9/11 Deniers: Do They Have Credibility?

One of the emerging debates in American politics today is between the mainstream historians and fringe revisionists who claim that 9/11 did not in fact occur, and that the event was simply inserted into history without anybody fully checking the veracity of the claims regarding an Al Qaeda derived attack on key US economic, political and military targets.

Did it really happen? Is there some credibility to either side of the argument?

Let's hear your views.

>>1

9/11 Deniers
Poisoning the well, jew?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
No way I'm wasting my time in this jew thread.

>>1
Yes, the facts back it up.

All I'll say is that I certainly never remember seeing a WTC before 9/11...

Pretty damning...

A jab at the holocaust deniers?

Amusing, but we can't expect to know the whole truth about either incident.

I would point out, however, that both are very good examples of civil disarmament not turning out well.

>>4
>I certainly never remember seeing a WTC before 9/11
Is this a coincidence? Or is it?

>>3
Wow, were you in the WTC?  Do you have one of those WTC tattoos I heard they made everyone get?

9/11 did happen, but the towers didn't fall because of the planes but because they blew it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puWqNJI8Mjo

Forum: Troll Fox News. You up for it?

9/11 deniers are the scum of the earth. I watched the attack happen, goddammit. This dissolution of history into political opinions was addressed in the graphic novel Transmetropolitan - it's not long until nobody knows what year it is, and nobody remembers the shit that any previous presidents did. We do not learn from our mistakes, thus we are doomed to forever repeat them.

Of course, I'm not saying that it was Al-Qaeda that orchestrated the attacks... /paranoid

Al-Qaeda is a couple thousands people at best. Surely Afghan opium can do wonders in Saudi Arabia to put the end toward the threat to homeland security.

>>11
The end toward the threat to homeland security is to pull the troops out completely and by not building permanent bases in either Afghanistan or Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.

>>12 but then the economy would stagnate due to overproduction. The whole point of imperialism is to avoid overproduction by constant growth. World domination is infeasible, but there are still many places that can be feasibly conquered, thus shifting overproduction-related problems a few centuries in the future.

>>13
Total hooey. The American empire would sooner collapse if it keeps on the same path it is on now. The same happened to the U.S.S.R., Rome, etc. The American empire is headed in the same direction unless the trend and course is reversed.

>>14
There's no such thing as the American empire, just because we trade with some country doesn't mean they are a dominion of ours. Read a book some time.

>>15
There's no such thing as the American empire

In name, no. In practice, yes.

just because we trade with some country doesn't mean they are a dominion of ours.

Having over half a million service men and women stationed in over 700 bases around the world is more than just simple trade.

Read a book some time.

I read as much as I can. Thanks for your concern.

>>16
Most of those countries are 1st world. I guess we're not doing a very good job of exploiting them and are a rather shitty empire.

>>17
lrn2 economic imperialism

>>15 Since the start of the Cold War, USA has toppled unfavorable regimes as well as protected favorable ones. The only criterion has been economic cooperation. As defined by the amount of profit from given country's economy going to American shareholders.

A large part of Latin America, Vietnam, and even Congo. Surely there was some other reason than outright colonialism? Right now the "Communist" enemy has been "replaced" with a "terrorist" one, except that terrorism isn't even an ideology.
Waging "War on Terror" is like invading countries whose militaries use the flanking maneuver.

This jingoist behavior is reminiscent of wild animals keen to accentuate their territory. Is American "sphere of influence" anything but such primitive behavior?

If America truly wanted to help some society by invading a country or region, they'd invade Somalia, of all places. Surely a "peacekeeping force" (a real one, not an excuse to avoid Congress approval for war) would make Somalia a bearable place.

But that's not how it works. A war must be justifiable to the general public. It must be feasible to win a war. International backlash must be within a set limit. Must not step on some other empire's toes. The main goal is making money, still.

>>19
Yet since the end of the Cold War, at least whenever we have a Democrat in the White House, the US government uses all possible tools, including military force, to aid its enemies and oppose its friends.

Examples include overthrowing the pro-Western Cedras in Haiti and replacing him at bayonet point with Stalinist thug Aristide because the Clinton administration did not like the way the elections came out.  Or forcing the Israelis to negotiate with Arab terrorists even when Arab rockets are falling on their own children.  Or sending the US Navy and US Air Force to bomb the Serbs, a people who had done nothing to us and who had fought on our side in both World Wars, to allow Al-Qaeda to colonize the ancient Serbian homeland of Kosovo.  Or bullying Switzerland into changing their banking laws this summer.  Or bullying Honduras into reinstalling the Communist Zelaya because they disliked the outcome of a purely internal Constitutional problem, which Communist sympathizers in the Western newsmedia called a "military coup," when it was nothing of the kind.

The US Department of State seems hell-bent on completely dismantling the US's status as a great power by the utter destruction of the idea that anyone but a fool could ally with the US.

Iran works feverishly to build nuclear weapons with the intent to use them against the US and Israel.  Iran abducts American citizens from the Kurdish border area and holds them hostage, demanding concessions.  DoS's response, echoed by Obama?  "Please don't hurt us, just smile as you're putting in the last bolts and we'll give you this big bag of candy!"

North Korea builds nuclear weapons, kidnaps foreigners, and demands trillion dollar blackmail from the world.  DoS's response, echoed by Obama?  "Please don't hurt us, please just smile at us and we'll give you this big bag of candy!"

Honduras, long a pro-US nation, long an ally during the Cold War, had the Stalinist dictator Zelaya, elected in a dubious election, allied with arch-terrorist and war criminal Fidel Castro.  Zelaya attempts to ignore the nation's constitution and declare himself president for a third term, in defiance of the nation's Constitution and the Supreme Court of Honduras, and is promptly removed by the military.  He would have been put on trial for treason had he not escaped the country.  DoS's response, echoed by Obama?  <voice=Darth_Vader> RETURN ZELAYA TO POWER.  NOW.  OR FACE OUR WRATH.  COMPLY IMMEDIATELY OR BE ERASED FROM EXISTENCE. </voice>

Who but an idiot would ally himself with the US?  Who but an idiot would put himself in a position of depending on the US for protection?

The Russians saw Obama and DoS do absolutely nothing about their brutal illegal invasion, occupation, and ethnic cleansing of large portions of Georgia.  Now they are openly threatening a nuclear attack on Poland, to punish them for allying themselves with the West.  And the Poles are saying, "Hello, America?  We could use some help here.  Hello?  Hello?  Where did you go?  Hello?"

>>20
The Russians [...] are openly threatening a nuclear attack on Poland

Which time was it that Russia made such threats and didn't back them up with post-apoc role play in my very city? It would have been some jolly good fun, if only they had a motherfucking spine instead of just asking for attention. Economy based upon Vodka bottles, real scarcity of guns; not just every thug aimed with a 10mm pistol, awesome voice acting with plenty of "kurwa jego w dupę zajebana mać" unlike pussy "The Witcher", real immersion and finally, no bloom!

Let's think of some dialogue that shows Chris Avellone's inadequacies in literary ability:

"Ty pierdolony chuju, oddawaj mój ostatni RadAway!"
"Ten Rzeźnik to jest niezły skurwiel, zabija gimnazjalistów i nie boi się, kurwa, niczego."
"Kutas nie chciał mi dać kasy więc wsadziłem mu kosę w żebra."
"Nosz kurwa, wojna nigdy się nie zmienia, do chuja."

>>18
So after conquering nations like Germany and Japan we give them full independance and they become 1st world egalitarian democracies and we are imperialist for this. Why? Because we have an airport with 100 troops stationed in one of their backwater territories?

>>19
>The main goal is making money, still.
No it isn't. As always there is a mix of goals, mainly appeasing the masses but also not taking risks that could harm someone's political reputation, personal beliefs and pleasing ideological groups. Even the proportion of goals motivated by money have mixed objectives, for every evil capitalist who wants to topple a regime there could be 50 who don't want a civil war so they don't lose their investments in the region.

Usually the only way businesses support governments or usurpers is by buying shit from them or selling weapons to them, which is a good thing because a nation which is actively engaged in trade with the outside world has to be more open and less oppressive in order to keep things running smoothly and will also develop economically, see the rise of an educated middle class and will eventually democratise. This is what Pinochet did and now Chile is a 1st world country and so will Russia and China in a decade or so thanks to the efforts of Ronald Reagan to defeat communism.

God bless America.

>>22
Japan [...] egalitarian

>>22
I don't have information about US troop deployments now, but during the Cold War, the US garrison in Germany was the entire US 7th Army--two reinforced mechanized corps, plus 10+ fighter-bomber wings, + nuclear weapons.  A bit to the north of the 7th Army's occupation zone was the British Army of the Rhine, a single smallish armored corps, plus significant air assets, plus nuclear weapons.  That information was current as of, say, 1985.  And the Soviets had two reinforced army groups in East Germany, 4-5 times that number.

What are the numbers in 2009?  I dno, lol.  The Russians have been gone for years and years.  I don't know how many US or UK troops remain in Germany now.

>>25

Number as of 2005 (for u.s.) was 56,000 soldiers and 15,000 airmen.

Most recent number I could find atm.

>>25
So we've been there for 50 years with 10000s of troops, when exactly are our imperialist masters going to launch their sneak attack and turn Germany into a slave state?

>>27
when exactly are our imperialist masters going to launch their sneak attack and turn Germany into a slave state?

Lol, never. It's just used now to drain the last tiny minute amount of wealth that is left in the United States.

>>28
Um, and what is the purpose of this?

>>29
Hell if I know. I often ask that question myself.