Funnily enough even the US DoD press releases from Afghanistan are very good as well.

You could learn a hell of a liot of what is actually going on from them.
--------------

They are worth reading, i do it myself. I read gov. white papers, intelligence reports and all sorts of official documents if available. It's not the official documents that make it to the news though.

Metro

comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 8 minutes ago
Could you imagine getting stopped under the terrorism act with a book in your bag entitled peace kills. There was a brief moment when I had a panic. I've coincidentally also never worn jeans and trainers since that day, as that was put into the description of me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

How many funny looks do you get these days making your way to work in a dress and stilettos?

I'm not going to bombard you with anything. I just do not believe that anybody is capable of being unbiased.

They are worth reading, i do it myself.

............

Then I am surprised why you take such a one sided view.

Metro_1.

You're correct in the sense that if someone says something that falls outside the bounds of mainstream discourse they will be challenged on it. But the response to that challenge should always be with good evidence. With 9/11, there is zero evidence of any US government involvement or foreknowledge of an attack.

Look, even the most highly controlled laboratory experiments produce unexplained phenomena. So that there are a few things that might be difficult to explain or understand about an event as unpredictable and volatile as 9/11 isn't hard to believe. We needed jump to wild conclusion about it, though.

Then I am surprised why you take such a one sided view.
-----------------

Again, i don't. The motivations that govern US and UK policy are not a grey area. We have direct, and very rich documentary evidence for these things.

*needn't, not needed in the response to Metro1.

Someone questions an official story with legitimate concerns over their accuracy

Someone retaliates by belittling the person who questions. They sometimes use things like aliens and Elvis to try and marginalise you into a whack community.
=====

nothing wrong with asking questions. BUT, you must listen to answers. conspiracy theorists generally will quote mine or use misleading data/ pictures. if they are so confident of their claims why not tell the truth?

answer-it gets people interested and makes $$$$$$

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 8 minutes ago
The reality is, we're told that 19 man with box cutters took over 4 planes and killed thousands of people with no resistance and stunning accuracy.

I have a problem with that as do millions

....................

Not sure why you find any of it hard to believe.

Do you know what a box cutter is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the convenience of an eastern border being left defenceless and amateur pilots who executed manoeuvres that experts would have difficulty with.

And why ask about the box cutters ?

Also one of the bombers passports just happened to be found, intact at the bottom of the Twin Tower wreckage.

The motivations that govern US and UK policy are not a grey area.

...............

I think that is exactly what they are.

Iraq was more black and white, but the motives for Afghanistan are not.

Unless you want to believe that the Taliban were indeed allowing Al queda a foothold on terrorist training there.

*terrorists.

There is a massive whack community, you only need to look at YouTube. Many of the 911 delusions and theories more than earn the scourn poured upon them.

Then there is the rational questioning of official events. Such stuff as the Jessica Lynch story is proof that propaganda is alive and well in the west. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/24/usa.marktran

"The three people mentioned really just point this out. There work doesn't contain any bias. Curtis especially, given that he has virtually no media profile and there aren't any interviews of him (maybe one or two)."

I'm not sure what his media profile has to do with bias berba? We will have to agree to disagree then, I find Curtis very one sided in his points of view and selection of facts to back them up. I'm not saying that I disagree with them, on the most part I don't, just that you cannot possibly argue it is a balanced viewpoint as he simply didn't have access to be able to do it to the relevant people, only documents.

It's the convenience of an eastern border being left defenceless

............

It wasn't.

We went through this on the last 9/11 thread, Metro.

One of your tin pot theories was that one of the planes was shot down by the US Air Force.

and amateur pilots who executed manoeuvres that experts would have difficulty with.

....................

Again, I told you about my golf partner who is ex US Air Force. He said it wasn't difficult what so ever.

And why ask about the box cutters ?

..........

Because I want to see if you know what they are.

Iraq was more black and white, but the motives for Afghanistan are not.
--------------------

The motives are a little more widespread but ultimately not unusual by any means. The primary reason simply being geostrategic. There are things, like TAPI... but even that isn't mutually exclusive from Afghanistan's geostrategic location.

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
Iraq was more black and white, but the motives for Afghanistan are not.
--------------------

The motives are a little more widespread but ultimately not unusual by any means. The primary reason simply being geostrategic. There are things, like TAPI... but even that isn't mutually exclusive from Afghanistan's geostrategic location.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I spoke to an old guy a few years back who was chairman of a FTSE 100 oil company. He got a personal call from Bush Snr significantly ahead of the the First Gulf war. Can you imagine the financial implications of having that knowledge ahead of time.

I'm not sure what his media profile has to do with bias berba? We will have to agree to disagree then, I find Curtis very one sided in his points of view and selection of facts to back them up. I'm not saying that I disagree with them, on the most part I don't, just that you cannot possibly argue it is a balanced viewpoint as he simply didn't have access to be able to do it to the relevant people, only documents.
----------------

I'm even skimming over his work now and there literally isn't anything opinionated in his work. He uses declassified government files primarily. That's about as unbiased as it gets.

I mention his media profile as, if you wanted to, you could find an opinion on a topic from say, Chomsky quite easily, simply because he does a lot of interviews, lectures with Q&A's and things, and inevitably gets asked for his opinion on certain things. With Curtis, as he doesn't have that kind global profile, there isn;t anything i know of where he expresses his opinion. That was all i was getting at.

I spoke to an old guy a few years back who was chairman of a FTSE 100 oil company. He got a personal call from Bush Snr significantly ahead of the the First Gulf war. Can you imagine the financial implications of having that knowledge ahead of time.
---------------

Doesn't surprise me. The close collusion of the state and corporate/financial sectors is well documented if not very well understood or known.

I reckon prior knowledge of something like that would be enough for joe public to make a fortune on a leveraged position on something like oil or a short position on the main indices. But even a company like Haliburton or Oil company would stand to benefit by having prior knowledge.

The Bush family had very close ties with the Bin Ladens and the Saudis for decades.

Debate over

http://www.science-writing.org/id29.html