9/11 Final report.

raid517 · Jun 16, 2004, 07:57 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

Just in case there was any doubt left in anyone's mind.

GJ

sparky03 · Jun 16, 2004, 10:29 PM

[SIZE=xx-large]WOW.......fiction is cool[/size]

~~BMG_Cya=-~~ · Jun 16, 2004, 10:53 PM

Iraq and Saddam were not invaded and taken out because they "caused 9/11".
They were taken out because they were in violation of several U.N resolutions,
which the other countries were too wussified to do anything about.

He is also a known supporter of terrorists.

Lastly, Iraq is getting the crap kicked out of 'em because America can do it.
We like beating the hell outta people.

Wadda ya gonna do about it?

Falstaff · Jun 16, 2004, 10:56 PM

The issue of whether or not the connection could be proven is moot, the committee of learned men has decided that it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. In my opinion, this entire commision was determined to find absolute links between Saddam and Bin Laden. but the facts speak for themselves. In fact, henchmen for Bin Laden recieved medical care and monetary aid from and through organizations that were deemed "charities", of which Saddam did contribute. Members of Bin Ladens organization are and have been in IRAQ before and during the occupation of U.S. troops. In the past communication was documented and existed between Bin Laden and Hussien and his government, and this was sifted from information gathered by covert intelligence and after the overthrow of the IRAQI government. The commision can say what they want, they can justify their position and they can defend thier position. It is of no consequence to me, as the truth is hidden in the sand and buried in the bunkers and the pits of IRAQ.

sparky03 · Jun 16, 2004, 11:10 PM

I did have a response for you Jeff.......but then you edited it

So now I have to agree with your post.

Falstaff · Jun 17, 2004, 01:31 AM

damn dialup...its a living hell...lol

Judas · Jun 17, 2004, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BMG_Cya=-
Wadda ya gonna do about it?

unfortuneatly... what most of us are going to do about it.... nothing... we can't get ourselves far enough away to not be pulled into what the US now has brought apon itself...

Couple 1000 year war.....still going... and the US just volanteered to join it...

Regardless of how the fight / war is waged.... the US is getting/going to be constantly crippled... as the saying goes..

one man can slay a thousnd men in one night... (or variation of it)

unfortuneatly for us.... CANADA that is... alot of idots up here support what's going on... but like idiots.. they don't know much... Simply invading... and blowing the crap outa everything isn't going to stop it.. you'd have to kill every last person on earth to make damn sure there isn't one left.... as we all know.. the work within all the countries.. cells if you will....

~~BMG_Cya=-~~ · Jun 17, 2004, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Simply invading... and blowing the crap outa everything isn't going to stop it.. you'd have to kill every last person on earth to make damn sure there isn't one left.... as we all know.. the work within all the countries.. cells if you will....

You also can't sit back and let these guys run or run wild either.

All this peace and love and diplomacy is great (referring to most liberal, USA bashing posts I have seen), and occasionally it works. But these guys and the entire Arabian region in general, cannot be dealt with on a rational or peer to peer level. It's against their religion afterall to have to suffer the
"Infidels". That means you and me buddy.

Name me another religion, TODAY (we won't go back to the Spanish Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials, etc.,) that preaches death to anyone who is not of Islam aka the same religion? Pretty hard to come
up with one.

The US doesn't care whether the Iraqi's believe in Allah, Buddha, or the yummy refreshing taste of
gargled glass. We just don't want these guys running around blowing crap up all the time.

Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, are all known supporters of this radical Jihad and slightly more beligerent
form of Islam. They either support it with money, weapons, places to train or live. That is a known
fact.

Just for the record,I also don't agree with the Jews and their stance. They oughta all get the hell outta
the Gaza strip, and turn the thing into one big arse parking lot imho.

Cliche coming!! Duck!!!!!!
There is the way things ought to be, and there is the way things are.

dsdsdk · Jun 17, 2004, 03:35 AM

"They were taken out because they were in violation of several U.N resolutions"... lol.. like they care... they went there because of the oil...
and did they ever find any chem/bio weapons?

raid517 · Jun 17, 2004, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
The issue of whether or not the connection could be proven is moot, the committee of learned men has decided that it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. In my opinion, this entire commission was determined to find absolute links between Saddam and Bin Laden. but the facts speak for themselves. In fact, henchmen for Bin Laden received medical care and monetary aid from and through organizations that were deemed "charities", of which Saddam did contribute. Members of Bin Ladens organization are and have been in IRAQ before and during the occupation of U.S. troops. In the past communication was documented and existed between Bin Laden and Hussein and his government, and this was sifted from information gathered by covert intelligence and after the overthrow of the IRAQI government. The commission can say what they want, they can justify their position and they can defend their position. It is of no consequence to me, as the truth is hidden in the sand and buried in the bunkers and the pits of IRAQ.

Well I find it kind of incredible is all Jeff that this is the commission that was put together by Bush and which consisted of both Republicans and Democrats - and that they considered exactly the same 'evidence' that you allude to - and that even though they have comprehensively discounted it, you and many like you continue to cling to it. How can you possibly hope to to retain any credibility when no one with access to the facts has found any value in these claims?

In any case they went much further than this. What they actually said that as well as there being no direct links to Al Quada, there was also no evidence of any direct military threat by Iraq to the USA. What this means is that under US law, in order for the President to authorize a pre-emptive war against another country (an extreme example, since we never used to condone pre-emptive wars until just recently) he must be able to demonstrate to Congress and to the nation that there was a 'clear and present danger.' If it is later found that he misled Congress, the nation - and everyone else - which is effectively what this commission is saying - then under the US constitution he has clearly broken the law.

Well anyway, I don't want to go back over the rest of it again. I don't know how many threads we've had on this in the past. I just thought it was worth noting what the official final verdict of the official US commission on Iraq really was - and to see if this would do anything to lessen certain members of this forum's level of inner personal delusion.

But In reality I guess that for as long as there is sand in Arabia - you will continue to believe, no matter what the evidence really does or does not say.

Best regards,

GJ

PoopyTheJ · Jun 17, 2004, 12:46 PM

Misdirection is cool. The 9/11 commision should seriously study stage magic and illusion, they could make a killing, be the next David Copperfield! What a load of Horse crap. Sure am glad we've got the commisions to look into and obfuscate the issue, Warren commision, 9/11 commission, it takes the burden of thinking right off my shoulders and can drool stupidly and say "See, the government cares and they said this!" and never worry my pretty head about what really happened. Whew what a relief!

raid517 · Jun 17, 2004, 01:48 PM

And your point is? I mean I read all that, but I am still no clearer on what point you're making? Am I to take it that you don't like commissions - even when they are sanctioned by the law and contain a cross section of some of the most respected senior politicians in the country? There is no left/right bias in this commission. It's only objective was to uncover the truth - which I believe it has done.

I have consistently said that this was the case. I don't think it is justified to detract from the impact of this verdict simply by opting to deny it.

There in not much substance left to give these denials any weight.

GJ

PoopyTheJ · Jun 17, 2004, 02:08 PM

Some of the most respected politicians huh? Isn't that like some of the most honorable thieves? Henry Kissinger, good choice, internationally wanted for war crimes, complete liar and fraud. Zelikow worked on the Bush cheney transision team, the 9/11 comittee disregarded or didn't allow testimony that had to do with standard operating procedures being followed on 9/11, they didn't follow the money trail regarding the Put options that trace back to Buzzy Krongard former director of the CIA. They didn't touch the reports of bombs going off in the building. It was a huge whitewash, only "investigate" what we tell you you can investigate, ignore anyhting that doesn't agree with the things we tell you, and make sure you don't find anything criminal, except of course if it has to do with tying Saddam and Osama, we need a resaon for attacking Iraq. The whole commision was one big misdirection and whitewash. Absolute BS, we'll not learn what really happened, the truth as you like to put it, before I'm old and in my grave thats for sure!

raid517 · Jun 17, 2004, 02:42 PM

Well for that to be true you have to believe that there was a bias - and I don't really see it.

I still don't know where you're comming from.

Why don't you just come out and say what you think happend? So far you have said everything but that. Try to just lay it out simply and calmly - and then maybe we can address whatever it is you are trying to say.

I didn't know Henry Kissinger was on this commission. Isn't he retired? Aren't you confusing this with Watergate?

The staff as far as I'm aware is

Thomas H. Kean
Chair

Lee H. Hamilton
Vice Chair

Richard Ben-Veniste
Fred F. Fielding
Jamie S. Gorelick
Slade Gorton
Bob Kerrey
John F. Lehman
Timothy J. Roemer
James R. Thompson

Commission Staff

Philip D. Zelikow
Executive Director

Chris Kojm
Deputy Executive Director

Daniel Marcus
General Counsel

Tell us where you think the money trail leads and what proceedures were or weren't followed and why.

Maybe then we can make some progress.

GJ

JavaFox · Jun 17, 2004, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
I didn't know Henry Kissinger was on this commission. Isn't he retired? Aren't you confusing this with Watergate?

He was appointed to head it, actually, but he quickly recused himself.

**Roadee** · Jun 17, 2004, 04:25 PM

On the committee?

That is one person that should of been IN FRONT of them testifying.......

raid517 · Jun 17, 2004, 07:04 PM

Well you won't always please everybody. I followed events pretty closely. Each of the parties got to nominate who they wanted on the committee. It may not be perfect - but it's about as fair as you are likely to get.

Maybe it's just easier for me to accept the verdict - as it is a view I have always had anyway.

But it isn't just this committee that has said this. Even the people sent into Iraq to investigate the claims made by Bush all came out saying the same thing - 'there is no evidence, we can't find anything.'

Sigh... Well anyway I guess for those who are determined to believe the only way would to be to dig all of the sand out of the desert.

Clearly for them the views and opinions of even those in a far better position to judge the facts, carry little or no weight at all.

Their faith in Bush outweighs the need for any form of objective proof.

GJ

**Roadee** · Jun 17, 2004, 07:33 PM

Personally......I dont like Bush....but then again there are FEW politicians I do like at all....VERY FEW. The true facts will NEVER come out.....that is about the only fact of the matter. Raid....I respect your views.....dont agree with alot of them.....but I do respect them. You post what you believe and other's will post what they believe.....and everything will go smoothly. One way or another

In a perfect society, all the facts would of been out in the open, and wouldn't of needed a committee to investigate anything......but that will never happen in ANY country......at ANY time. Corruption is as old as man it's self, and will live just as long.

raid517 · Jun 17, 2004, 08:04 PM

Well I don't know - tied up in that somewhere is a belief that there is something about this whole deal that wasn't right. Call it a 'suspicion' perhaps?

However without defining what those suspicions are it is hard to interpret how much validity, if any they have.

All such unspecified suspicions do is plant similar unspecified suspicions in other people's minds - suspicions that are often (somewhat irrationally in my view) used to reinforce a usually pre-existing ideological bias.

But all along all I have said is that I wanted proof. I have never deviated from that position - and even if I had been proved wrong, it was always the value of real and quantifiable proof that I felt to be most significance in all of this.

Similarly the use of words like corruption, and hints at conspiracy do nothing more than raise even more irrational doubts - so that in time people tend to just go off and fill in the blanks for themselves. Simply mentioning corruption here will no doubt be enough to plant the idea in many people's heads that even this committee was corrupt - even though there is no proof - or even the slightest suggestion from any credible sources that it was.

That is why I value proof, because without it all we have are empty unfounded suspicions, half baked theories and our own personal biases to inform us. And if that is all we ever depended on, then that is little more than a recipe for chaos - because in the middle of all of our competing prejudices and self interests - it is the truth itself that stands to be lost.

GJ

**Roadee** · Jun 17, 2004, 08:07 PM

Anyway......getting back to it.

I only mentioned one name earlier....so that is all I will delve into.

Quote:

Jamie S. Gorelick is a Commissioner on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, otherwise known as the 9-11 Commission.

Gorelick is "a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. Prior to joining Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in July 2003, Gorelick was vice chair of Fannie Mae. As part of the four-person Office of the Chairman, she shared responsibility for overall management of the company, directed its efforts to reach underserved markets and oversaw Fannie Mae's external relationships, legal and regulatory affairs.

"Prior to joining Fannie Mae in May 1997, Gorelick was deputy attorney general of the United States, a position she assumed in March 1994. From May 1993 until she joined the Justice Department, Gorelick served as general counsel of the Department of Defense. From 1979 to 1980 she was assistant to the secretary and counselor to the deputy secretary of energy.

"In the private sector, from 1975 to 1979 and again from 1980 to 1993, Gorelick was a litigator in Washington, D.C., representing major U.S. companies on a broad range of legal and business matters. She served as president of the District of Columbia Bar from 1992 to 1993. Gorelick is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. She also serves on several boards, including the Fannie Mae Foundation, United Technologies Corporation, Schlumberger, Limited, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Harvard College Board of Overseers, America's Promise, the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, and The National Park Foundation. She is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Law Institute.

"Gorelick co-chaired, with Senator Sam Nunn, the Advisory Committee of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, and currently serves on the Central Intelligence Agency's National Security Advisory Panel as well as the President's Review of Intelligence."

Hmm.....do you see ANY conflict of interest in her job history??

Or how about THIS getting even more interesting now.....

Clearly, even you Raid, can see the conflict of interest here, and of course my original point of the fact that this is one member that should of been testifying to the committee instead of ON it. This is my basis of the committee being corrupt, or biased, or whatever term your heart desires.

But let's not forget. This subject is far from over, as you can see HERE

pr0digal jenius · Jun 17, 2004, 08:11 PM

politics is the art of lying...plain and simple

raid517 · Jun 17, 2004, 08:23 PM

If that is the case, then debating politics is simply a matter of debating which lies you want to believe in most.

Maybe that's not so far from the truth. Maybe lies an ideology are the same.

I don't really think it's quite that simple myself, but there you are. I think we allow our politicians to lie (if you want to describe it as lies) because often they are the kind of lies we most want to hear.

We let them lie because they are the same kind of lies we prefer to tell ourselves.

GJ

pr0digal jenius · Jun 17, 2004, 08:42 PM

very true