

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure.

Quite, but those are the sorts of questions that should be asked, to help try and make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

Yes. But like you said earlier, the existence of the loons does take the heat off their incompetence somewhat.

 

Ateotd, people are going to believe in what they want to believe on the matter, and we won't find out what really happened behind the closed doors of the CIA until we are old men, if ever. Personally, I choose to believe that they cocked up though rather than accept they were willing to kill hundreds of their own staff (Pentagon building) and thousands of citizens for some unknown motive.

 

Maybe the incompetence was in not anticipating such a devastating attack. I would have thought agents might be allowed to carry out certain acts if it meant gaining an upper hand in another area - like middle east foreign policy, the most economically important region for US energy supply.

 

Maybe the incompetence was not realising the scale of what was about to happen. I would still contest that the CIA (having helped set up al qaeda via Pakistan in the first place) knew that something was going to happen and didnt seem to try very hard to stop it.

Difficult to know what was going to happen and just as difficult to stop it. There's tens of thousands of domestic flights in the US (and pre-9/11 the security was pretty lax) and there would have been an incredible amout of data to sift through.

[Renton 22409]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

 

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure.

Quite, but those are the sorts of questions that should be asked, to help try and make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

Yes. But like you said earlier, the existence of the loons does take the heat off their incompetence somewhat.

 

Ateotd, people are going to believe in what they want to believe on the matter, and we won't find out what really happened behind the closed doors of the CIA until we are old men, if ever. Personally, I choose to believe that they cocked up though rather than accept they were willing to kill hundreds of their own staff (Pentagon building) and thousands of citizens for some unknown motive.

 

Maybe the incompetence was in not anticipating such a devastating attack. I would have thought agents might be allowed to carry out certain acts if it meant gaining an upper hand in another area - like middle east foreign policy, the most economically important region for US energy supply.

 

Maybe the incompetence was not realising the scale of what was about to happen. I would still contest that the CIA (having helped set up al qaeda via Pakistan in the first place) knew that something was going to happen and didnt seem to try very hard to stop it.

 

I can accept that is a plausible possibility.

[Renton 22409]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

 

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure.

 

 

You seem very trusting Renty. The "governmental incompetence" hasnt adversely affected the ammount of money made or the concentration of power since 9/11

 

Not denying people have made monetary and political capital out of it, that doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to murder thousands of civilians in the process. Why did they not frame Iraq with WMD btw if they are capable of such fantastic plots televised live on TV to billions of people? Surely this would have suited them well?

 

They dont really need to frame Iraq, they have got what they were after

 

"They" presumably doesn't include Bush or the Republican party, I take it then?

[ChezGiven 0]

Can anyone name a single major conspiracy theory that has subsequently be found to be true?

 

For me, the whole concept of a large group of people keeping clandestine secrets in a free society where investigative journalism is allowed lacks credibility.

 

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history.

 

Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened.

 

The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services.

 

The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is.

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya.

 

What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism?

 

No, just one or two CIA officials.

 

Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers?

 

Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats?

 

The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow and blamed it on the Chechens. This is info that Litvenenko was meant to possess. The woman journalist that was murdered also had this info.

 

'Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain?'. In the context of the current war in Iraq, that statement doesnt really fit in this argument. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people.

 

How many US soldiers have been sacrificed so far in this war and on what basis were they sacrificed?

 

The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow

 

Is this a proven conspiracy, or another theory?

 

this statement doesnt really fit in this argument.

 

I think it does if you are implying that a few individuals did not prevent 9/11 for reasons best known to themselves. It is something they would have had to conciously weigh up in their mind beforehand, and come up with an answer that justified it.

 

Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people.

 

Whatever the downsides of the order for war, there were clear and public motivations and claimed benefits to the decision, in contrast to a supposed CIA plot. The moral culpability of both actions does not even compare in my opinion. Saying one could happen because the other happened is a leap too far, unless you attribute the logic of a Baghdad market truck bomb sponsor to that of CIA agents.

 

There is no official plea of guilt from the Russians but loads of evidence, i just cant find it on google, i promise to keep looking and post up.

 

Still dont get it. You questioned whether anyone could countenance the death of citizens. I continue to think that is a banal question given the war in Iraq, precipitated by the act we are discussing. Arguing about moral culpability is just irrelevant.

[ChezGiven 0]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

 

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure.

 

 

You seem very trusting Renty. The "governmental incompetence" hasnt adversely affected the ammount of money made or the concentration of power since 9/11

 

Not denying people have made monetary and political capital out of it, that doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to murder thousands of civilians in the process. Why did they not frame Iraq with WMD btw if they are capable of such fantastic plots televised live on TV to billions of people? Surely this would have suited them well?

 

They dont really need to frame Iraq, they have got what they were after

 

"They" presumably doesn't include Bush or the Republican party, I take it then?

Oil for food seems like a much better deal than $50 a barrel.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

 

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure.

Quite, but those are the sorts of questions that should be asked, to help try and make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

Yes. But like you said earlier, the existence of the loons does take the heat off their incompetence somewhat.

 

Ateotd, people are going to believe in what they want to believe on the matter, and we won't find out what really happened behind the closed doors of the CIA until we are old men, if ever. Personally, I choose to believe that they cocked up though rather than accept they were willing to kill hundreds of their own staff (Pentagon building) and thousands of citizens for some unknown motive.

 

Maybe the incompetence was in not anticipating such a devastating attack.

 

Maybe the incompetence was not realising the scale of what was about to happen.

 

On what basis should they have predicted it? It was totally unprecedented. What were the prior clues to an attack on such a scale?

 

I would have thought agents might be allowed to carry out certain acts if it meant gaining an upper hand in another area - like middle east foreign policy, the most economically important region for US energy supply.

 

Are you now asserting that this alleged CIA plot was countenanced from above in line with a clear policy, negating the previous 'one or two' agents theory?

 

I would still contest that the CIA (having helped set up al qaeda via Pakistan in the first place) knew that something was going to happen and didnt seem to try very hard to stop it.

 

Please expand on what level of detail you think they knew that something was going to happen. And how the fact that the CIA assisted Al-Qaeda in the 1980's means they would know of their plans in 2001?

 

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Can anyone name a single major conspiracy theory that has subsequently be found to be true?

 

For me, the whole concept of a large group of people keeping clandestine secrets in a free society where investigative journalism is allowed lacks credibility.

 

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history.

 

Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened.

 

The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services.

 

The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is.

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya.

 

What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism?

 

No, just one or two CIA officials.

 

Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers?

 

Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats?

 

The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow and blamed it on the Chechens. This is info that Litvenenko was meant to possess. The woman journalist that was murdered also had this info.

 

'Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain?'. In the context of the current war in Iraq, that statement doesnt really fit in this argument. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people.

 

How many US soldiers have been sacrificed so far in this war and on what basis were they sacrificed?

 

The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow

 

Is this a proven conspiracy, or another theory?

 

this statement doesnt really fit in this argument.

 

I think it does if you are implying that a few individuals did not prevent 9/11 for reasons best known to themselves. It is something they would have had to conciously weigh up in their mind beforehand, and come up with an answer that justified it.

 

Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people.

 

Whatever the downsides of the order for war, there were clear and public motivations and claimed benefits to the decision, in contrast to a supposed CIA plot. The moral culpability of both actions does not even compare in my opinion. Saying one could happen because the other happened is a leap too far, unless you attribute the logic of a Baghdad market truck bomb sponsor to that of CIA agents.

 

There is no official plea of guilt from the Russians but loads of evidence, i just cant find it on google, i promise to keep looking and post up.

 

Still dont get it. You questioned whether anyone could countenance the death of citizens. I continue to think that is a banal question given the war in Iraq, precipitated by the act we are discussing. Arguing about moral culpability is just irrelevant.

 

loads of evidence, i just cant find it on google

 

Case proven m'lud

 

Still dont get it. You questioned whether anyone could countenance the death of citizens. I continue to think that is a banal question given the war in Iraq, precipitated by the act we are discussing. Arguing about moral culpability is just irrelevant.

 

You state that Bush, ordering a war against an identified enemy (with at best unpredictable results but clear and public justification) is morally equivalent to a couple of CIA agents being complicit in the murder of 3,000 of their own citizens (well below what could have been the death toll, but mind blowing nonetheless) for some as yet unidentified goals, that may or may not have been in their own self interest, or a perceived higher national interest.

 

Suspending for the minute that, if Bush was not aware of the CIA plot, then plot was premeditated action, while the war is a reaction; do you honestly see no difference in the morality and hence burden of personal justification in the two situations, thereby asserting the likelihood of a CIA plot to ignore 9/11?

Edited February 20, 2007 by Super_Steve_Howey

[ChezGiven 0]

So, you've never heard about these Russian attacks and the stories behind them. I did say i would have a look.

 

I'll collect your thoughts for you. You're basically asking whether i believe its possible that an act of terrorism was 'allowed' to happen by a govt, to further its economic policy. Yes on the basis of precedent, hence me asking the questions.

 

Did they know the scale of it beforehand? I doubt it.

 

As for the CIA links, they started the movement and have continued to use this relationship since its inception. Any known operative would have been under surveillance. It wasnt the first time they tried to blow up the towers, you do remember that?

 

Your attempts at balancing the morality of this versus the morality of war are commendable but irrelevant.

[Park Life 71]

So, you've never heard about these Russian attacks and the stories behind them. I did say i would have a look.

 

I'll collect your thoughts for you. You're basically asking whether i believe its possible that an act of terrorism was 'allowed' to happen by a govt, to further its economic policy. Yes on the basis of precedent, hence me asking the questions.

 

Did they know the scale of it beforehand? I doubt it.

 

As for the CIA links, they started the movement and have continued to use this relationship since its inception. Any known operative would have been under surveillance. It wasnt the first time they tried to blow up the towers, you do remember that?

 

Your attempts at balancing the morality of this versus the morality of war are commendable but irrelevant.

 

Sweet.

 

 

*Shit Robs arrived!! Elves etc to follow....

Edited February 20, 2007 by Parky

[Rob W 0]

"There is no official plea of guilt from the Russians but loads of evidence, i just cant find it on google, i promise to keep looking and post up.

 

Still dont get it. You questioned whether anyone could countenance the death of citizens. I continue to think that is a banal question given the war in Iraq, precipitated by the act we are discussing. Arguing about moral culpability is just irrelevant."

 

 

From The Age an Ozzy paper

 

Suspicions of dirty tricks by the FSB were first raised in 1999, when massive bombs, also blamed on the Chechens, destroyed four apartment blocks in Moscow and provincial cities, killing hundreds of people as they slept. Such was the public outrage that Putin, then prime minister, was able to launch a second war against Chechnya that propelled him into the Kremlin as successor to Boris Yeltsin.

 

However, a bizarre incident in Ryazan, 200 kilometres east of Moscow, in September 1999 made some Russians wonder whether the official version of the bombings should be taken at face value. Residents of a high-rise apartment block similar to the four that had already been destroyed saw a small group of people they described as ethnic Russians, not Chechens, carrying sacks into the basement of their building. The local police said the sacks contained explosives. It appeared the Ryazan flat-dwellers were to be the victims of the next bombing.

 

When the FSB turned up from Moscow, however, they said the sacks contained sugar and that the whole scare, which had involved the residents of the building being evacuated in the middle of the night, had been a "training exercise" to test the alertness of citizens.

 

Only recently have dissidents such as Litvinenko, whose book on the apartment block bombings has been banned in Russia, begun to speak up. Two men have been jailed for life for the roles they played in blowing up the blocks of flats, but those who ordered the explosions have not been identified.

 

Litvinenko has also accused the FSB of blowing up the metro train, packed with hundreds of peak-hour commuters, just as, he says, the FSB and KGB before it were responsible for 80 years of terrorism, going back to the earliest days of the Soviet Union."

 

 

my man in moscow reckons that the FSB did it 'n aalll

[Guest alex]

Aeroflot steward?

[ChezGiven 0]

Et voilà.

Edited February 20, 2007 by ChezGiven