ChezGiven

I'm canny sceptical about just about eveything Parky. Not least some of the patter you try and pull (and with some justification). The SSH/Renton comments from you are just sour grapes because they (SSH in particular) absolutely pwned you in this thread imo. I think SSH has been excellent in this thread as it goes. But said nothing I didn't already know. HOw about WT7...No plane hit, tiny fire....Fell down by itself? What do you think happened with it? The initial report was inconclusive, yes? Surely if a conspiracy was at large the official report would have been a whitewash rather than an admittance that further investigation (at great cost to the taxpayers was needed)? I think the neighboring fires were so hot they were melting steel all over the place, half of NY was in danger at one point.......... Manhattan nearly collapsed in on itself and sank without a trace. "We pulled it"

Et voilà.

So, you've never heard about these Russian attacks and the stories behind them. I did say i would have a look. I'll collect your thoughts for you. You're basically asking whether i believe its possible that an act of terrorism was 'allowed' to happen by a govt, to further its economic policy. Yes on the basis of precedent, hence me asking the questions. Did they know the scale of it beforehand? I doubt it. As for the CIA links, they started the movement and have continued to use this relationship since its inception. Any known operative would have been under surveillance. It wasnt the first time they tried to blow up the towers, you do remember that? Your attempts at balancing the morality of this versus the morality of war are commendable but irrelevant.

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure. You seem very trusting Renty. The "governmental incompetence" hasnt adversely affected the ammount of money made or the concentration of power since 9/11 Not denying people have made monetary and political capital out of it, that doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to murder thousands of civilians in the process. Why did they not frame Iraq with WMD btw if they are capable of such fantastic plots televised live on TV to billions of people? Surely this would have suited them well? They dont really need to frame Iraq, they have got what they were after "They" presumably doesn't include Bush or the Republican party, I take it then? Oil for food seems like a much better deal than $50 a barrel.

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends? E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history. Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened. The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services. The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is. E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism? No, just one or two CIA officials. Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers? Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats? The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow and blamed it on the Chechens. This is info that Litvenenko was meant to possess. The woman journalist that was murdered also had this info. 'Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain?'. In the context of the current war in Iraq, that statement doesnt really fit in this argument. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people. How many US soldiers have been sacrificed so far in this war and on what basis were they sacrificed? The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow Is this a proven conspiracy, or another theory? this statement doesnt really fit in this argument. I think it does if you are implying that a few individuals did not prevent 9/11 for reasons best known to themselves. It is something they would have had to conciously weigh up in their mind beforehand, and come up with an answer that justified it. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people. Whatever the downsides of the order for war, there were clear and public motivations and claimed benefits to the decision, in contrast to a supposed CIA plot. The moral culpability of both actions does not even compare in my opinion. Saying one could happen because the other happened is a leap too far, unless you attribute the logic of a Baghdad market truck bomb sponsor to that of CIA agents. There is no official plea of guilt from the Russians but loads of evidence, i just cant find it on google, i promise to keep looking and post up. Still dont get it. You questioned whether anyone could countenance the death of citizens. I continue to think that is a banal question given the war in Iraq, precipitated by the act we are discussing. Arguing about moral culpability is just irrelevant.

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure. Quite, but those are the sorts of questions that should be asked, to help try and make sure it doesn't happen again. Yes. But like you said earlier, the existence of the loons does take the heat off their incompetence somewhat. Ateotd, people are going to believe in what they want to believe on the matter, and we won't find out what really happened behind the closed doors of the CIA until we are old men, if ever. Personally, I choose to believe that they cocked up though rather than accept they were willing to kill hundreds of their own staff (Pentagon building) and thousands of citizens for some unknown motive. Maybe the incompetence was in not anticipating such a devastating attack. I would have thought agents might be allowed to carry out certain acts if it meant gaining an upper hand in another area - like middle east foreign policy, the most economically important region for US energy supply. Maybe the incompetence was not realising the scale of what was about to happen. I would still contest that the CIA (having helped set up al qaeda via Pakistan in the first place) knew that something was going to happen and didnt seem to try very hard to stop it.

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends? E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history. Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened. The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services. The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is. E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism? No, just one or two CIA officials. Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers? Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats? The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow and blamed it on the Chechens. This is info that Litvenenko was meant to possess. The woman journalist that was murdered also had this info. 'Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain?'. In the context of the current war in Iraq, that statement doesnt really fit in this argument. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people. How many US soldiers have been sacrificed so far in this war and on what basis were they sacrificed? Have you got a link from a credible source about these Moscow bombings? As for the last point, whatever the motives for the war (not a war against terrorism I suspect), it's ridiculous to compare that to the events of 9/11. http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnist...icle2001509.ece Is a starter, i think it was only alluded to in the stories about the death of Anna Politkovskaya. I will have another look. I also cant see how you seperate the sacrifice of death in one case from another. Its certainly not ridiculous to compare the two.

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends? E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history. Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened. The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services. The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is. Why is an entirely different question, and one pretty pointless asking at the moment if the only answers are completely speculative. I'm not sure what you are getting at tbh. Why were known al qaeda operatives allowed to board 4 flights and irrevocably change the face of global politics? Why did the CIA not anticipate and act upon the intelligence that a strike was imminent? Why did the CIA not order the FBI to bring in the suspects for questioning and investigation?

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends? E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history. Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened. The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services. The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is. E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism? No, just one or two CIA officials. Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers? Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats? The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow and blamed it on the Chechens. This is info that Litvenenko was meant to possess. The woman journalist that was murdered also had this info. 'Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain?'. In the context of the current war in Iraq, that statement doesnt really fit in this argument. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people. How many US soldiers have been sacrificed so far in this war and on what basis were they sacrificed?

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends? E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history. Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened. The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services. The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is.

The French embassy? The Green zone.

Its the middle of Baghdad.

Make sure you do your flies up, otherwise Chernobyl fallout.

Closest yet, geographically and politically.

Too far west, Siberia was on the right longitude I think, maybe a bit too far east.

Without consulting an Atlas that is moving in the right direction i think.

Closer than you think Rents, although its not about climate change this. As equally surprising though.

Nope. Its not in the UK.

Have a guess.

Ditto Keegan. Am not getting drawn into the better manager debate but Robson was 'classier' than Keegan imo. In terms of standing in the game as a manager and handling himself in the media Oh, go on. The question for me is what would Bobby have done if he had been given the club in the early 90s? In the same position, i dont think Bobby would have taken the club to the same heights in the same period. Neither do I. It's a moot point though as I'd argue he'd never have come here then anyway. No, he wouldnt have. Anyway in terms of character profile to fit the job, KK was the man at the time. When you give someone a job, its because they have the right skills, what can set them apart from others is temperament and character.

Ditto Keegan. Am not getting drawn into the better manager debate but Robson was 'classier' than Keegan imo. In terms of standing in the game as a manager and handling himself in the media Oh, go on. The question for me is what would Bobby have done if he had been given the club in the early 90s? In the same position, i dont think Bobby would have taken the club to the same heights in the same period.

Ditto Keegan. Am not getting drawn into the better manager debate but Robson was 'classier' than Keegan imo. In terms of standing in the game as a manager and handling himself in the media

Robson brought more to the club than good football, he brought a bit of class to the proceedings. Even his verbal tics were endearing.