If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Larry Chin)   Washington's elite criminal factions (neocon and neoliberal) are cynically continuing the massive bipartisan cover-up of 9/11 and the "war on terrorism"   (onlinejournal.com) divider line 179
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

8281 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Oct 2006 at 12:00 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



179 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-10-08 07:58:37 PM  
Neocon and neoliberal are almost te same thing. They are not antonyms.
 
2006-10-08 08:08:28 PM  
Undeniable fact: all of Washington "knew" about 9/11

It is an amply documented fact -- no news whatsoever -- that the Bush administration had absolute foreknowledge of 9/11, and deliberately ignored warnings received within the US and from officials and intelligence agencies outside the US.


the Internet is such a valuable, never-ending font of truth that i have no clue how i constructed my conspiracy without it
 
2006-10-08 09:49:35 PM  
7of7: Neocon and neoliberal are almost te same thing. They are not antonyms.

What 7of7 said. "Neoliberal" includes Ronnie Raygun and Maggie Thatcher.

Read a book, smitty.
 
2006-10-08 10:00:34 PM  
"All of Washington" is a bit much. But a very small handful of congressional leaders, intel directors and cabinet members obviously knew a hell of a lot more than *we* did.

Just last week, it was confirmed that Condi Rice got even *more* specific warnings about domestic terror attacks, in July '01. She ignored them, refused to even talk about them, despite the briefers saying it was a "10 on the scale of 10" in importance.

John Ashcroft took his July warnings a little more seriously: He quit flying commercial airlines, thus saving his own ass. Meanwhile, his Justice Department killed multiple field investigations dealing with actual or wannabe Arab hijackers.

The FBI's senior anti-Islamic terror guy -- John O'Neill -- was fired for being too focused on these plans. But it worked out okay, because his new private-sector job started on 9/11: head of WTC security. He was killed that day.

What amazes me is how any of this stuff can be labeled "conspiracy." It's simply true, confirmed again and again, not even argued against. The White House has at every opportunity fought real investigations. Congress has barely done a better job. I mean come on, the *president* wouldn't testify to the 9/11 commission! That's outrageous. What's he hiding? We'll never know, because the "compromise" let him be interviewed in private, with no note-taking and no tape recording allowed, and with Cheney by his side!

Instead of holding these people accountable for letting 9/11 happen -- and it doesn't matter at all if it was incompetence or malice, because the benefits have been quite obvious to the neocons, neoliberals and the defense contractors -- we are confused and distracted by constant red herrings.

Who does it benefit if people argue over whether a jetliner or a magic banana struck the Pentagon? If the WTC collapse had the help of explosives? If Osama bin Laden is a remote-controlled muppet run by the CIA or Israel or Saudi Arabia?

It benefits those who should be held accountable. As long as we argue on the Internets about trivia, the people who allowed 9/11 to happen not only go free, but they continue to launch illegal wars and kill U.S. troops and innocents and degrade this country.
 
2006-10-08 10:05:14 PM  
"deliberately ignored warnings received within the US and from officials and intelligence agencies outside the US."

Do you all remember post 9/11 when they came up with that retarded color coded system, how everyone said it wouldn't work? How when they did raise the threat level and caused massive inconvienience to thousands of travelers and all of the biatching and moaning here on Fark? Imagine doing all of that before 9/11. There's no way people would have even thought of putting up with it.

We had "ignored" hundereds of threats in the years prior to 9/11 for just this reason. They didn't have any hard intel to go on that I've seen, only vague hints at what was being planned but not enough to know who, how or when to be able to stop it. Sure, after the fact you can see where two and two didn't get put together but picking out the wheat from the chaff isn't easy and without hard evidence to present to those in charge they simply weren't going to lock down the airports back then.
 
2006-10-08 11:59:29 PM  

Dude! It's true! Total conspiracy, Bush planned it! Someone got a transcript!

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of farking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of farking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? shiat, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!
(Thanks to Rolling Stone magazine for that.)

If Woodward's new book is to be believed, most of the Bush administration's problem isn't evil so much as it's sheer stupidity.
 
2006-10-09 12:04:41 AM  
corvidaerex: As long as we argue on the Internets about trivia, the people who allowed 9/11 to happen not only go free, but they continue to launch illegal wars and kill U.S. troops and innocents and degrade this country.

I think your idea of allowing 9/11 to happen is a little wonky.

I mean, thinking that islamic hijackers were planning a major attack and knowing that on Tuesday September 11th x,y,and z was going to happen is two completely different things.
 
2006-10-09 12:04:55 AM  
fark the "new" (neo) America.
 
2006-10-09 12:09:36 AM  
fark the "new" (neo) America.

In response to my own comment above, these people are behind the scenes ensuring that the insustainable monstrosity that is America is able to prolong its existence. If you enjoy such a consumptive way of life than you should support this, regardless of how criminal. History shows that no empire is truly sustainable.
 
2006-10-09 12:11:51 AM  
Neo has to believe in himself!
 
2006-10-09 12:12:32 AM  
I maintain that Flight 93 was shot down. I mean, the passengers didn't jump up and say, "This plane must be headed for the Pentagon 150 miles away! We can't let it hit that! Let's take the plane down in this field." And I find it hard to believe that no one would have survived a controlled emergency landing. Air Traffic Control would have helped them down, or the passengers themselves could have figured out how to take the plane down gradually so they all wouldn't die. And people report hearing an explosion before the plane went down. Admittedly, the previous statement is of questionable merit, but I believe the others make up for it. I think that the military higher-ups saw a large aircraft deviating from its flightplan (after the others on the same day) and decided that it needed to be taken out. That's what I think.
 
2006-10-09 12:12:44 AM  
img174.imageshack.us

/yup, and it wasn't an airplane that crashed into the Pentagon... it says so on teh internets
 
2006-10-09 12:14:16 AM  
it's really this simple really:

the government farked up with 9/11

after 9/11, few took responsibility

i repeat: the government farked up with 9/11, few took responsibility

it's that simple, no conspiracy theories, no evil plans or etc.
 
2006-10-09 12:14:26 AM  
See...I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, yet I'm perfectly willing to entertain the (almost certain) idea that FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor, and let it happen so that he could take us into WWII. And frankly I'm OK with it, because the end result is undeniably good.

So, I hate it when people immediately slap tin-foil hats on anyone who wonders whether the Bush administration let 9/11 happen. If they believe that the war on terror is a just cause, then they should be willing to accept the fact that we sacrificed some people to fight it.

If, 50 years from now, we can legitimately look back and say that in the long run 9/11 made the world a better place, I might even be willing to forgive the Bush administration for it.

\do NOT think they planned it
\\it was only a matter of time that the terrorists would pull something off, anyway
 
2006-10-09 12:14:36 AM  
"All Washington had foreknowledge (of 9/11)"

THIS load of horse shiat got green lighted?!?!?!?

To make the REAL 'Obvious' point:

WHERE EXACTLY is the proof that 'ALL' Washington knew?

Just when I think the partisan BS in here CAN'T get any worse I get to read utter dreck like this...

Drew? You need better screeners.
 
2006-10-09 12:15:25 AM  
LukeA: I maintain that Flight 93 was shot down. I mean, the passengers didn't jump up and say, "This plane must be headed for the Pentagon 150 miles away! We can't let it hit that! Let's take the plane down in this field." And I find it hard to believe that no one would have survived a controlled emergency landing. Air Traffic Control would have helped them down, or the passengers themselves could have figured out how to take the plane down gradually so they all wouldn't die. And people report hearing an explosion before the plane went down. Admittedly, the previous statement is of questionable merit, but I believe the others make up for it. I think that the military higher-ups saw a large aircraft deviating from its flightplan (after the others on the same day) and decided that it needed to be taken out. That's what I think.

The general concencus is that they never got into the cockpit, and that the guy piloting the plane tried to do some wonky manuevers to throw the people in the cabin around, and lost control.
 
2006-10-09 12:15:30 AM  
it's really this simple really:

the government farked up with 9/11

after 9/11, few took responsibility

i repeat: the government farked up with 9/11, few took responsibility

it's that simple, no conspiracy theories, no evil plans or etc.


And, why did the government have to knock down the towers for there to be something evil going on in Washington, DC?
 
2006-10-09 12:16:38 AM  
*also, the war on terror has been both the fight against terrorism and the fight to make up for the government's own farkup through multiple avenues

like cleaning the house after a big party nothing ever happened over the weekend nudge nudge wink wink
 
2006-10-09 12:17:03 AM  
Those of you that believe what the government tells you regarding 9/11, and refuse to consider the mountains of circumstantial evidence to the contrary.. DIAF. Please, just DIAfarkINGF already.

Or shoot yourself, whichever is more convenient.
 
2006-10-09 12:17:36 AM  
Where's the pic that says "Oh Jesus, not this again" when you need it?

/can't believe this got greenlighted
//likes what elchip posted, though
 
2006-10-09 12:18:22 AM  
Neoliberalism is the economic policy of neocons, methinks subby is a retard.
 
2006-10-09 12:19:20 AM  
"Neoliberal"? No.. liberals are the same they have always been.
 
2006-10-09 12:21:54 AM  
Sumbitter please DIAF
 
2006-10-09 12:23:07 AM  
Yes Funkmaster Funk because no one has benefitted from the attacks. /sarcasm
 
2006-10-09 12:24:23 AM  
Any site with the headline "Six Flags over Neo-Nuremberg: Bush, Oprah, the San Diego Chicken and a proto-fascist panopticon of the mind" is either pining for a link from Fark, or it's highly suspect.
 
2006-10-09 12:24:32 AM  
"One nation, under god with liberty and justice for all."
\Reupiblicrat, demicon, conservative, liberal. Whats the difference? All of these groups are not even remotely concerned with the public's wishes and well bieng! They have private interest groups and financial contributors to please.
\\Even if 9\11 was the fattest dirtiest wool ever to be pulled over the eyes of Americah, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO? Mutter and groan about it at the water cooler?
\\\There are wars to pay for GBTW!
 
2006-10-09 12:25:09 AM  
Just using strong language in the article doesn't make it true.

Watch.

We all know that it is an undisputable fact that 93% of brown bear attacks are caused by the government. No amount of politically jockeying from both sides can keep this truth down, a truth that everyone one already knows. And because i just said that everyone knows it, then it must be true. And if you don't know it you should be asking yourself why you are the only one.
 
2006-10-09 12:25:23 AM  
I have formed a strong opinion on (insert event here) based on conjecture and stuff I read on tinfoil websites and in vitriolic "documentaries" without questioning the source, investigating the facts myself or applying common sense. "That sounds good to me" is my litmus test. It's easier for me to believe in conspiracy of hundreds (perhaps thousands) who have all kept their mouths shut than to accept that something huge and horrible could happen at the hands of a few of nutbags.

Did the United States government fark up? No shiat, Sherlock.

But clinging on hole-riddled scenarios of what happened 5 years ago isn't solving the problem. Let's focus, people. Let's talk about how to fix this mess instead of running around like a bunch of half-wit Oliver Stones.
 
2006-10-09 12:28:06 AM  
Neoliberal:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2006-10-09 12:28:22 AM  
Someone just sent me this: Who is Osama bin Laden? It's like a 20 minute read.

Take from it what you will.

Jamrock: And, why did the government have to knock down the towers for there to be something evil going on in Washington, DC?

To whip the people into a rage over 'those who did this must pay' so they could invade a sovereign nation and invade a country (Iraq) that didn't even have anything to do with it, over WMDs that they never had. (So they could plant permanent US bases in the Middle East because our government has their hands in everyone else's pockets. They actively promote tyranny around the world to feed their war machine so the rich get richer and the poor...die.)

(The only WMDs Iraq had were those sold/given to Saddam by Reagan and Bush 1 to help him in his war against Iran. You know, the dilapidated ones that Santorum was desperately clinging to as the reason we invaded in the first place.)
 
2006-10-09 12:28:34 AM  
Farking Sweet If you're going to call me out at least spell my name right.

Get a brain, moran.
 
2006-10-09 12:29:12 AM  
corvidaerex

Couldn't have said it better myself. (No, I mean I really couldn't have.)
*golf clap*
 
2006-10-09 12:29:22 AM  
LukeA: I maintain that Flight 93 was shot down. I mean, the passengers didn't jump up and say, "This plane must be headed for the Pentagon 150 miles away! We can't let it hit that! Let's take the plane down in this field." And I find it hard to believe that no one would have survived a controlled emergency landing. Air Traffic Control would have helped them down, or the passengers themselves could have figured out how to take the plane down gradually so they all wouldn't die. And people report hearing an explosion before the plane went down. Admittedly, the previous statement is of questionable merit, but I believe the others make up for it. I think that the military higher-ups saw a large aircraft deviating from its flightplan (after the others on the same day) and decided that it needed to be taken out. That's what I think.

It's possible, but I don't see why they'd try to cover it up. People would have been "okay" with that. I mean, hell, if anything, the official story makes the government look worse (they were paralyzed and couldn't do anything to take care of Flight 93) and so some average Joes tried to take things into their own hands.
 
2006-10-09 12:29:49 AM  

To whip the people into a rage over 'those who did this must pay' so they could invade a sovereign nation and invade a country (Iraq) that didn't even have anything to do with it, over WMDs that they never had. (So they could plant permanent US bases in the Middle East because our government has their hands in everyone else's pockets. They actively promote tyranny around the world to feed their war machine so the rich get richer and the poor...die.)

(The only WMDs Iraq had were those sold/given to Saddam by Reagan and Bush 1 to help him in his war against Iran. You know, the dilapidated ones that Santorum was desperately clinging to as the reason we invaded in the first place.)


What I meant was, why do you have to believe Bush knocked down the towers? There's something seriously evil going on either way.
 
2006-10-09 12:29:51 AM  
"I hate it when people immediately slap tin-foil hats on anyone who wonders whether the Bush administration let 9/11 happen."

And yet, it is about to happen again.

SUCK IT YOU CONSPIRACY NUTCASE TINFOIL HAT WEARER!
 
2006-10-09 12:33:10 AM  
I could really go for some neo con carne said M Foley
 
2006-10-09 12:33:11 AM  
img213.imageshack.us
I'm on dialysis B|TCHES!
 
2006-10-09 12:33:50 AM  
Another thread demonstrating the unfortunate truth that on the majority of Farkers, a large mammalian brain is wasted, as a spinal cord would suffice to support their "thoughts."
 
2006-10-09 12:35:55 AM  
malaclypse_the_tertiary: Another thread demonstrating the unfortunate truth that on the majority of Farkers, a large mammalian brain is wasted, as a spinal cord would suffice to support their "thoughts."

Haha, yes, those frequently-discredited, inconsistent and often nonsensical 9/11 conspiracies, on the other hand... are surely signs of a higher form of intelligence.

/Unless you're arguing against the conspiracy theorists
 
2006-10-09 12:38:07 AM  
bweeeeop bweeeeop fwoop fwoooooop fwooooop! Chunga!

I guess if I want to focus on the positives, at least the article was well written, which usually isn't the case when reading nutbag conspiracy theories. Still, crazy is crazy, regardless of whether one has a command of grammar and a spell checker.

The very outside edge of what I can entertain is that the Bush Admin knew something was coming, but failed to imagine the attack would happen within our borders. They knew something was up, and were prepared to let it happen in order to "react" and push ahead their agenda.

But that's still crazy. Just a step past plausible. It sort of works because it's a good blend of the administration's obvious incompetence and their evil practice of manipulation.

But if we look at their overall record, the incompetence is to great for them to pull off something that big. If they could pull that off, Iraq would be stabilized and secure by now. So, I can't even believe my toned down conspiracy theory.
 
2006-10-09 12:38:31 AM  
elchip: "Unless you're arguing against the conspiracy theorists."

How can one argue against crazy?
 
2006-10-09 12:39:16 AM  
malaclypse_the_tertiary: How can one argue against crazy?

How can one not?
 
2006-10-09 12:40:00 AM  
cptrios: See...I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, yet I'm perfectly willing to entertain the (almost certain) idea that FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor, and let it happen so that he could take us into WWII. And frankly I'm OK with it, because the end result is undeniably good.

So, I hate it when people immediately slap tin-foil hats on anyone who wonders whether the Bush administration let 9/11 happen. If they believe that the war on terror is a just cause, then they should be willing to accept the fact that we sacrificed some people to fight it.

If, 50 years from now, we can legitimately look back and say that in the long run 9/11 made the world a better place, I might even be willing to forgive the Bush administration for it.

\do NOT think they planned it
\\it was only a matter of time that the terrorists would pull something off, anyway


wow.
I can't even think of this post all at once. just one sentence at a time
 
2006-10-09 12:41:04 AM  
malaclypse_the_tertiary: How can one argue against crazy?

Okay. I wasn't sure if you were saying the conspiracy theorists were the ones with wasted brains, or if it was the official explanation believers.
 
2006-10-09 12:42:20 AM  
markfarker
The very outside edge of what I can entertain is that the Bush Admin knew something was coming, but failed to imagine the attack would happen within our borders. They knew something was up, and were prepared to let it happen in order to "react" and push ahead their agenda.

given Bush's reaction upon hearing the news, that sounds about right. It's also convenient that it happened early enough in his administration for him to get us over to iraq.
 
2006-10-09 12:44:05 AM  
screams incomprehensible: given Bush's reaction upon hearing the news, that sounds about right.

Yeah. Really, his look does indeed appear to be "Oh shiat... I should have listened to them. Oh shiat..."

Of course, while many saw tragedy, some shortly afterwards came to see an opportunity...
 
2006-10-09 12:44:52 AM  
It never ceases to amaze me that people believe this.

Hey dumbshiats, what happened TO . ALL . OF . THE . FARKING . PEOPLE?

Seriously, you're talking about a conspiracy involving thousands of individuals at every concievable level of government, billions of dollars, and thousands of deaths. It is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that there wouldn't be ONE person willing to get the book deal by spilling the beans.

It is hands down the most retarded blithel I have ever heard. If you belive this, you fail.

%40 some percent of Americans believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. %15 or so believe it was an inside job. I think that means that over HALF OF THE COUNTRY HAS ABSOLUTLY NO FARKING CLUE about what happened on 9/11. It's simply astounding.

Somedays I wakeup and I hate democracy.
 
2006-10-09 12:45:27 AM  
elchip

I think the reason that the "average joe hero" story is the one being told is because that's what the country needed at the time. It didn't need people second guessing if the gov't really needed to shoot down the plane. It didn't need people even considering the fact that the gov't would intentionally kill its own people, regardless of its justifications. So that's why we were told what we were told and that's why so many people want to believe it.

It feels better to believe that a group of strangers kicked ass and took names and sacrificed themselves in some way for the rest of us. And most of us will never know what really happened, but its easier to imagine that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. It's easier to think that heroes took down that plane. It's easy to think that a war on a METHOD of warfare is necessary. And it might all be BS. Or it might not be. But either way, it's easier for the average American to digest. So it prevails.

At least, that's my two cents.
 
2006-10-09 12:46:47 AM  
Gopherit: Hey dumbshiats, what happened TO . ALL . OF . THE . FARKING . PEOPLE?

The fate of the people depends which conspiracy theory you're willing to believe.
 
2006-10-09 12:47:40 AM  
elchip: Haha, yes, those frequently-discredited, inconsistent and often nonsensical 9/11 conspiracies, on the other hand... are surely signs of a higher form of intelligence.

Oh yes.. surely it is much more intelligent to believe everything your government tells you.
 
Displayed 50 of 179 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report