This was accidentally read and posted on an old one but it is a voice and I thought I'd share it. Here's a link to the original post that started it all.
Old Shit
After I take my Vegas vacation by driving about 30 seconds to Las Vegas Blvd. (thanks fuckhead), I'd love to address all this controversy.
This whole mainstream media vilifies Republicans thing is so much horseshit it stinks to hell. Amazing how the mainstream media that supposedly hates GW agreed to sit on the whole NSA spying story for a nice long while.
NSA JOHN point 1
The "mainstream media" didn't attempt to counter any of Bush's claims about WMDs in Iraq in the months of run up to that quagmire. Where were all the Republican haters in the media then? Where are they in covering the war protests? If you believe what you see on TV you'll probably think there haven't been any. Where have they been in reporting on the recent General Accounting Office report on the massive vote fraud from Diebold machines in the last election.
Martha Stewart is famous. End of story. Therefore, she gets treated nice by the media. Ken Lay is infamous, therefore he gets "dragged over the coals." If someone wipes out my retirement I would hope they get their asses more than dragged over any coals available. I would much rather have the media investigate that any day.
If the media were really doing their jobs, instead of reprinting practically verbatim what's said on government press releases, we'd have some more accountability in government. It's amazing how much mainstream media stuff is out there to indicate the truth about 9/11 but none of our media outlets seem able to draw the logical conclusion.
NSA JOHN point 2
We live in a Democracy that is slowly being transformed into a fascist state. Corporate control and consolidation of the media is part of this. The lib left and the cons right are just distractions to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while Bush's cabal attempts to consolidate power. Luckily for us, they're incompetent!
Whether they actively planned and participated in the events of 9/11 or just sat back and allowed them to happen, the fact remains that 3,000 + people were allowed to die so that our current administration could benefit from it politically.
If you look critically at the facts, the anomalies and the HARD SCIENCE of what went down on 9/11 you would quickly realize the official story is a lie at best and a myth at worst.
But, hey, that's not important right now. Did you hear the news is nice to democrats but mean to republicans?
It's a double standard!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
just like lee harvey oswald didn't act alone? you do say that they might have 'sat back and let it happen'. i can agree that that may be the case. the events of september 11th were preventable, but no amount of junk web link stories are going to convince me that the government would kill their own in the pentagon, and worse, bring down wtcs 1,2,&7. a whole class of kids was on the plane that hit the pentagon!
the whole thing is just horrible
I'd tell you to look up Operation Northwoods, but since you'd find the information online it's not worth your time. By the way, those junk Web link stories I linked to regarding 9/11 were from the mainstream media. It's easier to believe Muslims using boxcutters to take hostages who could barely fly planes expertly maneuvered said planes into their targets with a precision matching that of top fighter pilots. I heard that the Jew s burned down the Reichstag once too.
they took flying lessons in florida
"At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.
However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.
In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.
When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997" Chilton said. [Newsday]"
There are numerous other stories on these "pilots" great aerial skills. I took snorkeling lessons in Florida once but that didn't turn me into a scuba diver. As a matter of fact, I suck at snorkeling.
you took snorkeling lessons?
Alright. I kept my mouth shut for as long as I could. NSA, I respect the fact that you're keeping a skeptical eye to the things you might be being fed by the government. But come the fuck on. I don't pretend to be an expert on this stuff, but during my time in the military I was attached to an fighter squadron. i was not a pilot, but I spent a lot of time with (and became close friends with) many of them.
After 9/11, I spoke with many of these guys. (I was debating re-joining my military buddies out of misguided patriotism.) There was one point that all of us were in agreement on: You don't need to be a crack fighter pilot to crash into a fucking building. I promise.
I understand the allure of conspiracy theories. I also agree with you regarding the fact that the government might have been able to do more in regards to the prevention of the attack. But, honestly, you're being a bit ridiculous.
The only statement that can be agreed on by all parties in this idiotic thread is Christine's: "The whole thing is just horrible."
Blah.
Whatever, man. You're the guy with the faggot-ass pheromones right? Why don't you keep your nose out political topics. Don't waste my time pretending that you're bright.
Um. You probably wanted a question mark after your third sentence, NSA. Let me know if you ever need me to proofread your stuff from now on. I don't mind.
oops! i just crashed a plane into a building.
Ahhahaha! Some people believe anything.
So NSA John, are you in the NSA? Or do you just call yourself that to sound like an 'expert?'
You seem to really believe that you know a lot of inside information. Yet how do you know? Do you truly know, or are these just your assumptions based on what you've read on the internet?
The truth is, you don't know. These are just guesses, theories, hunches, and hopes, yet you cling to them like a religious fanatic. You'll believe what you want to believe regardless of the evidence or lack of evidence, so I'm not going to argue with you, but you might consider asking yourself some questions:
1. Why do I believe what I believe?
2. Are my opinions based on fact or theory?
3. How do I know the information I have is accurate?
4. If I'm presented with evidence contrary to what I currently believe, am I willing to reform my opinion or is my judgement too clouded by emotion to maintain an open mind?
Yes, this is awesome! some heated debate at its finest. Lets keep it mature though. John, you seem a little defensive. You became mad at doc when he gave you first testimonials fomr experienced pilots, and all you have is what you read. Doc did not call names or question your cognitive ability(he actually complimented your skepticism) but yet you retaliated like a 5 year old. This does not sound like a truly educated man to me. I am in support of Doc, I like a good conspiracy, but lets not follow our tails to find one.
I am in no way claiming I am knowledgable on the issue. I just call 'em like I see 'em. If history serves, I am sure you are going to reply to my comments in a "knee jerk" defensive way.
The last NSA John post was a fraud. My communication skills are better than that. "Why don't you keep your nose out political topics?" Fuck off, whoever wrote that post.
This isn't the doc. Is there any way you can force us to log in to put posts on here Dan? Being anonymous is one thing, but shitty impersonations get annoying fast.
Impersonations are fun.
Okay...now that I'm finished fuming over the threadfart someone started to make me look stupid...
In regards to the whole flying planes into buildings thing, of course it doesn't take any skill to fly a plane into something. That's pretty easy. My argument is that I don't believe the people reported as being responsible for the attacks of 9/11 would have the skills to fly these planes across several states and into their intended targets. I don't think it's ridiculous to question if they even had enough skill to chart a course, plot the exact coordinates and go for it. If they hijacked the planes near their targets, then it would be far easier to just go by a line of sight to find what they wanted to crash into.
In response to J, I definitely don't consider myself enlightened by any means. I want to be proven wrong. The NSA John name is a bit of a joke as I said I'll probably end up monitored by the NSA for spouting off about 9/11.
I don't want to believe any of the "conspiracy" of 9/11 stuff I've read. In fact, I thought it was all bullshit at first. When I started looking at the official story from a scientific viewpoint the many inconsistencies and scientifically improbably things that happened really started to change my mind. There are a lot of Internet crackpots that have made a lot of ridiculous claims. Missiles fired at the Pentagon, holograms, etc. There are a lot of Web sites out there that are making a real effort to finding out the truth and there are many many questions that still have not been adequately addressed. Call me a fool, call me a zealot, put some bullshit posts up to make me look stupid if you will, but I'm not alone. You're going to hear a lot more people questioning the 9/11 tale in the future.
It's really easy to do...you sign up for an account...which is free and that's how we know if it's you or not.
Check out the following article:
From National Review Online:
December 29, 2005, 8:21 a.m.
The Plague of Success
The paradox of ever-increasing expectations.
By Victor Davis Hanson
After September 11 national-security-minded Democratic politicians fell over each other, voting for all sorts of tough measures. They passed the Patriot Act, approved the war in Afghanistan, voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein, and nodded when they were briefed about Guantanamo or wiretap intercepts of suspect phone calls to and from the Middle East.
After the anthrax scare, the arrests of dozens of terrorist cells, and a flurry of al Qaeda fatwas, most Americans thought another attack was imminent — and wanted their politicians to think the same. Today's sourpuss, Senator Harry Reid, once was smiling at a photo-op at the signing of the Patriot Act to record to his constituents that he was darn serious about terrorism. So we have forgotten that most of us after 9/11 would never have imagined that the United States would remain untouched for over four years after that awful cloud of ash settled over the crater at the World Trade Center.
Now the horror of 9/11 and the sight of the doomed diving into the street fade. Gone mostly are the flags on the cars, and the orange and red alerts. The Democrats and the Left, in their amnesia, and as beneficiaries of the very policies they suddenly abhor, now mention al Qaeda very little and Islamic fascism hardly at all.
Apparently due to the success of George Bush at keeping the United States secure, he, not Osama bin Laden, can now more often be the target of a relieved Left — deserving of assassination in an Alfred Knopf novel, an overseer of Nazi policies according to a U.S. senator, a buffoon, and rogue in the award-winning film of Michael Moore. Yes, because we did so well against the real enemies, we soon had the leisure to invent new imaginary ones in Bush/Cheney, Halliburton, the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, and Scooter Libby.
Afghanistan in October, 2001, conjured up almost immediately warnings of quagmire, expanding Holy War at Ramadan, unreliable allies, a trigger-happy nuclear Pakistan on the border, American corpses to join British and Russian bones in the high desert — not a seven-week victory and a subsequent democracy in Kabul of all places.
Nothing in our era would have seemed more unlikely than democrats dethroning the Taliban and al Qaeda — hitherto missile-proof in their much ballyhooed cave complexes that maps in Newsweek assured us rivaled Norad's subterranean fortress. The prior, now-sanctified Clinton doctrine of standoff bombing ensured that there would be no American fatalities and almost nothing ever accomplished — the perfect strategy for the focus-group/straw-poll era of the 1990s.
Are we then basking in the unbelievable notion that the most diabolical government of the late 20th century is gone from Afghanistan, and in its place are schools, roads, and voting machines? Hardly, since the bar has been astronomically raised since Tora Bora. After all, the Afghan parliament is still squabbling and a long way from the city councils of Cambridge, La Jolla, or Nantucket — or maybe not.
The same paradox of success is true of Iraq. Before we went in, analysts and opponents forecasted burning oil wells, millions of refugees streaming into Jordan and the Gulf kingdoms, with thousands of Americans killed just taking Baghdad alone. Middle Eastern potentates warned us of chemical rockets that would shower our troops in Kuwait. On the eve of the war, had anyone predicted that Saddam would be toppled in three weeks, and two-and-a-half-years later, 11 million Iraqis would turn out to vote in their third election — at a cost of some 2100 war dead — he would have been dismissed as unhinged.
But that is exactly what has happened. And the reaction? Democratic firebrands are now talking of impeachment.
What explains this paradox of public disappointment over things that turn out better than anticipated? Why are we like children who damn their parents for not providing yet another new toy when the present one is neither paid for nor yet out of the wrapper?
One cause is the demise of history. The past is either not taught enough, or presented wrongly as a therapeutic exercise to excise our purported sins.
Either way the result is the same: a historically ignorant populace who knows nothing about past American wars and their disappointments — and has absolutely no frame of reference to make sense of the present other than its own mercurial emotional state in any given news cycle.
Few Americans remember that nearly 750 Americans were killed in a single day in a training exercise for D-Day, or that during the bloody American retreat back from the Yalu River in late 1950 thousands of our frozen dead were sent back stacked in trucks like firewood. Our grandparents in the recent past endured things that would make the present ordeal in Iraq seem almost pedestrian — and did all that with the result that a free Germany could now release terrorists or prosperous South Korean youth could damn the United States between their video games.
Instead, we of the present think that we have reinvented the rules of war and peace anew. After Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and the three-week war to remove Saddam, we decreed from on high that there simply were to be no fatalities in the American way of war. If there were, someone was to be blamed, censured, or impeached — right now!
Second, there is a sort of arrogant smugness that has taken hold in the West at large. Read the papers about an average day in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Detroit, or even in smaller places like Fresno. The headlines are mostly the story of mayhem — murder, rape, arson, and theft. Yet, we think Afghanistan is failing or Iraq hopeless when we watch similar violence on television, as if they do such things and we surely do not. We denigrate the Iraqis' trial of Saddam Hussein — as if the Milosevic legal circus or our own O.J. trial were models of jurisprudence. Still, who would have thought that poor Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, a mass-murdering half-brother of Saddam Hussein, would complain that Iraqi television delayed lived feeds of his daily outbursts by whimpering, "If the sound is cut off once again, then I don't know about my comrades but I personally won't attend again. This is unjust and undemocratic."
A greater percentage of Iraqis participated in their elections after two years of consensual government than did Americans after nearly 230 years of practice. It is chic now to deprecate the Iraqi security forces, but they are doing a lot more to kill jihadists than the French or Germans who often either wire terrorists money, sell them weapons, or let them go. For what it's worth, I'd prefer to have one Jalal Talabani or Iyad Allawi on our side than ten Jacques Chiracs or Gerhard Schroeders.
Third, our affluent society is at a complete disconnect with hard physical work and appreciation of how tenuous life was for 2,500 years of civilization. Those in our media circus who deliver our truth can't weld, fix a car, shoot a gun, or do much of anything other than run around looking for scoops about how incompetent things are done daily in Iraq under the most trying of circumstances. Somehow we have convinced ourselves that our technologies and wealth give us a pass on the old obstacles of time and space — as if Iraq 7,000 miles away is no more distant than Washington is from New York. Perhaps soldiers on patrol who go for 20 hours without sleep with 70 pounds on their back are merely like journalists pulling an all-nighter to file a story. Perhaps the next scandal will be the absence of high-definition television in Iraq — and who plotted to keep flat screens out of Baghdad.
The result of this juvenile boredom with good news and success? Few stop to reflect how different a Pakistan is as a neutral rather than as the embryo of the Taliban, or a Libya without a nuclear-weapons program, or a Lebanon with Syrians in it, or an Iraq without Saddam and Afghanistan without Mullah Omar. That someone — mostly soldiers in the field and diplomats under the most trying of circumstances — accomplished all that is either unknown or forgotten as we ready ourselves for the next scandal.
Precisely because we are winning this war and have changed the contour of the Middle East, we expect even more — and ever more quickly, without cost in lives or treasure. So rather than stopping to praise and commemorate those who gave us our success, we can only rush ahead to destroy those who do not give us even more.
Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War"
Here's another thing, NSA John: you can't believe what you hear in the news media anymore. It used to be a profession about telling facts, but nowadays it's all about the scoop. They all want to be the first to the cameras with the latest story, and unfortunately the facts take a back seat.
The most recent example of this is the tragic story of the mine workers. It was originally reported that 12 of 13 survived. All the reporters scrambled to get the word out without bothering to check the facts. The news spread everywhere in a blink. Hours later we find out that in fact 12 miners had died.
What a horribly unecessary situation. Yes, there was a miscommunication. But the news media was in such a rush that they didn't bother to verify the information. Apparantly that's not a part of the job anymore, and that means the information isn't reliable. They're selling a bad product. Don't buy it.
Post a Comment