I must confess that I actually thought I hated this man and everything he was about until I started experiencing an overload of inaccurate and fictitious information the USG keeps pounding out and calling it the truth … so I decided to try an independent review of what I thought I knew and didn’t really. So I never watched or read anything Moore was involved with but I was more than willing to tell you how screwed up he was. So I rented the movie from Netflix and watched it … and I was amazed.
I have watched it twice now and I cannot find one shred of much information that is not factual or accurate. Beyond some idiosyncrasies in his sense of humor (they are funny); he presents very valid arguments and backs them up with documentation and interviews. He brings to light many of the things I have discovered in my own research into deceit, terrorism and the USG.
When I was a liberal (before I knew better) the only accurate information had to come from another liberal else it was a lie??? Later when I made my second mistake and became a conservative I learned the error of my ways … the truth could only be had from like ilk … so imagine my confusion when I called the neolibs and neocons for what they are and went independent. Suddenly, I have no source of valid information at all now (seemingly hehehe). I have had no success at all trying to walk the moderate tightrope between all the sharks without one side or the other dragging me down, go figure.
As far as Democrats/Republicans are concerned, their only care about the independent majority is how many they can acquire each election. But no matter which side is the best recruiter or who gets most independent votes … matters that concern the moderates will largely be ignored or sidelined and the neo-politicians will go their own course virtually unrestricted and completely unaccountable.
I don't need to provide proof that 9/11 happened. But thanks for asking.
Hahaha, that's about all the proof you are want to give on most things. I guess it just makes for short and funny nonsensical snide comments. I wonder who posed that question, naw hehehe ... it wasn't a question at all ... just another silly pointless remark.
I realize that however the information provided by people in the intelligence community is vital to understanding what was actually covered up.
There are plenty of videos about Michael Scheuer. He headed the Bin Laden desk at the CIA. Look around for his interviews and you will see plenty of good info about what was covered up in the 911 Commission Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYSN3exS9Tc
Here's a lawyer from the FBI.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiVKwCiw6Ko
Smoothseas, could you list the URL or the title just because it’s much clearer to view on YouTube. Michael Scheuer is an old salt and I have viewed many of his clips (got to love YT), haven’t seen that one though. Whistleblowers have to be squeaky clean if they are to refute charges of ‘retribution’ not that it’s fair, just the first attack to be expected (sexual innuendos are probable next). I try to take everything into consideration … if possible. Most of my comments are in response to specific stimuli hahaha questions and normally not intended for a full explanation … is that possible hahaha. Anyway we are on the same page here … just different paragraphs. Is it your opinion then that 911 was a multitude of errors and inadequacies from fifteen separate federal agencies under the auspices of the CIA (Tenet - DCI from July 1997 to July 2004)? I can only see this in two ways, legit or not … there is no middle ground here. I understand coincidence, but I cannot believe that only our inadequacies could have been so capitalized on just by happenstance (right place – right time) alone?
U.S. Intelligence 9/11 and Iraq: A Whistleblower's Story http://youtu.be/aiVKwCiw6Ko
It's often not retribution and even if it is they usually don't lie about the circumstances. It is the politicians that lie because they need to buy votes to stay in power. Who cares about skeletons in the closet. Everybody has them and usually they have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
It is what it is. There are just too many people involved for such a coverup not to be leaked. The Executive branch waited for their Pearl Harbor and they got it. They simply exploited an event that was in one form or another bound to happen and used it to execute policy that was already put in place.They shaped the dialogue to do what they wanted to do for years, and took the ball and ran with it.
Look at how they are shaping the dialogue about Iran. Iran has been "just around the corner" to getting Nukes for about two decades now.
Since we don't exactly know what was covered up (if anything) ... it is difficult to say how many people needed to have been directly involved. Maybe it was just a few people in authority who could clear NORAD out of the area or a few others who ensured the agencies lacked intercommunications. I don’t think it would necessitate a lot of people as most underlings just follow orders with little thought on why. As far as leaks go … how many whistle blowers are there now … they are for the most part sidelined with the theorists so what’s the point. There are countless ways the USG could have paved the way to 911 with gold bricks and beacons … they are the best at covert ops after all. Just look at Stant123 and his refusal to comprehend that the USG is not filled with saints and we had no imperialistic goals besides the spread of ‘democracy’. Coincidence is one thing, but too much warns of red flags.
Well, I think history will bear me out ... eventually. But for now ... there’s no rest for the weary hahaha.
Good luck with that. MC & HNY!
There is actually quite a bit of information known to be covered up. Compare what some FBI and CIA agents have openly stated vs. the content in the 911 Commission Report. Above is just two examples but there are many more easily found on the web. It is obvious that poor decision making was covered up. As far as whether one deems "poor" decision making to be more like negligence is strictly opinion.
Most "underlings" in government know exactly what they are doing and exactly what they are involved in.
Intelligence agents know exactly what they are involved in. Michael Scheuer is probably one of the best sources of information because he was not some underling sychophant. He was the head of the Bin Laden Unit and had his hands on quite a bit of intelligence. Look at as many of his videos as you can. You may not agree with his views on foreign policy however it should be quite obvious he is no fan of the politicians who presided above him while he was working at the CIA. These people are not theorist. They know exactly what some of the intelligence was, exactly where investigations were hindered, and know exactly how the raw intelligence that passed through their hands was manipulated by superiors and politicians.
If you look at other cases involving whistle-blowers you will see that they are not underling sycophants as well.
That word is used that many times purposely. We are talking about career agents in the intelligence services who had extensive access to raw intelligence. Some of the whistle-blowers I have seen accounts from were people whose job was to prepare the reports for the higher ups. Richard Clark who worked for the Sate Dept. in various positions through several administrations is another good example you might want to follow up on. We are not talking about underlings. We are talking about people who had direct access to people very high up in government. We are not talking about the military.
Watch the videos and listen to what these people are saying. It isn't about what I may think I know it is about what these people have stated on the record. Believe what they say or not, but understand I am going by what they actually state and not what I think they might think.
My pilot is a professional also you know …? I guess a single pilot is what, not professional enough for you like but a single lawyer or a single whatever is … your excuse is what stunk the most is all. But, two of the ‘professional whistleblowers seem convinced bin Laden was an American asset till 911 … Michael Scheuer seems to think otherwise? “In 2009, Edmonds revealed that Osama Bin Laden had been working for U.S. intelligence right up to the day of 9/11.” and J. Michael Springmann “… discovered that the Jeddah consulate was being used as a place for funneling Afghan mujahedeen into the U.S. for training, facilitated by the CIA on behalf of their asset, Osama bin Laden. “ What’s up with this? Surely the communications couldn’t be this severe … could it? That would be pretty bad …
Michael Scheuer on Bin Laden, Terrorism, and the Saudis
Couldn't be the oil ... it's the ... hummm ... hahaha.
Because he's a pilot. It is people within the intelligence services that know what happened.
Springmann is simply making assumptions. He has no definitive reason as to why the visas were recommended.
Saudi Arabia is a problem for sure but until we are no longer reliant on their oil then we are in between a rock and a hard spot. This is all about oil. If there was no oil in the middle east we would probably simply sell all of them weapons and let them kill each other.
He was head of the Bin Laden group. I think his information is more based on intelligence and less based on speculation than someone whose job was to issue visas. If I were you I would read books by both Scheuer and Richard Clark. They both give really good histories going back to the oil embargo back in the 70's and follow the history right up to to the 911 Commission Report.
I have only seen her talk about others covering up their failure to further investigate issues. I haven't seen her make the above mentioned claim.
Look, take this wherever you want, but my quotes were off the first page on the whistleblowers website you gave to me ... you figure out why you didn't see them ... NMP. It doesn't take much intelligence to know that things were amiss ... and it doesn't take a career intelligence worker to make that determination. At some point you need to stop yammering about the obvious ... I don't know how many times I have to tell you I know who Scheuer is ... I know ok. FAHRENHEIT 911- THE MOVIE- PART 6
Personally, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that there was little if any actual USG ‘intelligence’ displayed on or before 911. One doesn’t need to use the intelligence community to figure a lot of this out. All one has to do is re-listen to the major players in their own words. Look between minute 4 and minute 6 for an idea of what I mean. The only way this could possibly come about would be through intelligence inadequacies in the extreme (assuming just ineptitude). The Islamists have made it quite clear and still are why they hate the USG and Co. … and it has nothing to do with our pretended ‘freedoms or Democracy’. It is simply American Imperialism particularly in the middle east … and our support for Saudi Arabia and the Zionists State of Israel.
Noam Chomsky on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_fFkLcRrBE
Smoothseas; This is as close as I have found to my ideas and I think we all agree that a lack of applied intelligence was evident before, throughout and after 911. I just find more culpability in the intelligence agencies bosses bosses (the USG) for mismanaging what they did know and what their subordinates knew. I think we are on the same side here ... right???
Yes.... They hid as much as they could mainly for political reasons, to either hide poor decision making or to hide decisions made using reasons that may not be considered politically correct.
Well, now that all the BS is all out of the way ... Anyone want to go back to the original question and point out where Moore was unfactual in his documentary. We are well aware of what most people think of him personally ... now is your chance to prove him wrong factually ... I dare you and you and also you, hahaha. I am sure smaller clips are available on YouTube to make it easier for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQv_M_WQAxU&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLAB5AAF3AE4FA570D
PS: Don't really want to discuss the election though.
Umm yaa, this thread still going strong eh.
Well I learned that Mike is way to ugly, he must be lying. I only get truth now from cute women news anchors with $500 hairstyles. Also truth news uses way more flashy graphics and 'reel small words' for us unedumicated and polls that the local stripper uses (PEW is for churches now?). Plus all the other news channels state the "exact same thing" over and over and over so it must be right.
Good to see you keepin' up the good fight BT.
myfist0, nice to hear from you again! I think the fight here is about over here though. Just thought I would throw out a contentious bone or two before I go away, but I don't expect any real takers about Moore because there isn't much to bitch about ... after the fact (personality aside). This thing would have fizzled out much earlier had I used someone actually competent like Noam in the beginning, but who can figure people out, hahaha? Happy gamming and ‘headhunting’ hahaha … Michelle
Noam may be competent in linguistics, a rather pointless academic pursuit if you ask me, but his opinions are just like mine - personal opinions. Doesn't matter where/when you 'used' him.
I would have to disagree with that. Can I see your book list? http://www.chomsky.info/books.htm
Probably the best versed on the subjects of foreign policy and terrorism because unlike people in Government, he reads.
Also he probably doesn't hang out in public forums, Noam hangs with some of the best minds on the planet.
Whatev. They're still just his opinions. His book count is irrelevant. He hangs out in faculty lounges rather than public forums - that qualifies him for what? The assumption that the 'best minds on the planet' should be trusted with deciding our fate is unfounded. The 'best minds' have managed to screw things up rather royally actually.
PS: You don't need any help from me hahaha ... your intelligence shines out for all to see without my guidance, hehehe.
myfist0; some personal opinions are much more appreciated than others ... and an actual pedigree tends to help. I don't seem to disagree with much of what I have seen from him ... but am still at odds over AGW. To me it seems he went too 'political' on that one ... my-oh-my, what's a bitch supposed to do anyway, but?
Your personal attacks don't trouble me, Boobz. They just clarify who you are.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
