After doing some reading on the topic, I see that there are different "types" of "truthers" - the only ones I knew were of the likes of ManFromUncle, who advocated a controlled demolition of the WTC and cruise missiles into the Pentagon (both of which I found absurd theories and highly improbable).
I was not aware there was a "they-let-it-happen" faction, which is less absurd but nonetheless (in my opinion) improbable.
As for the events being used for political goals, you're spot on in that regard.
First, thanks for the response. I appreciate you approaching this with an open mind. While one of my goals is certainly to persuade people who read my posts to my perspective (if i am, in fact, correct), engaging in reasonable discussion and learning from others are both reasons i post in these types of forums.
Israel has a limited influence on the actions - mainly due to the fact that large sums of capital (and therefore election campaign donations) are owned by Jews. I don't see any connection from Israel to the US engagements in Iraq and Syria, though, seeing as how they hardly improved security and stability in the region.
I'm not going to get involved in a discussion about how much power different monied interests have in US politics. It's an extremely layered topic - one in which i have much more learning to do.
Apologies if I am guilty of either of those. I didn't read much of the thread and I am not very much into the topic - perhaps you could (in a few words/bulletins) highlight your major arguments?
Just read posts 29 & 51 in this thread. Essentially, i show examples of how some administration claims don't align with the facts, as well as showing evidence that, at the very least, some in the government had more knowledge about the threat on 9/11 than the government claimed afterwards.
I've also highlighted motive for the administration to lie, with the possibilities ranging from the innocuous (covering up gross incompetence) to the treasonable (allowing the attacks to happen).
I will again say - I don't know all of the facts. I'm not in a position to obtain the information or get answers. However, those who were in that position shirked their duty, and clear questions were largely ignored by the media (just like the billions of dollars flown into Iraq on palates was unaccounted for and the only news we got was a little blip of a blurb on the subject. One would think these types of things would demand more scrutiny, but scrutiny is not something the government welcomes.
Apology accepted. I'm glad you understood my point rather than think i was truly attacking or insulting you.
You have that problem in many countries (that is different media outlets holding different political views). I try to get a better picture of the world by also looking at the news outlets of foreign countries (Russia, China, France, England - even Iran).
Absolutely! Often, when these lies are uncovered, sources like the UK Telegraph & Guardian have shed some light where US media has gone dark. I'm sure they have their own bias as well, but they are usually more objective regarding the US.
Again, I'm not following the thread closely. I just see that MFU has spammed up these board with preposterous claims of a Jewish conspiracy that seeks to eradicate Islam.
Maybe you could - just for me - put your arguments into a short list of bulletins (just your train of thought, no youtube videos and no pagelong essays)? Or just link to the posts?
Did above.
I don't consider the "they let it happen" to be nearly as outrageously stupid as the "cruise missile / demolition" theory. Like I said, I would consider it, from the get-go, unlikely - considering that it would require everyone who knew about the attack to remain silent, regardless of their own personal ethical/moral beliefs.
Like i've said, i'm still on the fence between "they let it happen" and "it was gross incompetence that was subsequently covered up". Regardless, there was NO negative consequence for the administration under either of these scenarios, and, moreover, the attack enabled them to execute their pre-planned Middle East policies.
I understand that compartmentalization of knowledge and predispositions can definitely play a role in contrasting "what the Pentagon knew" and "what the administration officials knew", but when i watched administration officials lie time and again in from post-9/11 through the run-up to the Iraq war, and throughout the Iraq war, it caused me to take a deeper look into what the truth actually was.
One last note. As much as i condemn the Bush administration for their actions, i'm not a Democrat. I tend to align with liberals on many issues (equal rights, women's rights, etc), but find Democrats and Republicans on the whole to be different shades of politicians, both beholden to big money, and neither acting in the best interests of the citizenry on a consistent basis. Like any generalization, there are exceptions to the rule, but politicians who have found success on the national stage have generally sold out - largely due to the fact that it is INCREDIBLY difficult to succeed on the national stage UNLESS you sell out. "Radical" (aka non establishment) voices are routinely ignored by the mainstream media. The mainstream media - left and right wing - are largely voices for the establishment at this point.
