Osama and 9-11 Why?

and can lose money also.. oh the fluctuations of global money markets being effected by world events.. whatever next

 

oh yeah right. i'm sure that ge and lockgheed martin are into it so they can lose money hand over fist. makes real sense.

 

I doubt that, but they are also operating when 'war' is not a factor.. yes they may earn more money during 'war'.. but i doubt they actively wish for war. They can also lose money during a war as well as make money.. thats the nature of the beast... I suspect rain jacket manafactures profit from major adverse weather conditions.. shocking i think.

 

this is a false analogy. a raincoat manufacturer satisfies ppl's peaceful need to keep dry when it rains, something that's an event of nature, not a murderous folly of human's. neither does a raincoat manufacturer receive billions in annual government contracts and incentives and promises of expanding business ever more. i think ppl who tell us war is justifiable or nothing to worry about have got an awful lot of waking up to do, not only intellectually regarding the human tragedy of it but also spiritually. that's why i tolerate you. i'd hate to see u come back as an iraqi war baby matthew. no-one deserves that kind of fate, not even an ideo-enemy.

 

A false analogy is pretending that Wall Street is one entity and that if the military contracts come in then "wall street" benefits from the war. But military industries represent a small portion of the economy (around 3.2%), and many companies - e.g. Boeing - have military contracts but also far larger civilian contracts which could be hurt by the war, e.g. the higher price of fuel and the regional destabilisation and reduced travel caused by a war would reduce the demand for passenger jets. This theory thus assumes that the majority of capitalists in this country - controlling industries vastly larger than the military ones - sit idly and quietly by as their interests are hurt in favor of a few military contractors. It makes no sense and it is also historically ignorant as it doesn't factor in the dismal economic performance of the US during the Vietnam warr.

I also have little patience for the people who think antiwar means loving Iraqi babies. Tell that to the Kurds who you'd have left under Saddam's thumb. Tell that to the Marsh Arabs. What you're saying is that anti war means you want more foreign policy successes like Rwanda, where the US waved the peace flag and stayed home while 800,000 people were murdered. Some compassion.

 

Well pointbreak i hate to burst your bubble but anyone with a brain can realize that what america is becoming is a country with a military economy. Also you say that antiwar people don't realize what saddam has done to his people, but i understand that he was helped by America, I understand there are horrible dictators out there but how about you step up to the plate and yell at your own government for supporting dictators, and the CIA for supporting dictators, Bush knew Saddam gassed his people and he cared enough to almost interrupt his golf game, they didn't do anything, so don't yell at the antiwar people for not realizing how horrible saddam is, atleast these people have the right idea and are pulled together for a good cause, it's the US government that should stop foreign policy "successes" like Rwanda, it's the US government that has no compassion and would rather think about their buisness interests than people and i would like you to reply to this because everything I said is 100% true and theres no argument.

 

That's really encouraging.


Antiwar types think that the way to solve problems is to assign historical guilt and go home. Thus if you can find a way to blame the US for a problem, then as far as the antiwar activists are concerened, the problem is solved.

That's why the solution to Saddam invading Kuwait wasn't to remove Saddam from Kuwait, it was to try to find a way to blame the US, because as long as we knew the US was to blame then nothing else really mattered. Hence massive antiwar protests against a UN approved removal of Saddam from Kuwait.

Hence antiwar protests against military action in Bosnia and Kosovo. Who cares if Bosnians are getting murdered in the tens of thousands, we're antiwar, let them die.

Hence Rwanda. Hence Somalia. We're antiwar, let them die.

We now see the same in Iraq. We have secular democrats fighting terrorists, ex baathists, and islamic fanatics. The anti war position? Let the secular democrats die, who cares?

Antiwar people are not pulled together by a good cause. They are pulled to gether by opposing the US under any and all circumstances.

Iran building nuclear weapons? We're antiwar, we support their right to build nuclear weapons.

North Korea building nuclear weapons? We're antiwar, we support their right to collect food aid while building nuclear weapons.

Antiwar? Its a slogan. It means pro war, but for the other side.

 

Thanks for tolerating me.. War is justifiable.. but it is something to worry about.
We never really talk about 'emotion' just the ins and outs of a particular circumstance or event ... If we were too start being 'emotional' then i would shove those words down your throat and hoped you choked on them.

 

3.2% does not make a military economy. If you're going to burst my bubble you need facts not just generic populism.

 

Okay, so wait wait, let me get this straight, you're not only supporting the 9/11 truth movement, but you're suggesting theres no global Jihad movement whatsoever?

 

Ok I will admit you have a good point in saying a lot of antiwar people really do not think about the people suffering and the people who would suffer due to the fact that we didn't intervene, that is true, and in some cases there are times when we need to intervene, and theres a lot of dictators that prop up on themselves with no help from the US, and there needs to be an agreement reached on how to deal with them, but on the other hand there are a lot of dictators that the US supports due to corpoate interest, and likewise a lot of wars started not because we need to help the people there but because of corporate interests, and when this happens it doesn't matter if the US takes out the dictator, if they went there not caring about the innocent civilians in the first place, then when they are in control and the war has been won chances are they still won't care. In the case of the rwanda genocide we should have intervened i will def. say that, and there are other cases very similar where I would say the same thing, but you and I must agree on this, there is so much corpoate power influencing politics today that most of the wars, not all, but most in the last 40 years have been fought due to corpoate interest, and to keep the military industrial complex running, just like the pentagon. If the pentagon has no enemy they also don't have a job and most of the good people that work there don't know that enemies are being manufactured from the top but they are. Is there no jihad movement? of course there is but the leaders at the top such as OBL all have ties with MI6 MI5 and the CIA, that raises an interesting question because when we see the military, the government and corporations like halliburton which the jihad movement says they hate about america, gaining off things the terrorists do, how can you flip to the side and say "oh they are just dumb" they obviously aren't if they were able to get 4 hijacked planes simultaneously passed the FAA and Norad but that's a whole different discussion. All I am saying is take these thoughts into account, anything is possible.

 

ANd by the way 3.3 doesn't seem like much of the GDP and it isn't when you compare it to everything else, and maybe it was wrong to say we have a military economy, BUT, 3.3% of our GDP is still $370.7 billion dollars a yr, that is definitly a good amount of money, if the military is making 370 billion dollars a year they probably feel obligated atleast at the top to keep the wars perpetuating.

 

the military doesnt "make" $370.7 billion a year ! they "spend" $370.7 billion a year. so they have NO obligation's for perpetuating war.

 

Not the actual military, i phrased it bad my fault, the companies that supply weapons, arms, bombs, etc. TO the military like Boeing, military industries like Pointbreak said, these companies make enormous amounts of money off of War and have an extreme arm in politics, so there IS an obligation for them along with oil companies, companies like halliburton, to perpetuate war, and they infiltrate the white house to get that done.

 

Of course, that's the suggestion! Because the existance of any other evil entity and preachers of murder would invalidate the belief that the US politicians are the only beings on earth capable of such atrocities and hate-mongering.

The existance of OBL and his connections to 9-11 and other terror acts would mean that Dubya is not the only man on Earth who wants to kill people and make a profit from war and spread his ideology.

and gads forbid that that EVER happen.

*snerk*

 

How about the carlyle group midnightmoonlight? the investment firm headed by Bush Sr. and the bin laden family up until recently when they were forced to leave? Bush's dad and many others are still involved in the carlyle group and all they do is invest in military companies and manufacturers, they have a reason to WANT war and to perpetuate war, and when Bush has a hold on American Policits and is involved in this group this isn't hard to do.

 

well 1st off , yes they make enormous amount's of money, but they also spend enormous amount's of money."it's not all profit"... these same companies make enormous amount's of money during peacetime too...........not to mention all the other companies and business's that represent the other 96.6% of the GDP. which also have a extreme arm in politic's.

 

one should read the book "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" by Michael Scheuer, who was the senior CIA intelligence analyst who created and advised a secret CIA unit for tracking and eliminating bin Laden since 1996.

here is what he says ...
Right or wrong, he says Muslims are beginning to view the United States as a colonial power with Israel as its surrogate, and with a military presence in three of the holiest places in Islam: the Arabian peninsula, Iraq, and Jerusalem. And he says it is time to review and debate American policy in the region, even our relationship with Israel.

"No one wants to abandon the Israelis. But I think the perception is, and I think it's probably an accurate perception, that the tail is leading the dog - that we are giving the Israelis carte blanche ability to exercise whatever they want to do in their area," says Scheuer. "And if that's what the American people want, then that's what the policy should be, of course. But the idea that anything in the United States is too sensitive to discuss or too dangerous to discuss is really, I think, absurd."

Is he talking about appeasement?

"I'm not talking about appeasement. There's no way out of this war at the moment," says Scheuer. "It's not a choice between war and peace. It's a choice between war and endless war. It's not appeasement. I think it's better even to call it American self-interest."

Scheuer believes that al Qaeda is no longer just a terrorist organization that can be defeated by killing or capturing its leaders. Now, he says it's a global insurgency that's spreading revolutionary fervor throughout the Muslim world.

 

There is so much wrong in this post. Carlyle was NEVER headed by Bush Senior or the Bin Ladens. Bush was an advisor to Carlyle Asia, which represents only 7% of the firms investments. The Bin Ladens were investors, not management, and when they left they had $2 million worth of investments, about 0.01% of total Carlyle money under management of $30 billion.

George Bush Senior is not still involved with Carlyle, he left two years ago. Investments in defence industries represent 1% of assets. Their largest exposures are to telecoms, media, and real estate, which represent 41% of assets.

 

all true.. but

Bombers were `normal' Britons; officials fear homegrown terrorism


As the uncle of one man noted Wednesday, the first time it crossed his mind that his nephew could possibly have been involved in the bombings "was when the police showed up at my door."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12124954.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4678837.stm
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1807018,00.html

How would you go about stopping them..