Search results

Nope, and I have never made that claim. As for ignoring the incident, the Gulf of Tonkin was included because it's an instance where a Govt falsifies a military event to justify a military response or build towards it. As that was one of the points I was making it's quite relevant. As for...

Not at all, each requires careful consideration. My involvement, and that of the Gulf of Tonkin, was merely to comment on how a military invasion or event is easier to sell if you have been attacked first. If you have the political appetite, but fear that the population does not, this might be...

That's why I had the Gulf of Tonkin incident as separate to the other two instances, because it was different in that no attack occurred. I clearly stated this in my post. As for 9/11, the point I was debating was whether a government would allow an attack on its populace to occur (in order to...

The point I was referencing related to whether Governments would allow or permit attacks on their own populace and the perception that this would never be entertained. Two of these involved this theme (the outcome being a justifiable military response). The Gulf of Tonkin involved a faked...

Sadly it isn't without some precedent. Operation Northwoods, though ruled out, was authorised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and this centred on false flag attacks on US citizens. The USS Liberty incident falls into this sphere. There's also the Gulf of Tonkin incident to consider. What this...

Not all 'truthers' (I hate that term) are the same. It's not a all-in club where you have to accept all non-standard theories. Sadly the most extreme ones often get cited and become the cliche by which all are referred to (in the same way that football fan = hooligan in the 80s to non-football...

I think the podcast also argues for tenuous associations between Bin Laden and 9/11. The US even going so far as releasing a faked tape showing Bin Laden celebrating, then removing it when people were pointing out how obviously fake it was. Anyhoo, best to check out the podcast as they outline...

Glad you liked it, the key aspect for me was what was going on behind the scenes. It does set up Bush as simply a puppet to a number of figures who had varying interests. The big problem I have with any debate concerning conspiracy theories is that if you question the standard account of...

I seem to remember at the time the Saudi involvement being kept quiet. Does remind me of that cracking Family Guy skit:

from what I heard on the podcast Bush wasn't that interested - it was Rumsfeld, Cheney and co who had an array of personal and business interests in the war(s).

Conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 are numerous, I tend to think of them sitting on a slide scale of probability. Just because you think one or two are probable it doesn't mean you buy into the really extreme ones or indeed all of them. For the really incredulous ones you would need a cast of...

Apologies, should have made it clearer, I've not looked through Wrong Direction and what he was advocating or arguing. Just thought I'd pitch in with it as an alternative point. Only came on to mention the podcast where they debunk and weigh up the various theories.

That's a very sound point, but it would largely counter the full-fat conspiracy theory (e.g. towers were demolished, it was Zionists blah blah etc) other theories centre around the idea that the attack was known about and the controls which would have prevented it were effectively 'switched off'...

Late to the thread on this one and I see it's got a bit feisty. The Last Podcast on the Left did an excellent podcast on 9/11, dealing with the pseudo science but balancing it with the political will at the time for a reason for such an event. If nothing you'll learn a lot about the politics of...