I have all the time in the world for questions. There are no dumb ones you can ask except the ones you don't.
Did the Taliban do that?
- Thread starter mohamed
- Start date
I have all the time in the world for questions. There are no dumb ones you can ask except the ones you don't.
mohamed
the broken heart
- 9 Feb 2010
- 145
- 6
- Thread starter
- #27
i saw this just now
please don't be angry , what push me to say that is becouse i saw the world media did't talk about that , they only talked about the terrorist attack and in the same time they did nothing so people know the truth they all copy from the us media , it's very hard to find free media , i trust only in news channel called Al Jazeera (from qatar) , but if the most of media chanels worker are angels as you said why no one know the truth till now, for example , until now the CIA hid video tapes show who hit the Pentagon (do your media said that )
Again, you're claiming all of the media in the United States is involved in a cover up? I ask you again, how much do you actually know about the media?
Does Al Jazeera actually say that 9/11 was a conspiracy? I mean this is the channel that aired Bin Laden's 2004 confession.
- 19 Jan 2005
- 1,972
- 232
No, I will not claim you are any of these things as that was a decent post and a good explanation of your views and why you feel the way you do. I now understand a little more where you are coming from even though I may not agree with you. I'm assuming that you work closely with, or are in, government and your views are understandable as many people in your position are there to do good and could not possibly believe that government could do any of the things that major conspiracy writers say have been done as they feel they have an "insiders" view. That is understandable and accepted. It doesn't mean you are easily manipulated or misguided.noyhauser said:
However, from your explanation, I can see you have not looked at Dr. Woods' site, nor do I believe you will, as you would have alluded to it. One cannot honestly come away from her site without a few questions in ones mind even if, like yourself, they completely ignore anything but the official line.
I am not a "truther" as many of them, as I said in my previous post, have their own agenda and may even be agent provocatuers who purposefully cloud the issue with outrageous accusations therefore, grouping all people who question the official line into conspiracy nuts.
However, and I know this is laughable to you, you are only getting a one-sided view - their view; and I'm sure you would never conceive that there may indeed be (I believe there is) a shadow government behind the government (in the US and UK) who exerts their influence on those in power. The puppet masters; those who pull the strings if you will. But that is neither here nor there as you have your position and I have mine. It's just that I always look at both sides of an argument with an open mind, discard the trash and only take what can be nailed down based on findings, news reports, official documents, etc.
Even today, I wonder at the people with reputations, decent jobs, and positions, both in (formally) and out of government, who would lay it all on the line to espouse something that the government says is patently a lie. Face it. Governments lie and have been lying for many years. In the US, the press was supposed to keep government in line and root out the lies. Sadly, they have been compromised and are just mouthpieces of the government and big corporations and it is the so-called "conspiracy nuts" on the internet who now attempt to keep government in line. But, if the government has their way with the internet, that will all come to an end in the next few years I believe.
Noyhauser, since we are such polar opposites and you have such a unique position working in/with government, I would love, given the chance, to sit down with you and debate this face to face for a day or two as adults, as I may learn something from you and hopefully, you might learn something from me. Either way, it would be an interesting conversation to say the least.
mohamed
the broken heart
- 9 Feb 2010
- 145
- 6
- Thread starter
- #30
i don't know too much about the media i watch many chanel news ( BBC - FOX - Al jazeera )
and i can see the big difference so i respect Al jazeera ,what push me to say that about the world media is what i see after 11/9 all bad things become from muslims so they suspended aid for poor countrys and foreign Muslims in Europe and America are treated badly , and if they seen someone his name is muhammad
they will make all his days like weeding day , let me give you example , do you know that the president of Iran (Ahmadi nejad ) said to US president Obama that He has evidence to prove that America are involved in all these events , why the media did't maximizes this subject as what they did in the eleventh of September and about the movie who named Zero: an investigation into 9/11 i saw it in Al jazera
Last edited by a moderator:
red flower
alive
- 17 Sep 2010
- 33
- 0
The result which we live today, the result of what happened on September 11, certainly will tell us who did this terrorist incident in America
By the way
Who Invented reasons to enter a country not of his country to rob them of?
Who stole Iraq's oil?
Who insulted the dignity of citizens?
who wanted to destroy other's religion?
who tried to dominate on other's culture ?
and still do !!!
If we look at the last beneficiary, surely we will know who did it at first whatever the ways that they used
By the way
Who Invented reasons to enter a country not of his country to rob them of?
Who stole Iraq's oil?
Who insulted the dignity of citizens?
who wanted to destroy other's religion?
who tried to dominate on other's culture ?
and still do !!!
If we look at the last beneficiary, surely we will know who did it at first whatever the ways that they used
Last edited:
Chidoriashi
In imagination land
- 2 Feb 2007
- 824
- 63
Hezam, he is saying the guy who confessed to be behind the 9/11 attacks was aired on that news channel, the same channel he may get his other ideas about America's own involvement in 9/11. He is pointing out a possible contradiction.
Hezam
Out of Service
- 24 Aug 2007
- 2,543
- 122
Last edited by a moderator:
Pachipro:
Thank you for your considered response. I don't have much to say, except that I disagree with you about what are the motivations behind policymakers actions. After reading about and meeting with many of these individuals, its often easy to discern the ideas behind their decision-making. It can be complex at times, or not... it all depends. BI believe that individuals operate within that culture often share similar perspectives based on their department, upbringing, ect. When they impose their views within the system, it produces similar outcomes. If you see the identities and the system they are played in as a whole, I've begun to understand why events turn out the way they do. Its not a science that I can predict things with, but it does allow me to understand how and why events happen the way they do.
If you want to talk about the latent influence that corporations have on the political and policy process, I think there is much we could agree on (Citizens United v. FEC, for example.) However suggesting a conspiracy is at work is a bridge I cannot cross, nor am I interested to discuss. I've debated intensely with my closest friend, which was extremely exhausting and I just can't do it anymore.
No not at all... you missed my point as Chidoriashi. Mohammed claimed that all media are disreputable and have covered up the story, but he would only trust Al Jazeera.. yet the channel that has done more to PROVE its Al Qaeda is Al Jazeera, from Bin Laden's 2004 confession to Yosri Fouda's 2002 interview with KSM and Ramzi Binalshibh.
Again Hezam, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about the United States policy in the world from my perspective.
Thank you for your considered response. I don't have much to say, except that I disagree with you about what are the motivations behind policymakers actions. After reading about and meeting with many of these individuals, its often easy to discern the ideas behind their decision-making. It can be complex at times, or not... it all depends. BI believe that individuals operate within that culture often share similar perspectives based on their department, upbringing, ect. When they impose their views within the system, it produces similar outcomes. If you see the identities and the system they are played in as a whole, I've begun to understand why events turn out the way they do. Its not a science that I can predict things with, but it does allow me to understand how and why events happen the way they do.
If you want to talk about the latent influence that corporations have on the political and policy process, I think there is much we could agree on (Citizens United v. FEC, for example.) However suggesting a conspiracy is at work is a bridge I cannot cross, nor am I interested to discuss. I've debated intensely with my closest friend, which was extremely exhausting and I just can't do it anymore.
No not at all... you missed my point as Chidoriashi. Mohammed claimed that all media are disreputable and have covered up the story, but he would only trust Al Jazeera.. yet the channel that has done more to PROVE its Al Qaeda is Al Jazeera, from Bin Laden's 2004 confession to Yosri Fouda's 2002 interview with KSM and Ramzi Binalshibh.
Again Hezam, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about the United States policy in the world from my perspective.
abdalrasyid
先輩
- 29 Oct 2010
- 142
- 13
Noy, i hope your family go just fine and well. 
(sorry for the late reply on this... I'll be slow replying for another week.)
I think you need to take a step back to 2002 and 2003 to understand the psychology of the moment. The early Bush administration had a range of views about how to ensure American security but not much defined thinking except that something must be done. Government decisions are never because of one individual, or just one motivation. Even if the president ultimately makes a decision, he is influenced by a number of advisors and cabinet members who have different motivations or positions. Thus decisions are a conglomeration of views, policies and perspectives that play out in an imperfect process. And then there is the most imperfect element of them all... humans.
Iraq's importance was multifold. One thing that is important to note is what was generally absent from considerations about iraq in 2003 compared to every middle east intervention for the past 60 years; it was not about oil. September 11th came as a huge shock to many senior officials. 9/11 changed two things:
#1 it made apparent the threat that Al Qaeda and other groups posed to the United States. While militants had made attacks, like the USS Cole and African Embassy Bombings, it was considered a relatively manageable threat that wouldn't really strike America's interests. The Bush administration was focused on the rise of China (evidenced by the Heinan Island incident in the summer of 2001) and passing the 1.3 trillion dollar tax cuts. September 11th made it very clear what the dangers of radical islam were to the United States.
#2 September 11th also changed the calculus of using force. Clinton had been very hesitant to use force after the Somalia debacle in 1993. The key limitation behind ANY operation was to prevent any unnecessary deaths of soldiers. Even when they went into Kosovo in 1993, the death of even a single pilot was considered "unacceptable." 9/11 made the use of overwhelming force and by extension, the deaths of American soldiers, palatable to the public.
Iraq immediately was considered a major threat. Prior to 2002, it was largely seen to be a weakened power, and a third tier of threat. There wasn't the conception that it could ever become a threat to the United States. However after 9/11 changed what a lot of individuals considered an an acceptable level of threat.
Alot of the documentation and interviews that has emerged in the past few years from inside the US government during this period shows that key members of the administration were almost completely focused on the threat posed to the United States. One of the key changes in Cheney's mind was well documented in a book by Ron Suskind, in which he described the "5% Doctrine" where if there is a 5% threat to the United States, they would take it as a certainty and therefore required to act. Nuclear weapons were considered the ultimate danger... so they must be stopped at any cost. This was Cheney's and likely Rumsfeld's view. They were completely focused on any threat to the United States and thought that the ends justified the means. This was a view shared by a core group at the top of government. Other members, like Wolfowitz, had broader views about remaking the middle east into a stable polity. The first step in this vision was Iraq. Not all senior officials who wanted to go to war shared this view. Rumsfeld and Cheney were seemed less interested the idealist policy as realists. Rumsfeld wanted to be out of Iraq as soon as possible and fought to keep the US force size as small as possible.
I think the question that is important here... why did they make such a bad decision? One of the best psychological analysis of political decision-making was Janis Irving's Groupthink. In his work Irving discusses how individuals can hold very strong shared beliefs and act on them. His case studies included the Bay of Pigs Massacre, the US failure to foresee the Japanese attack on December 7th and the Challenger incident. Within such groups the ability to operate effectively assess information decreases as individuals rely on their shared conceptions about threats. I think Cheney, Rumsfeld and many of their subordinates fundamentally believed that a threat existed... there was little doubt in their eyes. If you read the accounts of individuals like Col. Wilkerson (Colin Powell's chief of staff) and others like Richard Armitage, they felt that the conclusion had already been made and the intelligence was being tailored to suit it.
This is not that surprising really. Much of the information in the public domain prior to 2003 suggested the Iraq possessed a viable chemical weapons program. The independent International Institute of Strategic Studies put out a assessment that suggested as much. It was an easy conclusion to make, partly because Hussein did not want to make it clear that he didn't have any such weapons. You can see the difference in how he made clear that he didn't have a nuclear weapons program. I always thought that this was his greatest misjudgment. I think Hussein was always worried about Iran, but
Why was the weapons issue important for the international community? It was the clearest breach of international law that Iraq had done. I think this highlights a problem with international law itself, which is extremely limited. Really its designed for a 17th century state centric view of international relations. If you're not threatening your neighbour, you can do whatever you want.
Anyway I think I'll leave it at that because I could write alot more but you wouldn't get an answer (which you've been waiting for). As I said before, if you want to ask more questions I'd be happy to answer them, but I'm not here to get in an argument over what is right or wrong (beyond a certain extent.)
I think you need to take a step back to 2002 and 2003 to understand the psychology of the moment. The early Bush administration had a range of views about how to ensure American security but not much defined thinking except that something must be done. Government decisions are never because of one individual, or just one motivation. Even if the president ultimately makes a decision, he is influenced by a number of advisors and cabinet members who have different motivations or positions. Thus decisions are a conglomeration of views, policies and perspectives that play out in an imperfect process. And then there is the most imperfect element of them all... humans.
Iraq's importance was multifold. One thing that is important to note is what was generally absent from considerations about iraq in 2003 compared to every middle east intervention for the past 60 years; it was not about oil. September 11th came as a huge shock to many senior officials. 9/11 changed two things:
#1 it made apparent the threat that Al Qaeda and other groups posed to the United States. While militants had made attacks, like the USS Cole and African Embassy Bombings, it was considered a relatively manageable threat that wouldn't really strike America's interests. The Bush administration was focused on the rise of China (evidenced by the Heinan Island incident in the summer of 2001) and passing the 1.3 trillion dollar tax cuts. September 11th made it very clear what the dangers of radical islam were to the United States.
#2 September 11th also changed the calculus of using force. Clinton had been very hesitant to use force after the Somalia debacle in 1993. The key limitation behind ANY operation was to prevent any unnecessary deaths of soldiers. Even when they went into Kosovo in 1993, the death of even a single pilot was considered "unacceptable." 9/11 made the use of overwhelming force and by extension, the deaths of American soldiers, palatable to the public.
Iraq immediately was considered a major threat. Prior to 2002, it was largely seen to be a weakened power, and a third tier of threat. There wasn't the conception that it could ever become a threat to the United States. However after 9/11 changed what a lot of individuals considered an an acceptable level of threat.
Alot of the documentation and interviews that has emerged in the past few years from inside the US government during this period shows that key members of the administration were almost completely focused on the threat posed to the United States. One of the key changes in Cheney's mind was well documented in a book by Ron Suskind, in which he described the "5% Doctrine" where if there is a 5% threat to the United States, they would take it as a certainty and therefore required to act. Nuclear weapons were considered the ultimate danger... so they must be stopped at any cost. This was Cheney's and likely Rumsfeld's view. They were completely focused on any threat to the United States and thought that the ends justified the means. This was a view shared by a core group at the top of government. Other members, like Wolfowitz, had broader views about remaking the middle east into a stable polity. The first step in this vision was Iraq. Not all senior officials who wanted to go to war shared this view. Rumsfeld and Cheney were seemed less interested the idealist policy as realists. Rumsfeld wanted to be out of Iraq as soon as possible and fought to keep the US force size as small as possible.
I think the question that is important here... why did they make such a bad decision? One of the best psychological analysis of political decision-making was Janis Irving's Groupthink. In his work Irving discusses how individuals can hold very strong shared beliefs and act on them. His case studies included the Bay of Pigs Massacre, the US failure to foresee the Japanese attack on December 7th and the Challenger incident. Within such groups the ability to operate effectively assess information decreases as individuals rely on their shared conceptions about threats. I think Cheney, Rumsfeld and many of their subordinates fundamentally believed that a threat existed... there was little doubt in their eyes. If you read the accounts of individuals like Col. Wilkerson (Colin Powell's chief of staff) and others like Richard Armitage, they felt that the conclusion had already been made and the intelligence was being tailored to suit it.
This is not that surprising really. Much of the information in the public domain prior to 2003 suggested the Iraq possessed a viable chemical weapons program. The independent International Institute of Strategic Studies put out a assessment that suggested as much. It was an easy conclusion to make, partly because Hussein did not want to make it clear that he didn't have any such weapons. You can see the difference in how he made clear that he didn't have a nuclear weapons program. I always thought that this was his greatest misjudgment. I think Hussein was always worried about Iran, but
Why was the weapons issue important for the international community? It was the clearest breach of international law that Iraq had done. I think this highlights a problem with international law itself, which is extremely limited. Really its designed for a 17th century state centric view of international relations. If you're not threatening your neighbour, you can do whatever you want.
Anyway I think I'll leave it at that because I could write alot more but you wouldn't get an answer (which you've been waiting for). As I said before, if you want to ask more questions I'd be happy to answer them, but I'm not here to get in an argument over what is right or wrong (beyond a certain extent.)
