Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ugh, do you not see the difference between the Gulf of Tonkin, the overthrow of regimes in central and south america, and this?! In those we murdered the citizens of other nations... a bad thing to be sure. Here though we would be murdering our own citizens. Can you understand why the average american would be a little more inclined to send someone to prison over killing their neighbor instead of killing someone half a world away that was just a "commie" anyway?
What you're doing right now is the EXACT same thing the creationists do when they try to argue for intelligent design. You point out some inconsistencies in the generally accepted theory, and then assume that is evidence for your viewpoint. It's not.
Give some evidence... any evidence. (note: this means evidence that proves YOUR point, not attempts to DISPROVE the standard story).
You are making nonsense. You people asked for evidence to prove that such an action could or has taken place before. I gave you people proof. False Flag ops. They existed and they were used by the US against other nations as well as our own people.
Or are you claiming that over 58,000 dead Americans in Vietnam was not due to a False Flag op?
You could form an argument that the Gulf War was also a false flag operations to get nations to take action on Iraq. PR firms were hired to push the Kuwaiti side of the story (this is a fact), some poor little girl testified about kids being butchered in some hospital by the Iraqi's (who then turned out to be the daughter of some prominent Kuwaiti official), the satelite photos that turned Desert Shield into Desert Storm (that were later debunked by Russian as well as other satelite pictures of the same area at the same time).
So really what are you looking for?
You are looking for the evidence that proves my point as the CIA's documents on the Gulf of Tonkin or later in IRAN were revealed. Among others. Yet you dismiss them out of hand because they didn't take place in the US? This is absurd.
We were all stupid and swallowed the line about all those other nations we invaded and its people that we murdered. What is so special about us?
For 9/11 such documents or admissions by officials do not exist at this point in time. Based on past experience it could be 20, 30 or more years from now before something might come out like that. When most of those involved are old or dead.
The biggest difference between those False Flag operations and 9/11 is that there is a massive 9/11 for Truth movement and people are rejecting the offical story in a big way. Basicly half the country thinks the official story is BS.
So we should consider ourselves smart in the sense that we picked up on this without having to wait 30 odd years for someone to finally officially release something that would give us a clue.
Classic conspiracy theory nuttiness.
1) A false flag operation by definition is one that is perpetrated by a government against their own people. No such operation have ever gone through, that we know of, in U.S. history. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was indeed a fabricated pretext for war, but to claim the
entire Vietnam War in general was a false flag op (which you do by concluding the U.S. "murdered" 58,000 of its own citizens by sending them to Vietnam) is, again, classic conspiracy theory nuttiness. It ignores the reality of the situation at the time, which was the worry that communism would spread across the entire Asian continent; not just Vietnam but Red China as well. Those were perfectly legit concerns despite the false Tonkin pretext, yet completely ignored by persons such as yourself to push the "false flag" agenda.
You can't even define False Flag yet you wish to school me on it? The meaning originated when ships would fly false colors in order to trick the enemy ships's crew. It's very simple yet you managed to turn it into some sort of junk.
I never claimed the entire Vietnam War was a false flag op. That is moronic since the False Flag op was simply striking a match. Once the fire starts you don't need to keep throwing matches at it. What allowed it to escalate into a full blown war was the Gulf of Tonkin incident. This isn't even in question. You are creating strawman. Why is it so hard to stick to the facts at hand instead of making strawman?
2) CIA overthrow of Iran. For one, I find it highly amusing that CT'ers like to always make sure people know that 50's Iran democratically elected their leader. Yet no mention is made that electing leaders does not suddenly make you a democracy; it's asinine in the extreme to make such a simplistic generalization or to insinuate it as you have. Iran at the time was a
nationalist state that nationalized their oil supply, greatly reducing productivity and exports to foreign countries, most notably Britain. But most importantly Iran continually, in particular their Shah Mossadegh, would not align themselves with actual democratic nations such as the U.S. and Britain, disregarding NATO pressure to comply, instead outcasting themselves with the likes of Russia who, at the time, was known as the Soviet Union fighting a bitter Cold War with the U.S. to stretch communist influence across the globe. Of course this context isn't mentioned at all by nuts like yourself, simply ignored for convenience's sake.
You paint what I said as false by claiming that there was no democracy in Iran at the time. You think Western Democracy like US/Britain/Canada etc are the only forms of democratic government worthy of being called a Democracy?
Throughout history many nations had various forms of one kind of government or another. Often times they were mixed forms of government. Technically the only inaccurate statement is to state that there is but Democracy when referring to our form of government. No such thing exists as there are many forms of it that are made up of various elements of Democracy. Elements of Democracy may appear in conjunction with other forms of government as it did in Iran and still does today. Same is true of the US or Canada.
What we both said are correct. Elements of both existed. Now if you are going to start arguing how that's not real Democracy then I'm going to start pointing out the fact that we have elements in our form of government that is considered to be Corporatist (Fascist).
If we both want to be correct in using one single term to refer to each government then we need to start looking up names for it. Neither the one you or I mentioned would be it. Same is true of the US and Canada.
Intresting debate but it's not for this thread to continue that.
3) Your contention that the Gulf War could be considered a false flag op is ridiculous in the extreme and not even worth commenting on since you've got your facts all wrong anyway.
Well that was very stupid.
And I quote:
Shortly before US strikes began in the Gulf War, for example, the St. Petersburg Times asked two experts to examine the satellite images of the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia border area taken in mid-September 1990, a month and a half after the Iraqi invasion. The experts, including a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who specialized in desert warfare, pointed out the US build-up ? jet fighters standing wing-tip to wing-tip at Saudi bases ? but were surprised to see almost no sign of the Iraqis.
"That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," Ms. Heller says. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis ? offering to hold the story if proven wrong.
The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified.
More recently, in the fall of 1990, members of Congress and the American public were swayed by the tearful testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah.
In the girl's testimony before a congressional caucus, well-documented in MacArthur's book "Second Front" and elsewhere, she described how, as a volunteer in a Kuwait maternity ward, she had seen Iraqi troops storm her hospital, steal the incubators, and leave 312 babies "on the cold floor to die."
Seven US Senators later referred to the story during debate; the motion for war passed by just five votes. In the weeks after Nayirah spoke, President Bush senior invoked the incident five times, saying that such "ghastly atrocities" were like "Hitler revisited."
But just weeks before the US bombing campaign began in January, a few press reports began to raise questions about the validity of the incubator tale.
Later, it was learned that Nayirah was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington and had no connection to the Kuwait hospital.
She had been coached ? along with the handful of others who would "corroborate" the story ? by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, the biggest global PR firm at the time, which had a contract worth more than $10 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case for war.
"We didn't know it wasn't true at the time," Brent Scowcroft, Bush's national security adviser, said of the incubator story in a 1995 interview with the London-based Guardian newspaper. He acknowledged "it was useful in mobilizing public opinion."
Source for the above in bold
4) Your contention that "basically half the country thinks the official story is BS" is not supported by any legitimate research. Polls are
not considered scientific in nature by the actual community that makes the standards for research techniques (i.e. the academic community). Which is why you will fail over and over to convince people here that half of the U.S. truly believes the 9/11 attacks were sanctioned by parts of the U.S. government. Parts of the official story may indeed be inaccurate, but the crux of your argument is that 9/11 was perpetrated by rogue agents of the U.S. government and, forgive me for being blunt, but you'd have to be mentally handicapped in some form to truly believe that half the citizens in this country truly believe 9/11 was not carried out by foreign terrorists. I mean seriously now, if anywhere half the country
truly believed the U.S. was complicit don't you maybe think the media might pick up on it and do some digging? Even just one journalist? Yet we not a single journalist in the U.S. has supported the 9/11 "Truth Movement" of the conspirators. I wonder what the statistical probability of that is.
Polls are constantly refered to by everyone as an accurate reflection of society on a subject. This would be the first time I have heard that polls are not a valid form of showing public opinion. That is truely grasping for straws.
And again, you're not going to find any evidence of a U.S.-led 9/11 plot. You will go decades without evidence because no such plot will be proven to exist. The logistics of carrying out such a false flag op on American soil would require by default the coordination of at least hundreds of people, and the likelihood of not ONE single person coming forward with legitimate suspicions in the 5+ years since the 9/11 attacks is even more improbable. You cite these supposed firefighters, air traffic controllers, etc. that support your case, but when push comes to shove you won't actually list in detail or context what they've
actually said, word for word, nor will you analyze how accurate their accounts should be considered. Again, because you're not interested in facts, data, or context, but merely interested in "being right" or "being enlightened".
Why is it improbable they wouldn't come forward? You don't even need 100s of people. Besides they never investigated who put the Put Option on the stocks. I can only guess what became of them but my guess would be either very rich or dead, perhaps both.
NORAD is a good example. It doesn't function as one well oiled machine. People just do their jobs. I was in the military and I have worked for government. Any large organization does not share everything with everyone regardless of how critical it may be. We may like to think that such level of communication takes place but that's a myth. Information is kept on a need to know basis. The pilots aren't going to take off on their own without orders and they have no way of monitoring the situation. They need guidance. You just need key people to either say or not say something. You need a dozen guys to plant the bombs in the WTC buildings and you need key players who can do certain functions. Such as doing a NORAD drill on 9/11 with the same scenario as what was happening in real life. Same occured in Britain during the 7/7 bombing. They were running drills for the same thing that was happening in real life. Anyway you don't need more than a dozen opertaions people and some key people in government in key places. That's not even 100s of people. That's maybe a few dozen.