pap

What's particularly interesting about that video is the statement during the Israeli TV interview. "We were there to document the event", which implies foreknowledge. There are too many other oddities that day that can't be achieved by either AQ or Israelis alone, like Cheney's stand-down order as the plane was approaching the Pentagon. That's why I don't really buy 1) as an explanation. The logic behind 2) is predicated on "everyone is in on it". Assuming the more logical position, "not everyone is in on it", why wouldn't counter-intelligence arrest foreign spies?

What's interesting about the Pentagon incident is that apart from five or so frames of footage, there's nowt. This is a plane that was tracked for 50 minutes (according to former Secretary of Transport, confirmed by CNN) and was heading toward the nerve centre of US Defense, after confirmed attacks in New York. No amateur footage, no TV footage, nothing from security cameras, etc - except for the aforementioned blurry frames, which don't really show anything conclusive. Why is there no conclusive footage? How come you're having to rely on eyewitnesses?

Link to audio of this interview. http://talksport.com/football/southampton-update-murat-yakin-could-replace-pochettino-saints-claims-peach-14052792989

DISCLAIMER: Daily Mail Alert! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2640005/Elitist-Ed-heading-disaster-Labour-MPs-says-party-leaders-head-sand-terrible-European-elections-result.html Labour heading for disaster unless at general elections, according to some of their backbenchers. Can't say I disagree with them.

Nope, just partially. The EU is entirely responsible for decisions thereafter though. It acted in the interests of central banks and the IMF over the needs of EU citizens. Still, that's alright, innit? As buctootim says, they misrepresented their fiscal position, so the kids are alright*. * in the bankrupt state care system

The crash in Greece could only have happened because of the EU. Institutions lent to them knowing that they couldn't pay it back, but the EU would bail them out. The EU then imposed austerity and suspended democracy. There have been reports of perfectly fit but penniless parents putting their kids into state care because they can't afford to keep them. Superb illustration of the EU's priorities. Greece can starve as long as the bankers get paid, and they can't vote for anything else.

Both of you seem to be treating this as if it happened for no reason. Some could argue that the emergence of far right parties has been fuelled by the EU and its policies. The far right in Greece certainly never enjoyed the recent popularity they did until the EU imposed austerity.

Depends on how right your mind is, I guess. Far right minded people probably love it.

Nope. I think the decision was the right one and that he was over-awed with the size of the task. Difficult to know how good he really is; didn't save Reading - which was admittedly a hard job, but didn't get them promoted this year either. We enjoyed a lot of success under his reign, but then, we were spending a mil in League One for Lambert and buying players from the division above. The team showed both immediate and longer-term improvement under Poch.

A very interesting election. Highlights have to include seeing the smear campaign utterly fail, Rees-Mogg kissing UKIP arse in hope of a pact, fake Romanians, Nick Clegg's attempt to be the big Euro man and present the pro-EU case and the almost complete destruction of the Liberal Democrats in the polls. Coincidence? Too early to confirm, but this election looks like it could be important in changing the landscape of British politics. The Lib Dems are finished; undone by their own promises, some masterful stitch-up work from the Tories and Nick Clegg. Aptly, looks like UKIP are going to use the Ashdown approach of targeting 20 or so seats in the general. It'll be interesting to see where they aim. I've always assumed they'd go for the key marginals, and I'm sure that'll still happen, but they've also got an opportunity to cut into safe Tory seats, judging from the MEP data.

USS Liberty. Israeli intelligence on and around 9/11.

You've been shot down recently on "US/Israel would never attack own citizens" and "No one has ever come forward". There may be others, but you really don't merit that much effort right now. How's your little project going? You know, the one where you're trawling a site populated with people you hate, in a vain attempt to locate material which you can apply to someone you don't know. I'm really hoping to step up my "freak on the Internet" status, but after seeing the level of dedication others devote, can see a long road ahead of me. Is this sort of thing something you're born with, or is it trainable?

Hehe. Cherry-picking is probably more appropriate. I link a forum, say it's a good resource - but also say I've had nothing to do with the content. On this thread, I have provided my own content, frequently taking the time to address the specific "man in the pub" jizz that prematurely dribbles out of your mouth. You've elected to go to a public forum that I've linked, deciding for the purposes of your argument that I endorse 100% everything on the site, then attempt to ascribe other people's opinions to me based on my broad statement that the forum as a whole was a good resource. I feel the only positive contribution you've made here is to the double glazing industry. I've written excitedly to them this morning, sharing the exciting news that we've finally found something more transparent than glass.

Hold up a second; I didn't start the thread or knowingly put forward a "planes were not airliners" theory. Can you let me know the origin of your point?

The PNAC document acknowledges the USA's status as sole superpower. The broad aims of the document are about consolidating this status, not achieving it. Afghanistan is not as worthless as you'd imagine. First, it's strategically important - borders Pakistan and Iran, two key players. It's economically important - it'll eventually be home to part of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. And of course, there's the opium - which started coming out of Afghanistan almost as soon as the coalition forces established some semblance of control. Heroin is cheaper, more available and causing real problems. Iran Contra showed that senior government officials have no problems slinging a bit of dope; it's a great source of off-the-books cash which can be used to fund black operations. I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't somehow making an earner. During the Afghanistan bombing campaign, the Taleban offered to give up bin Laden. There were two conditions:- 1) evidence that bin Laden was involved 2) bin Laden to be handed to a neutral court Not a big ask if they have a case. bin Laden would have been on his way to an international court somewhere for a trial. A successful conviction in an international court based on solid evidence would have been the best outcome. Punishment served, and a strong statement about how the leader of the free world goes about its business. Afghanistan was the foot in the door war. Overkill? Maybe, but given public sentiment at the time, few complained loudly. In reality, if they'd had a prosecutable case and the political will, the invasion could have been avoided and the US could have basked in its new-found moral authority. The PNAC document suggests the neo-conservatives were gagging for war. Afghanistan represented the most expedient means of getting into one of their desired theater campaigns. Some of the neocons, notably Wolfowitz, were involved in a project called Team B. Some felt that the US wasn't nearly as alarmed as it should be about the Soviet threat following 70s detente. It was a competitive analysis exercise which hawks like Bush Sr and Donald Rumsfeld called for. They hoped it would prove a bit spicier than the dull truth of Soviet military decline. The Team weren't thrilled with some of their base variables, so they ramped up things like Soviet GDP, production, capabilities of weapons systems. They extrapolated and invented stuff purely on the basis of the desired outcome. Didn't seem to matter. There's an interesting turn-up. Reagan-era spending was Rumsfeld-inspired and Donald and co all got promoted! By the time George Bush Jr rolled in, many of Dubya's administration had served times on boards of various military industrial corporations, casting further doubt on motive and potential conflicts of interests in a new era of military spending increases, no-bid contracts, private military contractors, a permanent war economy and a steady stream of real extremists created through the West's heavy-handedness, allowing us to ironically justify this mess.

First, governments (or elements of them) have participated in such risky endeavours. Such operations have frequently been used by countries to legitimise conflict. The USS Liberty incident was a case of US/Israel attempting to covertly destroy a US asset, servicemen and all. The US government never "got away with it". The truth of the situation was known in some form from the moment the first survivors were eventually pulled from the water. People know what happened, it has just never been followed up in an official capacity. It's off the agenda. There are numerous other examples of governments using fabricated events/reports of events to start a shooting war, from the tales of Iraqi soldiers upending babies out of incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals, the Gulf of Tonkin incident which triggered Vietnam, Hitler's push into Poland off the back of the Gleiwitz incident or project TPAJAX, which preceded the 1953 coup against Mossadegh. I heard an excellent quote the other day; "the reason that conspiracy theories exist is because investigative journalism is dead". Sure, it's a little hyperbolic, and exceptions like the Snowden case drive a double decker through the general rule. That said, there's an element of truth to that. I've said this before, but the vast majority of mainstream media is controlled by corporate or state interests. The recent European Elections and the campaign against UKIP gave sparkling insight into the way the mainstream media can align itself in furtherance of a single goal or the propagation of a few key messages. Back in the early days, people considered both LIHOP ( let it happen on purpose ) and MIHOP ( make it happen on purpose ) as the two broad alternatives to the official narrative. LIHOP is supported by pre-9/11 events, particularly the complete failure to avert the catastrophe despite the efforts of their own law enforcement agencies and the foreign governments. However, there's a huge problem with LIHOP. How exactly do you let something happen on purpose? If you just do nothing, various operational standard procedures will kick in, fighter jets will be in the air and the planes should be intercepted, as they successfully did the 67 times in 2001 before 9/11. On the day, interception protocols completely failed at the worst possible moment. Five military drills were occurring that day, either diverting potential interception resources or creating confusion for those trying to unscramble the mess. Former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's claimed that Cheney stood NORAD down for 50 minutes while tracking the inbound plane to the Pentagon. This was denied, and he was characterised as someone who'd muddled his timings. CNN reports from the same day back up his claim that the Pentagon was aware of the plane 50 minutes before arrival. Some might argue that the above could be categorised as LIHOP, but I'd disagree. Any "help", omission of action, etc, would make the prosecuting authority part of the plan. Any realistic LIHOP option would involve some indirect MIHOP assistance (stand down orders, etc). Feasible, but not entirely logical. Both LIHOP and MIHOP would have been underpinned by a desire for the attacks to succeed. LIHOP puts entire parts of the desired objective outside the control of the people "letting it happen". Under MIHOP, everything is controlled. You've said you're open to the idea of elements of the US govt/Mossad letting it happen. Is allowing foxes into the henhouse much different than firing the shots yourself? The broad intent is the same, as is the end result. The big differences are the means, directness of involvement and overall probability of mission completion. If a New Pearl Harbor was the desired outcome, would those involved in the planning really trade so much operational control for the tiny bit of moral comfort that LIHOP provides?

"How dare you" was a bit of a stretch. I was hoping that it'd stick and we could add something else to your repetoire. I'm not deaf to constructive criticism. I'm more than happy to rescind that from the record. The recurring theme of strawman combined with a demand for a complete solution is repeated here. The strawman part is the insistence that any bi-lateral operation between the US and Israel mandates a sit-down meeting of some kind. There are apparently no other ways for information to be conveyed or plans to be made. The demand for complete information on this "must have happened" meeting is a provocatively redundant touch. 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10. 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

CB Fry demands them all the time, and worse, often for things he has invented himself. As for your second point, I'm not saying that. In my reply to badgerx16, I did exactly what you ask; providing a before, during and after context centred on the event. As Fowllyd rightly points out, and I've already conceded, many of the events just happened to be things that 9/11 enabled and do nothing to prove a conspiracy on the day or even raise suspicion in isolation. However, you have most of the context you need. Most of it is laid out in the PNAC policy document. The authors wanted the century to be about securing American dominance as the sole superpower, and that peace wasn't the means to achieve it. I doubt many have considered what retaining the "sole superpower" status would actually entail. High level, it simply involves preventing other superpowers from emerging or returning - stopping Russia and China, in other words. Practically, people in democracies don't like to go to war or hike defence spending unless there is a really good reason. "Keeping Russia and China" down isn't a good enough reason, even if it happens to be the plan all along. So we've a problem. The neo-cons really needed a war, but apart from "American dominance, yo!" (difficult to sell in domestic or foreign markets) - they had no justifiable reason for the aggressive foreign policy they wished to pursue. 9/11 provided the reason, the consequent "war on terror" provided the justification for all the corporatism that followed.

Like I said, I'm trying to be fair. I've been candid, but I don't fancy contributing this embryonic prequel season of 24 you're riffing on, impressive though it is.

Forgot to post this earlier, but posted on another thread for VW. [video=youtube_share;kjOH1XMAwZA] Dead In The Water. The sinking of the USS Liberty. Covers CB Fry's other big non-strawman claim; that US would not sacrifice own people to start wars. This BBC doc makes a strong case that in cahoots with Israel, they did.

It's entirely fair. I'm glad that you enjoyed my previous post, and I realised that when compiling a list events, any one of them could be extrapolated into a straw man fantasy by CB Fry, a platform to "demand complete solutions", leaving me in the uncomfortable position where I have to solve his unsubstantiated inventions. The blanket and inaccurate claim that no-one has come forward also needed to be addressed. I've endeavoured to give fair answers to fair questions, but I'm not going to indulge overtly hostile posters with anything more than calling their crap when I see it.

I'm on limited hardware. Can't do the usual quoting and scoring, but much respect for having the barefaced cheek to delight us with your utterly hypocritical strawman claims all over the site. It is something to behold, especially when measured against this post. The latter part of your post is either ignorance or outright mendacity. If it's the former, check out the link with emergency workers, government officials speaking out. If it's the latter, sir is to be congratulated on the boldness, but let down on the facts. You definitely hit a new category with your letsroll post. " How dare you?". Good stuff.

Nice. Which gigs have you targeted for milf potential?

Come now, you must know that Planet Narcissus revolves around me and that your question is redundant.

Mentally ill, eh? 2012 wants its insult back.