Boy, that makes you wonder.
‘The Government’?
It was never about antiterrorism; it’s all about controlling the population.
The Cons DID call themselves domestic terrorists…
Terrorism is such a helpful tool, that if there weren’t terrorists, they’d invent them.
And they do. Witness MAGA’s obsession with manifesting ANTIFA out of thin air.
Step back a bit. America probably gave the Saudi royals a trillion dollars over the decades, which they used to spread militant Wahibism across the Middle East.
Not even necessary. Just look at FBI SOP.
deleted by creator
It doesn’t make us wonder at all. If you were old enough and paying attention after September 11th, you would have heard many people saying that the point point of the expanded powers was to take freedom away from Americans, and not to keep anyone safe.
They’ve never done ANYTHING to keep us safe. If they cared at all about that, the first thing they’d do is give us Universal Health Care.
The ONLY thing that matters in the United States of Ferengenar is Profit. Any safety benefit that arose out of the pursuit of profit was simply a happy accident. If those benefits are found to be using profits, they will be removed.
Never let a good crisis go to waste
If you were not old enough and didn’t have earplugs, you would have heard my annoying ass saying this.
The US is better at creating terrorism than it is stopping it
Oh? So its bad to be good at things now?
Leave it to the trained professionals.
I heard that ism shit was actually Israel…
osama bin laden may be dead but he won with 911. Basically got us to destroy our own democracy.
Is it not common knowledge that most of the hijackers were Saudi, and trained and funded by Saud? Didn’t the 9/11 commission more or less say the whole thing was the Saudis?
what was al-qaeda mostly funding then
Mother of God, is this a joke? I read that interview a couple of times thinking maybe there is some loophole like “I wasn’t involved in the killing , but definitely was there in the planning” kind of catch, but nope.
Did I just read propaganda or did the US really kill a guy not involved in 9/11?
The tricky part is if someone is ok with killing thousands of people, then one could imagine they might not be totally truthful in an interview.
Biggest point toward taking someone at their word is that usually the point is to take credit, to let people know why it happened and what you wanted to change to prevent it from happening again. On the other hand, this was after USA made it clear that the answer was to just be angry and inflict more violence and interference in the middle east, so it might cause someone to switch strategies to try to defuse the situation even if they started it.
Short answer, no way of knowing what to think of the interview in and of itself.
Wasn’t al quaeda in the habit of claiming responsibility for pretty much every terrorist attack around that time regardless of their involvement? It would still be a little out of character to deny responsibility if they actually were. But most of the hijackers were Saudi, and Saudi trained and funded, so clearly the answer was to start a war in Iraq.
said pretty-much-every terrorist attacks also involved “the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciate act”, no?
Well, that was the point in my second paragraph, usually they took credit, but they might have changed their mind realizing that it brought down a more violent response than they might have expected.
The Iraq theory problem is that even with a trigger-happy, iraq hating administration, they justified action in Afghanistan instead, and used a different theory to eventually attack Iraq. If the goal was Iraq, then they should have tried to pin it on Hussein instead.
All in all, it’s just too murky to assert a certain narrative to go through it all.
Lol, first time?
You should read up on how we did Sadam. The US diplo April Glass gave tacit approval for his occupation of Kuwait and we then used that as a reason to retaliate and stabbed him in the back to get the oil.
Even better, you should look up how we completely fabricated a boogeyman out of Gaddafi.
Everything that reaches the ears of the public is a lie.
It’s all propaganda on all sides. Some of it is true. Some of it isn’t.
Apparently it was so obvious that the news anchors new it was OBL within minutes
That’s a 404 buddy.
Not for me and at least one other. Try via VPN.
He didn’t though. It’s either you did, or there wasn’t one in the first place.
you will notice I said got us to destroy our own democracy. not that he did. he provided the impetus and excuse. its not like we were not warned. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
I like that quote, but I think you didn’t have liberty just were allowed to feel like you have it. Bin Laden didn’t change much, the times did, when it became normal for the rich to say “suck it up”.
I think we have. Its a line and absolute liberty is basically might makes right. Its about having a level playing field and not trodding on individual rights. We were generally in an expansion of rights before 911 and it gave a massive excuse to the anti rights folk.
The Patriot Act basically suspended the Constitution.
And now the government is basically ignoring it.
absolute liberty is might makes right
I’m high as fuck and this is so deep.
No, but they do use it to target all sorts of other things via Parallel Construction.
Now that Trump has defined anyone against fascism as being a terrorist, the path ahead is clear.
They were never meant to. Surveillance is for suppressing citizens, not foreign dangers.
Every time you type the word b0mb, it gets recorded. Every URL you type, it gets recorded.
that’s not the worst thing the CIA has done.
In Utah.
Terrorism is mostly a scam to justify a lot of things sane and informed citizens would never support.
Shocking the government is using this gross privacy violation for reasons other than stated, like opponents said at the time it would.
DOGE must have gutted those involved in overseeing this then right?
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Ben Franklin
He also had slaves but people really don’t talk about that… He literally was a hypocrite with that freedom and liberty shit.
Well… You know except for the fact that he started one of the first abolitionist movements in the United States after realizing slavery was morally reprehensible and indefensible later in life especially after the revolutionary war.
But who cares about history and facts.
You can try to spin it how ever you want, he still owned slaves. But, you just ignored that fact.
“But who cares about history and facts.”
That fucker literally benefitted from the slave trade.
No one is denying that Franklin owned slaves. That is a historical fact, and I never claimed otherwise.
The problem is that your position is not defensible because it requires pretending the rest of his life never happened. Franklin freed the people he enslaved, became president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, and petitioned Congress to take action against slavery. Those are documented historical facts.
If your argument is that anyone who ever participated in an immoral institution can never later become a genuine reformer, then you’ve adopted an absurd standard that would erase countless people who recognized their wrongdoing and spent the rest of their lives trying to correct it.
You keep repeating that Franklin benefited from slavery as though it somehow refutes the fact that he became one of America’s earliest and most influential abolitionists. It doesn’t. Those facts are not contradictory. They are precisely what makes his transformation historically significant.
You accuse others of ignoring history while selectively discarding every fact that undermines your conclusion. That is not an argument. It is just historical cherry-picking.
But he did something we know think is wrong! So he is evil!
This is live on easy mode. Imagine living like that.
The point was, he had them and he totally ignored the comment and didn’t acknowledge it. Just like some Fox news guest would.
I acknowledged absolutely everything in my comment jackass. I acknowledge that Ben Franklin own slaves. I acknowledged that it is morally reprehensible for anyone to own slaves at any point in time.
What else would you like me to acknowledge sir?
You literally did ignore it until now, lol, that was why I was repeating it.
" You accuse others of ignoring history while selectively discarding every fact that undermines your conclusion."
There was no accusation, it was all you ignoring it, there were no others. You actually did it. Just say he had slaves then we could have moved on from there.
You’re not reading or understanding anything that I’m saying to you.
The fact that Ben Franklin owns slaves is objective verifiable fact.
There is no need for me to acknowledge that since I’m not contesting that point in any way.
Moreover, I did acknowledge it in my next comment.
Just take your bitch slap and move on.
In fact, I’d be willing to bet you didn’t even know he was an abolitionist to start with.
You are not understanding, since you didn’t first acknowledge and immediately tried to defend him, we won’t have your hissy fit you are throwing. Your hero sucks. In fact, you would probably suck him off and he would bitch slap you for using too much teeth.
In the 60s, the CIA proposed multiple false flag attacks and operations on Cuba to former President JFK that would be considered borderline terrorism today. Much in the same way that Trump is launching an invasion in Iran and Putin in Ukraine. Thankfully Kennedy did decline most of their proposals because he thought they crossed the line though he did grant them permission to do some basic things. Still not good he let them intervene at all though that’s not the worst thing the CIA has done.
JFK replaced the chairman of the joint chiefs (Lemnitzer) for bringing that BS domestic terrorism (operation North Woods) to his desk. That was a kindness really, the guy should have been put in jail. Lemnitzer also really wanted to nuke Cuba too. He was a fascist idiot.
Unfortunately there are still fascist idiots in the American government right now so not much has changed! But yeah glad they did not Nuke Cuba. That would have been bad.
Side note-Do you think that the CIA killed Kennedy?
Kennedy pressured Ben-Gurion to allow inspections of their nuclear facilities, and JFK was pressuring congress to declare AIPAC a foriegn lobbyist oragnization. Ben-Gurion stepped down instead, and Kennedy got assassinated so the effort to reclassify AIPAC evaporated. Israel were the biggest winners in JFK’s assassination by a large margin, and assassination was what they did as part of their normal politics. While some CIa agents were on the scene of JFK’s murder, for some reason no one knows what they were doing there. So whoever did it had to have access to the CIA, which rules out the Russians and the mafia. It was the military industrial complex, or Israel. Theres no way Oswald acted alone either.
There’s a lot of coincidences if they didn’t.
Not really, just stuff happening at the same time, and people connect them, and claim conspiracy.
One of my first memories was my mom telling me that the president had been murdered, a concept that I had never heard of before. So I’ve lived my entire life with the JFK assassination, and the regular fads that pop up around another new theory.
After reading so much about it over the years, I have come to the unpopular conclusion that it was just Oswald, a pathetic loser with delusions of grandeur. He did one amazing thing in his life, and got off three good shots, with two direct hits, in only a few seconds. Very difficult, but not impossible for a trained marksman. Not even implausible.
You can tangle it up all you want, but when you apply Occams Razor, the Lone Gunman Theory fits perfectly. All the CIA stuff is just normal Cold War manipulations that were happening all over the East coast at that time, because of Cuba. Just because CIA was active at the same time, doesn’t mean they were working together.
deleted by creator
I like the theory of an accidental misfire from a secret service agent.
It makes the most sense if the entire thesis of JFK’s death is that even hordes of loyal secret service agents with guns pose a risk to the president.
The CIA had plans to kill fidel castro with clam bombs. They aren’t serious people just well funded and dangerous. I think they had Oswald killed to cover up the Secret Service’s embarrassing accident because if Oswald had testified he didn’t shoot all the rounds the obvious question would be aired.
I dunno I think they may have been involved. But maybe they looked the other way. I think Kennedy knew about aliens and wanted to tell the world. But that is my tin foil hat, lol.
They could at least stage a false flag and pretend like any of it worked. Its all a big evil clownshow run with our money.
Tax strike
Of course, because that was never its real purpose.
This is from 2015! Blast from the past. But I am willing to bet in the 11 years since then it is still true.
