I'm more disappointed than angry about the decay of enlightenment within the western culture.
Yeah, that we can agree on. Too few think for themselves. Most of us seem to either drink up what one news outlet or another is saying, ignore the rest of the picture, or ignore everything and pick a side to support blindly. Easier that way. We all too quickly accept when it comes down to the choice of a lesser of evils, admitting the evil in both and not caring that this is all we're fed to make a conclusion from.
I've entertained the idea of that particular conspiracy, sure, but I can't base my opinions on it on faith alone, at most I can conclude that there existed a lot of hypocrisy regarding our relation to the bin laden family and the saudis, and that there was a catastrophic lack of competence within various parts of the American apparatus at that time.
The way I see it, there are simpler explanation for why such an attack could occur than it being completely orchestrated from within.
I get Occam's Razor and how it influences your thinking here, but to that, I ask, what percentage of independently consulted engineers agree that two towers of this size and dimension would collapse in such a straight and controlled downward direction? How many of them even attest that it would be possible for the damage they were delivered to even cause their collapse?
The answer is that a very small percentage (something like 11% out of hundreds of thousands of independent experts in the field of construction engineering of this magnitude) can support the conclusion that this was not a staged event. With that knowledge, and the facts surrounding the impact at the Pentagon being incapable of showing any evidence
at all that it was specifically a plane that crashed into the building, no witnesses, no video evidence, no remains of such a plane at the 'crash' site whatsoever and the extreme (more extreme than one would need in a court of law to disprove nearly anything) unlikelihood that the explosive event and ensuing flames would've destroyed it all, Occam's Razor begins to fail us to suggest this wasn't an inside job. Taken to court, with this evidence, you could put away an innocent man for murder.
Then we simply trace the background of the interaction between the bin Ladens and our CIA and the connection is clear, even though they do use a nicely convincing story about how Osama was pissed that we abandoned him after we supported him in his efforts to keep the USSR from taking Afghanistan, which was ultimately where we got the USSR to overspend and overcommit and caused their economy to collapse and blammo we have the end of the cold war and the breakup of the union.
Sure, on one hand Osama then probably felt he should have had a lot more support in the aftermath of all this for how much he'd helped us... but then again, he got a lot OUT of us too so why get savagely pissed at an ally that once you've completed the mutual goal for each other stops giving you everything you need? I mean, sure, the story makes sense that our end of aid caused him tremendous hardship and required him to turn to the Taliban, no friend of the West there, but the forensics to back the story at the scene of the crime (9/11) does not, so the alternative perspective, that all this was how we could conceal continued collaboration, sounds like a much more convincing state of affairs, particularly given how many objectives 9/11 has allowed us to pursue that the people wouldn't have supported otherwise.
To me, the evidence more clearly supports that our CIA planned everything and it was thus all the more poignant to understand why we needed to rig the general election with a Florida recount to ensure that the son of the man who planned all this could be President, thus being in position to act out the role to perfection and take full advantage of every agenda this was pulled off for, when 9/11 took place.
It really only makes more sense. It seems to mostly be pure faith that America couldn't possibly be so evil at the top, especially not the Bush family, that keeps so many of us here from admitting the evidence paints a pretty obvious picture, that and the fact that the media isn't exactly going to come out and talk much about the evidence that does exist. And for most Americans, if it's not on the TV, it's not real.
I say none of this in frustration with your perspective but more taking the invitation to clarify my position. I only get frustrated with Americans who can't figure this one out, but can somehow believe far less validated theories that are clearly rumors crafted to support a particular political agenda.
From what their representatives tells the BBC I do see that they often try to sweep stuff under the mat, stuff that is worthy of critique. But they are far from unique in this.
Your ability to admit that is a huge sign of enlightenment. I completely agree that no source is unbiased nor innocent right now. Back to my point of the majority of the world gripped in a struggle between two demons, neither of which deserve our loyalty.
I'm not saying they are perfect, the country is far from it, I'm saying that we are in many ways worse, that we should not pretend that we are saints whenever we talk about what Russians are or are not.
Given that too many are too quick to believe the West is as innocent as its media likes to claim itself to be, I can fully understand the inclination to attack our actions as being unjustified. I've been there too. I've tried to also see how some of our choices might be more justified than they appear, but without the ability to fully explain the reasons to the public due to the complexities of the situation leading to the necessity to instead lie and justify our acts as coming from an intention they weren't, it's easy for us to sometimes rush to judgement as well.
There actually are a lot of folks on the Illuminati/Globalist side of things that have some honest compassion for the herd of humanity and for human dignities. They just don't know how to even conceive of a world that's arranged to honestly give all equal rights. They see it as a fantasy that cannot be achieved. And they see the evils they have to side with as necessary for the greater good, so are quite willing to lie to the gills about what took place or do all they can to avert media attention from our latest conquests. They think they are doing us all a favor to push for globalism under their rule. Given the alternative that is challenging them right now, they might be right if we MUST have the lesser of two evils.
They have plenty of reasons to fear western meddling, the way we continuously strive for a greater military reach and influence in the world, as a previously beaten nation it is only natural that they are skittish to what they see as the great imperialistic threat, those that one day may take away their freedom to decide themselves what is right and wrong and how to live and govern. The missile shield feels threatening as it will greatly assist us if we attack them, it can be used offensively.
Countries that want to have a missile shield is imo only marking themselves as a prime military target for the enemy. Norway is among the countries that think it will protect us more than NATO alone can.
I agree with everything you just said there. But it's kinda a devil's advocacy. It's like feeling bad for the poor rattlesnake that got trampled by the mean old horse. You can realize it was perhaps unfair to the snake what happened to it, even though the snake was scaring the crap out of the horse when it got mauled, but if you let yourself forget that it's a rattlesnake who's not going to feel the slightest loyalty in return for your compassion and would bite you as fast as it could recover its strength, you have to realize there's a reason we have decided to do all we can to keep Russia's power in check.
It would, however, be a bit more honorable if we made it very clear what our intention was, to keep Russia from being able to threaten the world with the next cold war again. We don't need these nuclear standoffs hovering over our heads, y'know? It causes all sides to start looking at every way possible to shut down the danger because the danger is just too much to allow to maintain in any state of deluded 'balance'. It just takes one emotional moment for a world leader with a nuke to end us all when we're in such a standoff. Yes, I think the people of the West are tired of that standoff, even if it has been useful to stave off societal complacency. I'm sure it doesn't feel any better on the other side of that fence. But we MUST let this pack of political dogs figure out which one is the Alpha and call it good or we're going to continue to all be a hairswidth away from mutually assured destruction.
The west should rather have proclaimed that any attempts to perform a coup in a democratic european country will be condemned. Why not calm the situation instead and let the next election speak for itself. That is where my disappointment is greatest in this matter.
Yeah, we should, but that would just deepen our own hypocricies wouldn't it? Considering how we've pushed for so many of these to happen across the world to back our own interests... maybe even this one.
Just word's though, sometimes people say crazy things without actually intending to go trough with it (almost like wishful thinking).
True, but when you're reaching for the sword saying you're going to cut off someone's head, you can't blame the rest of the people in the room for believing you mean it.
They did moderate the statement into "Israel should never have been on the map" and "Founding Israel was a mistake" a long time ago now, and have stuck to that opinion until today, that is an opinion that they even share with many here in the west (not extremely controversial).
Yeah... I totally get it. I wish more people did. It's honestly too bad that more people in the west don't listen to some of the things Iran has stated and given him some benefit of doubt enough to look into his publically stated perspectives. He's not really that bad a guy over there and I suppose the fact that they'd like to not have to implement a Global Bank subservient national banking system (one of the last 3 holdouts) doesn't seem like much of an issue for the common western person who doesn't understand the significance of that decision. That and the fact that we'd LOVE to put our military in positions in Iran and we'd also love to destroy as much ancient civilization evidence there as we can as well. Retells the story of our origin from what we teach in schools too much.
But we are going to have to accept it eventually, in the same way we accepted that Pakistan got nuclear weapons. It is not realistic to try and get N. Korea to sell/scrap what they have worked so hard to achieve, at least not before they've known peace for enough years to trust that we have no intention to destroy them.
Here we severely disagree.
I would personally adopt a non-tolerance policy. I would've after the first test blast was successful. When a teenager dons a vest full of explosives and runs into a room where others wear such vests and are trying to negotiate a stand down already, you are going to lose all control when that teen starts acting like he can make whatever demands he wishes, knowing you'll do anything you can to avoid him setting that vest off. HE doesn't care if he wins or loses or dies in the process, well, not enough to continue to allow himself to be denied the absolute control he's looking for. He ONLY cares to establish absolute power, using everyone else's fear of real consequences against them. If he can play chicken with nukes this far, he's never going to stop, which means we have to put him down at some point. When that happens, the longer we've let him get away with this, the more are going to die when he lets himself blow up.
Even if that's not an accurate portrayal of Kim Jong Un's continued pursuit of his father's global strategy for N. Korea, it is exactly what they state they will do, so can we really allow them to continue to present a greater and greater life loss tally when we do finally try to take a stand against him?
I say take him down. Now. Yesterday. In as unexpected an attack as possible. He's going to cause too many deaths if we don't.
It is mostly about the grudge held after the hostage situation, and that they had the nerve to expel the American embassy from their country. Also it is because the Saudis want Iran do be the villain in the region.
And in addition to our motivations I discussed above, there's also that black gooey stuff that started this discussion that we like to go around taking from everyone else so as to ensure only we thrive and everyone else has to go without. I mean, sure it's a good strategy... if only you have the oil, only you can fuel your modern fighting forces.
People say Iran stands behind a lot of the terror events in the world, but as shia muslims they are only backing the Lebanon Hizbollah and sometimes the kurdish resistance, both of wich can hardly be compared with groups like Al-Qaida and the like.
Some define Hizbollah as a terrorist group while others call it a local militia, or a unique national guard, in a country with practically no military.
All the typical terrorist attack of today are performed by a particular branch of sunni muslims called salafists, salafism is a political ideology that is based on spreading wahabism to all people on this planet by the sword. It is closely related to wahabism which is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. Therefore it is more likely that Saudi Arabia is behind a lot more terrorism than Iran.
You clearly have more knowledge of the branches of Islam than I do. Recent research on that subject has been very intriguing. It's amazing how little our media tries to inform us on this matter and how critical it is to understand. I was researching the Ismailis and the Shiites the other day... wondering where they are centered geographically today. If you know who the Ismaili Shiites are in particular, like I'd bet you do, you'll immediately understand what historical political group I was trying to get a better understanding of. I was never able to track down what global factions these minority Ismaili Shiites currently side with in the larger
modern political picture... couldn't find any info on that. Do you happen to know or have any info on that?
Now I think I need to understand the mentioned Salafists (and the concept of wahabism) better... hmm...