dragonstar57 Posted August 31, 2010 Posted August 31, 2010 this thread is to discuss the events leading up to and following the 9/11 attacks on the pentagon and the world trade center and the possibility that george w bush was somehow involved. for those who do not believe that there is a conspiracy here is the place to argue your points with those that do lets remember that the burden of proof is laid on the conspiracy theorists it is up to you to prove that there is a conspiracy not the people who disagree to prove that there is not
John Cuthber Posted August 31, 2010 Posted August 31, 2010 Why? Hasn't this topic been done to death all over the web?
Marat Posted August 31, 2010 Posted August 31, 2010 I think the real conspiracy came after 9/11 rather than leading up to it, in the sense that Bush II harnessed the political power generated by a dramatic, highly cinematic, and unexpected event and used it to promote the traditional Republican agenda. That agenda included feeding money away from domestic programs and into the military-industrial complex, restricting civil liberties and enhancing police powers, pursuing imperalistic aims abroad (the old Wolfawitz plan could be dusted off and put into operation if Iraq could be made to seem responsible for 9/11), and giving Bush II the aura of a 'wartime President' so he could get re-elected. Thus the 'conspiracy' of 9/11 was just like that associated with the burning down of the Reichstag in 1933. The Nazis didn't start the fire to create the appearance of an emergency that would allow them to enact their political program, but they certainly exploited that accidental event to make it work as a justification for enacting their pre-existing program.
Mr Skeptic Posted September 1, 2010 Posted September 1, 2010 Well, 9/11 was certainly convenient for Bush and the Republicans in general. This doesn't mean that they planned it. Really, what are the odds of getting several people to not risk, but give their lives, to kill Americans, and none of them telling on him? At most his involvement would have been passive, simply not stopping it. But what probably happened is that they simply milked the convenient disaster for all they could after the fact. If you want a more believable conspiracy, how about simply having trained Osama Bin Laden, and then let him do his thing, which would help Republicans since they're so tough on terror.
dragonstar57 Posted October 25, 2010 Author Posted October 25, 2010 I think that the conspiracy is just that the Bush administration covered up just how severe a blunder they had made (ie some of the contributing factors being stupidity)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now