Ackey Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Sorry for the confusion. The stats collection was not a direct link to the terror attacks, more a question of the War on terror. Personally I think that 9/11 was a terror attack. But one which the USA knew could happen and one which the USA failed to deal with, at which point Bush and his advisers saw an opportunity to do something the US has wanted to do for some time, which was to get into the Middle East and develop a strategy for dominance (something which unfortunatly they have failed to do, at least with success the death toll is lower). The stats on the other hand, are just as you say, stats. They highlight the US commitment to this 'war' and how a frightening amounts of money is pouring out of the US economy, which it really can't afford. The NewsCorp stats are all subject to opinion. It can be argued that NewsCorp have started to back the Dem. so that they are seen as being more 'central' (The image of FOX as GWB's voice is no longer a viable commercial identity) however Personally I think it has a LOT more to do with the fact that the race for the 2008 Presidency is looking more and more like a Dem. win every day. When you look historically at how, in '94 Murdoch met with Tony Blair, 3 years before he became PM and 2 years before the Sun became a Labour 'paper again I think that assuming what I have is justifiable. Especially when you consider that, a couple of weeks ago (I don't have time to find the article to get the dates) Murdoch met with H. Clinton for meetings to discuss 'the future'. I've lost track of my main point, but I have to go. So I'll let you reply first then debate some more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I can't accept the numbers because of the correlation logical fallacy - thus it some way short of evidence of a US Government cover up. I think this debate (9/11 Conspiracies) has probably ran it's course due to the overwhelming proof of Middle East terrorists orchestrating and executing the attacks, and the lack of evidence othwise. It's been good though! Okay who's up to debunk another conspiracy theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Sure. UFO's? JFK? Britney's Hair? Take your pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 LOL! Don't fancy Britneys hair topic much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 Sorry about this, last point on Bush. Just before GWII, it was announced that the USA had a war budget of some $400 billion sat doin' nowt while they were in a slight recession. I know Rummy will gun me down quicker than you can say 'US friendly fire', but this is about right for a man of Bush's stature but I smell a rat, his name, George W Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Sorry about this, last point on Bush. Just before GWII, it was announced that the USA had a war budget of some $400 billion sat doin' nowt while they were in a slight recession. I know Rummy will gun me down quicker than you can say 'US friendly fire', but this is about right for a man of Bush's stature but I smell a rat, his name, George W Bush. I'm not going to gun you down footy! Let everybody have a say and then let me have mine, that's the way I play it! He might have had a war chest of that amount, but that's got nothing to do with offering evidence of the conspiracy. My two cents? GWB is an idiot! But there isn't a conspiracy - MOSSAD didn't do it, CIA didn't do it either - Terrorist loons hinding under the banner of Islam did it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Sorry about this, last point on Bush. Just before GWII, it was announced that the USA had a war budget of some $400 billion sat doin' nowt while they were in a slight recession. I know Rummy will gun me down quicker than you can say 'US friendly fire', but this is about right for a man of Bush's stature but I smell a rat, his name, George W Bush. That is the defence budget, that includes things like the Homeland Security initiative, the cost of the Star Wars Project, etc. etc. The figure I quoted, of some $300bn is the current cost of the War in Iraq, and this is in addition to that budget... as I understand it anyway. As Rummy says, I don't think the US had a hand in 9/11. But I'm certain they saw it as an opportunity more than a threat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 Correct. My thought on any connection with 9/11 would be the choice not to act straight away, thus not averting an attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetramfixer Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Correct. My thought on any connection with 9/11 would be the choice not to act straight away, thus not averting an attack. i think the only 'iffy' bit on the yanks part was that i firmly believe they shot that last airliner down... they had a ready made cover story for it ... how does it go "let's roll!" and they didnt need to be close either... not many targets to choose from, but with missiles that can fire and forget from a hundred miles or so ... then who's going to know??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts