what is he talkin about with bush being involved with 9/11 in his new movie.. does anyone know what hes talking about or what secrets are being revealed
Just note that if your going to be taking in Michael moores films, take it with a grain of salt. I dont think there will be any "secrets" revealed. Michael moore is in no better of a position than we are to get info that points absolutely to bush behind the 9/11 attacks.
I hate all this BS about Bush and other people that run america being behind 9/11. It's simply a croak of shit. It was all al-qaeda and nothing else. Bush did not plan to attack America like that, no american would. It is absolutely ridiculous that anyone could even think of such a thing, pure stupidity.
Suggest you go educate yourself on just what our own leaders are capable of conniving to galvanise public opinion behind an agenda of war. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html and the official documents to support the charge: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
Everyone wants to say that Iraq had ties with al Quida...no one seems to remember that America also has ties to al Quida. But its okay for us, and not for Iraq...just like everything else.
I never said Iraq had ties to al-qaida. I am not going ot either, I have not made up my mind there. Where are our ties to al-qaida? If you mean continually being attacked by them ok.
i think you have too much faith in this country, and its government. this is coming from someone with a bush campaign ad in his sig...
Exactly, no president will ever attack this country. It is ridiculous to even think so. Why would any president want to attack his own country? This wasn't an attack on any specific group of people in America. It was focused on all of America. It was an attack on the infidels. If you really have that much distrust for your government I am sorry. Even though I don't like Kerry, I know that if he gets elected he will do his best to do what is right for this country. As will every president to come. The president is my leader and I put my trust in him to keep me and my family safe. In regards to Bush being behind 9/11, Bush is a strong and practicing Christian. And there is no way a Christian would commit such an atrocity as 9/11. If you believe one would, then you have a misguided view of what Christianity is.
well.. if you think f the government more as a business than someone trying to really make things fair and regulate order... then it seems a lot more possible
Funny you mention michael moore and he instantly gets attacked lol..It's like everyone is scared that his movie is the TRUTH..hmm when all in all instead of being so defensive for our wonderful president, you should be checking out all information and it's accuracy..and another thing..any one who votes for bush or against bush it is their right to do so..and it's also good for debate but these people on here, need to stop calling names and showing hate posts because someone doesn't agree with them..It doesn't make them stupid or idiot..it just means they have different views as you do..Everyone can debate without the lil kindergarten name calling..I'm sick of looking at it..It's like we can't come up with any defense for why we are right or why we believe this way..so..you're an idiot...or i hope you die! hmm come on..let's all be rational, calm, and peaceful without the hate.. ~Peace~
Well, it's hard to say if the president himself was directly involved, but I do think he knew about it beforehand. And I do believe that at least one facet of the government - be it the CIA or whatever - intentionally had their guard down. There is absolutely NO WAY the 9/11 attacks would have occured if someone within our own government intentionally permitted it to happen, which they did. Where was NORAD on 9/11, and how come the fourth plane which crashed in Pa. was allowed to go off course for more than an hour without being shot down or intercepted? If we had no idea that Al-Qaeda was going to fly planes into buildings, how come we knew the identity of the "terrorists" a day later? How come some of the "terrorists" that were supposedly on the hijacked planes are still reportedly alive over in the middle east today? Some of you are really blind, and your inability to question your own government scares me. It's no secret that governments use events like this to push their own agenda via a problem-reaction-solution scenario. Do you think the government would have been able to pull off the initiation of the "Patriot Act" or the invasion of Iraq if it wasn't for the events of 9/11? The is all part of an ever-increasing police state which the advocates of one world government are pushing on us - primarily through fear and lies - and so many of you people are asleep to what is really going on.
The reason the government did not know about it was b/c the terrorists on the airplanes did not know exactly what they were going to do even when they were in the states. The plan to attack the US and by what means was only known by bin Laden and A FEW of his top agents. Mohammed Atta and his "brothers in terror" did not know what they were going to do until a few days in advance. That is how you keep stuff secret. It is easy to keep a secret when only 2-3 people know about it. But when the entire Al-Qaeda network knows is when the CIA finds out.
No President would ever attack this country eh? I suppose theyve either glossed over the civil war (which was launched against a considerable portion of "our country" for daring to exercise their Constitutional right to withdraw from the union at such a time they deemed the federal government to be ursurping more power than that granted explicitly to it at its founding) or else have sanitised it with so many accolades for Lincoln (who serves as one of the prime examples for the abuse of Constitutional power and the abrogation of Constitutional protections which we have seen rolled out by the current administration) that you seem incapable of grasping that Washington cares for its profit base, not the sheep. When war is on the cards, Washington is prepared to go to any extent to manufacture the public consent necessary. I suggest you go back and educate yourself about Project Northwoods (links duly provided to get you started) as well as obtaining whatever copies of the Pentagon Papers you can lay your hands on. Perhaps you might finally come to grips with the harsh reality of power politics and put aside these delusions of care and concern for the nation to which you presume our leaders subscribe.
I don't see any links. And bringing the Civil War into this doesn't prove anything. The Civil War was of completely different circumstances. It was a revolt against the government, thus causing Lincoln to stop the revolt. 9/11 was in no way, shape or form a revolt against the government. It was an attack on Americans by an outside force.
Funny how the most vociferous critics of those who suggest that our own military/intelligence structure is far more adequately equipped to have carried out such a precision attack on multiple targets than a supposed group of fugitives in caves (or some tiny band of scattered collusionists) will rant and dismiss such perfectly plausible suggestions as "conspiracy theory" and then turn around and talk of the very same sort of highly secret planning by the foreign boogeymen alleged (and to this day never proven nor even attempted to be proven) to have comitted the act. The old addage rings true once again as it has so many times in my lifetime alone (each of which was subsequently shown to be substantially other than what was claimed as the justification) that a lie repeated often enough is generally simply accepted as truth. Once again, the intellectually honest would consider the repeated lies already exposed and not continue to swallow official claims without digging in and researching those with the most vital interests in and the most significant benefits accruing from events aimed at sensationalising public opinion. How many lies does it take before the majority will say, "hang on a minute, lets see the conclusive evidence for your claims before you get to send our children off to fight and die for your increased profits"? Unless we do, I can assure our younger contributors that we will be seeing many more fabricated wars and related scandals to come and many more gullible youngsters giving their lives for nothing more than the expansionist aspirations of the elite.
No friend, the civil war was the Norths aggressive reaction in forcing a entirely new ethos in governance which was not contained in the Constitution. Before you go spouting alot of presumtpive nonsense which has no historic factuality, I suggest you go and research the voluntary nature of the Union and the Constitutional provisions which the confederacy chose legitimately to invoke in seceding. It was Lincoln who declared war on them, not they who declared war on the Union. This was the start of strong federal power for which Lincoln had to insert the 14th amendment in order to manufacture legitimacy for his actions and to assume domination over all the states (whose own state constitutions reaffirm the understanding of our founders that the union was one of voluntary compact amongst individual sovereign states. Whether you care to invent your own history is your business, but the steady concentration of power at the center is precisely why we have repeatedly arrived at these periods of runaway unaccountability, abuse of power and wars based on lies.
I would like to see the links to project Northwood or whatever it is called. Of course it is plausible that the Bush administration was involved in 9/11. Yes they have to power and the means to do it. But it is also plausible that the Rooselvelt administration used Japanese planes and bombed Pearl Harbor so that they could go to war against Japan and Germany. If this idea sounds really, really fucking stupid to you, then you should realize how stupid that conspiracy about 9/11 is. The fact of the matter is that you will never find any reliable info that proves bush was apart of 9/11.
I did not say that the South attacked the North. In fact, it is common knoweledge that the North made the first attack. But it was the south who caused the North to attack, because the southern states were seceding from the Union, thus taking land that was already claimed by the federal government. Now, why wouldn't Lincoln go to war?
