(V): It might have been "all of the above." Like the firebombing of civilian targets, it was unconscionable, whatever the strategic purpose(s).

The Usurper: Mmmmm so many rumours over the A bomb drops on Japan. Some say it was to end the war quickly, some say it was to see the actual consequences of the use of such devices for future reference, some say it was to frighten the Russians.

Czuch: Fear and terror like certain leaders have used before can give them the right to get away with murder.

Terrorism has been with us for years, some independent, some supported by certain governments in order for them to enjoy playing their stupid power games.

If 911 was not Osma Bin Laden (as the FBI now seem to be saying) then who?

Artful Dodger: Gotta catch a snooze while you can. :o)

It's snowing cats & dogs here! Whoopedoo! (rare in GA)

Yes....to create terror.

Also consider that the perpetrators (if the U.S. Government) were in charge of the crime scene & the investigation, not to mention they control the corporate media. And small-scale false-flag operations had already been tried & tested & proven doable. 9/11, then, would be the biggie, the one they'd been aiming for, to bring about their major objectives. In this scenario, the main reason they thought they wouldn't get caught would have to be....Hubris.

(I'm writing to Art here but also trying to answer some of Czuch's objections)

The Usurper:To create terror?

The Usurper:lazy, it's the afternoon  (I'm still in my PJ's tho)  ;)

Czuch: One word on why the buildings had to come down: "Shock and Awe"

This phrase, incidentally, comes from the Romans.

(V): You're doing yeoman service while I sleep. Just got up to peek.

A good book on Dresden is Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five." He was there, a prisoner of war. We also firebombed cities in Japan before dropping the big ones.

"Remember, remember, the 11th of September...."

Czuch:

Artful Dodger: Sheeple.... (and no Tuesday its not anything to do with females)

Czuch:Totally.  I like the sheep touch in the photo.  A fitting statement. 

Artful Dodger: GW is not the only one rolling over in his grave.... millions of our vets are too

Czuch:


Check this out:

Hey, I have a plan..... we dont like dealing with the idiots in Iran.... lets send a nuke into the heartland of the US, kill millions of people, then show some fake evidence that iran did it!!! Yeah, yeah, thats the ticket.... then we can blow the living crap out of Iran, and have the blessing of the whole world behind us, maybe even get someone else to do it for us! Brilliant!!

Czuch: and my point is that the US government did not have to use such an elaborate scheme to promote the fear and anger they needed to help implement more of their imperialistic urges...

really, just blow up one WTC, and blame some terror group from the middle east, that would have accomplished the same results, without near the risk of being caught at it as what they supposedly got away with

(V): No, your original point was that it was not needed except to promote more fear and terror....but not really necessary to win a war.

Artful Dodger: Thats my fault

Artful Dodger: Nope, I was sticking to the point, just using examples. Everyone else started going off on one.

Charles Martel: Did I say evil? I said a mistake, not needed. An error down to humans thinking badly.

(V):See what I mean?  Because you couldn't stay with the point, we're now discussing the bombing of Dresden! 

So maybe Dresden was not a good example of pure USA evil

Artful Dodger: I did.

Charles Martel: I'm not sure.... but it had to be guarded for a while as much hatred in the forms of graffiti was sprayed on the statue.

Some modern day people consider him a war criminal due to his policies.

(V): Maybe it wasn't Bush

Well according to Usurper, it was not just Bush but most of the government and now including Obama, and how many more that are backing it and not one leak yet?

(V):If it's clear, it should be simple for you to clarify and explain. 

Charles Martel: I know loads were used.... including 1000 bomber raids.

But from what I have read it looks like a lack of intelligence or the giving of such to Harris was a significant point. As he had not the clearance to know about ULTRA.

539,, is the red paint symbolizing blood still on his statue??

(V): Should we look up how many British lancaster bombers were used at night??

Charles Martel: Nope, I remember Bomber Harris, and not everyone agreed with him, in fact may British people and military were against area bombing of cities.... But the fact remains it was USA planes that did the raid.

Czuch: Maybe it wasn't Bush.. maybe it was some deep agency in the USA, kinda like when the CIA were dealing in drugs during the Vietnam war.

Its like the WMD... we know saddam had them because we saw he used them before.....

We saw 2 planes fly into the WTC buildings, but instead of flying a third one into the pentagon, they used a missile instead, and just used the third hijacked plane as a rouse, to throw us off their tracks, and then mysteriously ditched it in the ocean somewhere! Brilliant!

Then they used the fourth plane as a rouse to make us think they were also going to hit the white house, but they didnt want to ruin that building, like the pentagon, it was too valuable to ruin, so they faked a crash into Penn. and they even had people on the plane make phone calls to their loved ones saying how they were going to try to take over the plane, again another brilliant rouse thought up by Bush to make it seem even more realistic! Brilliant!

(V): The USA??? .. how convenient you forgot Air Marshall Arthur "Bomber" Harris, only Britain's advocate of bombing civilian targets including Dresden. this make you guilty of purposely twisting historical events for your own agenda, which is obviously hating the USA. Its ok to hate, but you shouldn't be so blatant about it as to twist facts

Artful Dodger: maybe because I've different perspectives being British and as Czuch keeps saying "a liberal" then to a repub. To me it's clear, not a dance.

(V): It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.


Okay, I see your point a bit more clearly now... but it still isnt relevant.

I am asking how, demolishing the WTC buildings with explosives after flying planes into them, put any more terror into the people of the US than simply flying the planes into them and not doing the demolition???



If the point of this day was for our government to create fear for the purpose of making it easier and more acceptable for them to perpetrate some other, more horrific actions in the name of imperialism, why take the extra risk of planting demolitions and exploding these buildings on top of flying planes into them??? For that matter, wouldnt it have been easier to just explode the buildings, without having to fly planes into them first? It wouldnt have been too hard to explain that as terrorism and get just the same results?

Bush had to be a genius to mastermind this whole plot, with the elaborate details of having these guys come here and take flight training classes, just as a distraction to the truth, and having Muslims enter the airport and leave "clues" behind in their cars etc ... pure genius... if nothing else, how you can call Bush a dolt and at the same time give him credit for such an act?

(V):Why not just clarify your comments instead of all this dance around.

Artful Dodger: Maybe, maybe not.... That depends on your view on who was responsible for 911.

(V):Quoting the prime minister is fine in context.  It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Artful Dodger: Quoting the Prime Minister of the UK during WWII is nonsense... mmmmmm

(V): You've been given the opportunity to clarify the connection you've made.  Go for it.  Quoting Churchill is nonsense.  We're talking about 911. 

Artful Dodger: Nope.

(V):It's an entirely different topic.  It had nothing to do with Czuch's post.  That's why he's scratching his head.  What you said made no sense at all.  It's even less clear now.  You never addressed the question directly.  You went off into something completely different. 

Artful Dodger: The Dresden fire bombing was not necessary. And essentially killed up to 40,000 civilians as the fire storm consumed the city.

As Churchill said after the raid....

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."

(V):Bingo. 

Artful Dodger: You said it was moronic to do it as part of an emergency situation to boost the economy.

.... From what I've read, the USA has never given the Vets a penny, and now your current Pres is correcting that mistake. Maybe he could have made it as part of a another bill or announcement but he didn't.

So what?

Czuch:I'm glad you caught that as well.  I read it and just went

(V):Humor us.  How is it "like" Dresden?

Czuch:WTC7 had major structural damage.  That structural damage put a high degree of stress on supports for the building.  They began to weaken.  The question is:  Did that structural damage put enough stress on support points so that they eventually gave way.  The fires clearly didn't do it.  Falling chunks of buildings 1 and 2 ripped into building 7.  The fires may have contributed to structural weakness but weren't the main factor.

(V):No, you twisted my words into meaning something I didn't say.  And now you hide behind "stating my opinion" which is dishonest.  I NEVER said it was moronic to honor vets.  NEVER.  You apparently are choosing to ignore the point of my post.  Since I'm the one making the point, YOU don't get to decide what the purpose was.  If you don't get it (and you don't) then ask for clarification.

But even now you won't try to get clarity on what I said.  You will simply excuse yourself from responsibility for your obvious misunderstanding. 

I think a significant percentage of the population has lost the faith. Why else would they have voted for Obama and the collectivists? 52% of the voters have declared they are not capable of achieving success on their own. 52% have offered up their freedom for the "wealth" of government handouts. 52% have declared their desire to confiscate the money of those that work and strive to better themselves.

I would say to these people, you do not deserve your freedom. You have traded freedom for the illusion of security. I would say other things to you, but Samuel Adams said it much better over 200 years ago:
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and my posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

To the rest of us, including myself, I am not sure we deserve freedom either. The next few years will tell. Will we stand and fight the collectivists, or will we just allow ourselves to be swallowed up as the last remnants of a once great idea?

I don't know about you, but I think the 48% have a lot of fight left in us!

(V): Just an opinion though, but if I was Pres at the time I would have sent enough troops and resources to implement a take and hold policy in Afghanistan.



No, you wouldnt have, because you would have been up to your neck in a huge conspiracy and cover up, and getting bin laden would have been the last thing you wanted to do