Of course Bush let it happen, but not deliberately. This was negligence causing death, but not negligent homicide. There's a difference.
Yup. Exactly.
Bush and/or his advisors probably either underestimated the coordination capabilities, or simply did not expect an attack any time soon, either through negligence or incompotence.
I think Ein said it best though with his little quote:
Never Attribute to Malice What Can Be Adequately Explained By Incompetence
Sums up my view in a nutshell.
A teenage girl is just a teenage boy who can get laid.
-GTO
We're not just doing this for money; we're doing this for a shitload of money!
Mr. Sinister wrote:My dad thinks that Bush not only allowed the 9-11 attacks, he actually caused them. Then again, it wouldn’t surprise me if he thought that Bush was behind the AIDS epidemic in Africa, that he hunts migrant workers on his ranch in Texas, and that he feeds infants to the giant alligator in the White House basement.
As for me, I have no love for Bush what so ever. But I simply can’t believe that any elected official, let alone the President, would allow over 3,000 people to die simply to further some political agenda. Maybe I’m just naïve.
You're not naive, and your father is quite frankly nuts. The President of the United States is charged with the protection of this nation. He would never deliberately allow the attacks to go through if the information crossed his desk (important point: the President is at the mercy of those who choose what intelligence data makes it into his daily brief), and he sure as hell wouldn't attack his own nation. No "political agenda" is worth that. Furthermore, any political agenda advanced by that would come crashing down along with the rest of his career when (not if, its when) the public found out.
s for me, I have no love for Bush what so ever. But I simply can’t believe that any elected official, let alone the President, would allow over 3,000 people to die simply to further some political agenda. Maybe I’m just naïve.
3000 and more happens all the time its called war
You can judge the character of a person by what they fear
Bush, for all his glaring faults, doesn't strike me as the type who would deliberately risk millions of deaths in the most populous city in the United States for the sake of a scheme that has such a probability of backfiring that even Wile E. Coyote would give it up and go back to the drawing board.
"Carriers dispense fighters, which dispense assbeatings." - White Haven
| Hyperactive Gundam Pilot of MM | GALE | ASVS | Cleaners | Kibologist (beable) | DFB |
If only one rock and roll song echoes into tomorrow
There won't be anything to keep you from the distant morning glow.
I'm not a man. I just portrayed one for 15 years.
Rogue 9 wrote:No "political agenda" is worth that. Furthermore, any political agenda advanced by that would come crashing down along with the rest of his career when (not if, its when) the public found out.
Rest of his career? The words "executed for treason" come to mind.
First of all, WAY back in 80's the FBI's version of the anti-terrorist think tank already had a scenario where jetliners would be used as missiles. This wasn't new to anyone. These agents were realists too, they knew even way back when that the government or the businesses would shell out the cash to retrofit airliners. Not only that, but it was thought that the American public would not be able to stomach the amount of security needed to really stop any type of terrorist attacks (I suspect they were right).
To say that Bush was the cause of 9/11 is really pushing the envelope. Now I'm no Bush fan in the least, but if there was sufficient evidence to implicate Al Queida operatives in the Cole bombing or even the Twin Towers Bombing in the 90's, and those embassy attacks in Africa, shouldn't the US had taken action against Al Queida way back when? To say that Bush allowed it to happen is just hating the current administration when more terrorist actions occurred in the adminstration before (but even Clinton didn't start the problems)
It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smart ass. - The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
s for me, I have no love for Bush what so ever. But I simply can’t believe that any elected official, let alone the President, would allow over 3,000 people to die simply to further some political agenda. Maybe I’m just naïve.
3000 and more happens all the time its called war
So you're saaying Shrubby purposely let 3000 civilian americans die on purpose because of a political agenda? You Fucking Troll.
I'll repeat this _ONE_ more goddamn time for the fucking stupid SHITHEAD in the Front Row, aka MarkIX, as well as a few others here who didn't get the fucking hint the last time.
Never Attribute to Malice What Can Be Adequately Explained By Incompetence.
Shrubby's a stupid asshole, not an evil asshole. Granted the results are nearly the same, but it still doesnt fly. Now kindly fuck off, Sheissekopf!
I think MarkIX was saying that war routinely costs 3000 lives, not that this particular action was allowed to happen by the Bush Administration.
Actually, I happen to think that that he was implying that if politicians routinely allow thousands of people to die in wars to further their political agenda, why couldn't they allow 3000 to die in a terrorist attack to further their political agenda? In which case, I agree with Einhander. Of course if I'm wrong, I apologize.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
Never Attribute to Malice What Can Be Adequately Explained By Incompetence.
I've said this in another thread, but since I see your statement here as well I will repeat what I said......
You state this as if its some sort of law of nature; its completely unfounded considering the VAST number of cases in human history where cruelty was diliberatly caused not by incompetence, but by malice, religous fanaticism, or the persuit of gain.
Either back up your arbitrary assertion with evidence or henceforth it will be regarded as, and treated as, bullshit.
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.
Parsimony supports the idea that it is incompetence, not cruelty. Stop your mindless 'YOUR BULLSHITTING' insistance unless you provide proof, Blackberry.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
SirNitram wrote:Parsimony supports the idea that it is incompetence, not cruelty. Stop your mindless 'YOUR BULLSHITTING' insistance unless you provide proof, Blackberry.
Parsimony is applicable towards the laws of nature, not human behavior.
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.
SirNitram wrote:Parsimony supports the idea that it is incompetence, not cruelty. Stop your mindless 'YOUR BULLSHITTING' insistance unless you provide proof, Blackberry.
Parsimony is applicable towards the laws of nature, not human behavior.
No, it's applicable towards all logic, you utter retard. Again, present proof towards your hypothesis or concede.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
I should rephrase that, one cannot add infinate implausible steps, but some explainations are still viable even if no evidence exists to support then simply because human beings are capable of hiding evidence, or leaving evidence that logically lead to a false conclusion. A good example of this would be framing someone; parsimony, applied to human behavior, leaves no room for a properly conducted framing even though they happen in the real world.
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:I should rephrase that, one cannot add infinate implausible steps, but some explainations are still viable even if no evidence exists to support then simply because human beings are capable of hiding evidence, or leaving evidence that logically lead to a false conclusion. A good example of this would be framing someone; parsimony, applied to human behavior, leaves no room for a properly conducted framing even though they happen in the real world.
Unless there's proof towards it. You utter retard. You have no concept of supporting your wild assertions, do you?
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
I seem to get into all sorts of arguments when I just drop in the throw away lines let me clarify:
War is used in the continuance of a political agenda more than 3000 people have died in many wars.
seriously I doubt that Mr Bush would have let 9/11 occur to further his political agenda because stuff like that is very hard to control and would require a cover up that would be very hard to do, especially since more political leverage and credability could be gained by preventing it if you knew about it, you could then claim that your sources that saved the twin towers are the same ones that said Iraq was a threat.
Red Imperator: I don't feel you need to apologise I wasn't very clear.
Einhander Snowman: the less you go off half cocked the more credibility you have.
You can judge the character of a person by what they fear
So, Blackberry, you honestly believe that the President of the United States is guilty of high treason? With no evidence? I'm sorry, but the friggin' Constitution defines what is acceptable grounds for even accusing someone of treason. "Its within human nature and is therefore on the outer edge of plausibility," isn't good enough.
Furthermore, it makes zero sense to do that. It is outside Bush's character to do such a thing; he honestly believes that he's doing the best thing for the country even though he's screwing it up royally. And I fail to believe that Bush is sufficiently stupid to risk being caught at high treason just for momentary political gain even if it was within his character. A surge in the polls isn't worth execution for treason, no matter how you weigh the evidence. Got it?
Rogue 9 wrote:It is outside Bush's character to do such a thing; he honestly believes that he's doing the best thing for the country even though he's screwing it up royally.
I totally agree; I was wondering if I was the only who thought it, but as much as I hate Bush and his politics, he radiates the simple-honesty that comes from someone who genuinely beleives what he's on about.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the cadre around him. Ever heard the idea there's ties between those that influence each other? There's only puppet strings there.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
SirNitram wrote:Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the cadre around him. Ever heard the idea there's ties between those that influence each other? There's only puppet strings there.
Eh. Powell's the only one worth anything in that crowd...
SirNitram wrote:Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the cadre around him. Ever heard the idea there's ties between those that influence each other? There's only puppet strings there.
Eh. Powell's the only one worth anything in that crowd...
He's been turned into the Bush administration's whipping boy. He barely commands any of the respect that he used to, domestically or world-wide.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Added to Above I guess it probably came out like I think Mr Bush is some sort of immoral individual only held in check by consequences that is not what I was trying to say. I belive that there are both sane and practical reasons why he wouldn't do it, I belive further that that sort of decision would be extremely rare as the people insane enough to try it wouldn't be belived and would therefore gain no benefit from it.
You can judge the character of a person by what they fear
