Bono's Comments on Terrorism

[Dreadsox]

while i totally agree, i think it's worth saying that confronting this threat doesn't mean that we must turn ourselves into a presidential protectorate where torture, detainment, and rendition are seen as necessary to protect ourselves.

for they are not. and they destroy whatever is indeed worth protecting.

And to me, this is why we have terrorists ready to kill us. I am not sure I agree with linking it to the poor as Bono has done. I am willing to entertain the thought that this is part of it. But I would find this at the very core of the issue. Good post.

 

[Irvine511]

If they had done it in the gulf war....

It would have been a true multinational force, including countries from the region.

It should have been done then.

And I would bet with the true coalition, Iraq would look a lot different today.

it seems to me that the horror show that the last 4 years have been has precisely proved why nobody wanted to occupy Iraq, either in 1991 or in 2003.

 

[Irvine511]

And to me, this is why we have terrorists ready to kill us. I am not sure I agree with linking it to the poor as Bono has done. I am willing to entertain the thought that this is part of it. But I would find this at the very core of the issue. Good post.

they want to kill us because we respect the rule of law, we respect the Geneva Convention, everyone is entitled to legal representaiton, we do not rendition, and we DO NOT TORUTRE.

or at least that's how it used to be.

the argument for the continued defense of "our way of life" seems to me to be less compelling with each passing year, as "our way of life" is continually flushed down the toilet of presidential privilege.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Bush even offered Blair to stay out of Iraq, as Blair now said in an interview.

 

[Dreadsox]

it seems to me that the horror show that the last 4 years have been has precisely proved why nobody wanted to occupy Iraq, either in 1991 or in 2003.

I again disagree....

If you look at the coalition of 1991....

I think it would have been different. It was a coalition supported by the UN, and by Middle Eastern States.

WOuld it have been perfect, no.....but it would have been better equipt to handle the situation we are in. It would have saved all of the years of unecessary sanctions.

I am not saying it would have been perfect. I am saying it would have been better done then, rather than now.

 

[Irvine511]

I am not saying it would have been perfect. I am saying it would have been better done then, rather than now.

i think it would have been better, i agree, but i also think a successful occupation of Iraq is an impossibility under any circumstance. i would have prefered Bush the Elder rather than the tantrum-throwing poopy-pants Junior, but i don't think either would have had much different outcomes.

let's not forget, there were very, very good reasons why they did not invade in 1991.

 

[Dreadsox]

The 1992 Election? hehe

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Bush even offered Blair to stay out of Iraq, as Blair now said in an interview.

And it's actually the whole reason why Blair was 'in', because they knew the US were going to do it anyway, regardless of whoever else was in or whether the UN supported the idea, or even if the entire planet was against it. He thought that they were just going to do it because they could, everyone else be damned, and that this was wrong, not only in a global sense, but also just because of the irreparable damage it would do to the US. That is precisely why Blair and the UK were 110% supportive. 'Maximum public support = maximum private influence" was his mantra through it all. He thought he could steer them down the right path, and he very nearly did. Bush, to his credit, did see the logic behind Blair's argument and did work with that against the express wishes of Cheney and Rumsfeld (who everyone in the Blair camp thought were flat out crazy, and in the case of Rumsfeld, dangerously stupid). So they did go the UN route, with other countries tagged in, and then again when that all looked to be going pear shaped, in those final weeks, Blair thought he was done for and Bush gave him another out. Blair's office were actually preparing for his resignation or sacking at that time. They really thought it was coming any day. There was a real fear that at least a couple of European governments were going to fall over Iraq and Blair was pretty sure his was going to. 98% of the public against, at least 100 MP's in his own party against, several high ranking cabinet members against.

I really would recommend Alistair Campbell's Diary, published just recently. If you're not British you'll find about 80% of it very dry - UK domestic politics - but certainly from 9/11 on it becomes really interesting reading. Especially the back story to Iraq, when all we were getting publicly was the 110% support bit, and Blair being portrayed as a poodle to Bush. He really was working almost entirely just to steer the US away from virtual self-destruction, and he probably did in the end. Can you imagine where the US would be now had everything that has happened since the initial invasion still occurred, except it had been a truly unilateral US attack, and it had come in the face of truly universal worldwide opposition?

 

[bofors]

I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It’s real and grave.

This is total nonsense, 9/11 was an "inside job".

The public has been mislead to believe that some 19 arabs armed with razor blades carried the attack which lead to the destruction of World Trade Center.

This is a lie.

There are a number of documentaries which prove beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center was destroyed by bombs going off in the buildings.

A decent place to start is by watching "Loose Change" on Google Video.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

There are a number of documentaries which prove beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center was destroyed by bombs going off in the buildings.

The planes just created some minor communication problems for those on the floors they hit?

 

[bofors]

Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

The planes just created some minor communication problems for those on the floors they hit?

We know that the direct impact of the planes themselves did not cause the "collapse".

The official story is that fires weakened the steel in the twin towers and that somehow initiated "global collapse".

That is a provable lie, the details are here: ae911truth.org

 

[Irvine511]

it's funny how my best friend's (he's actually more like a brother) sister's best friend from high school, who was on the flight that hit the second tower, along with his wife and 3 year old daughter, totally thought that their flight had been hijacked by some Arabs with boxcutters when he called his father and mother and told him that he loved them and that, "at least it's going to be very quick."

http://www.petehansonandfamily.com/

i think the only people who think this was some sort of "inside job" are those without any sort of personal connection to the tragedy.

for the rest of us, it's both sad and somewhat offensive.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

it's funny how my best friend's (he's actually more like a brother) sister's best friend from high school, who was on the flight that hit the second tower, along with his wife and 3 year old daughter, totally thought that their flight had been hijacked by some Arabs with boxcutters when he called his father and mother and told him that he loved them and that, "at least it's going to be very quick."

http://www.petehansonandfamily.com/

i think the only people who think this was some sort of "inside job" are those without any sort of personal connection to the tragedy.

for the rest of us, it's both sad and somewhat offensive.

That is so sad, their daughter was the youngest victim. I remember reading about them all those years ago.

 

[bofors]

i think the only people who think this was some sort of "inside job" are those without any sort of personal connection to the tragedy.

That's not true, there are many 9/11 family members who understand that 9/11 was an "inside job" and several are speaking out about it.

For example, Robert McIlvaine, Gordon Haberman, Donna Marsh O'Connor and Patty Casazza recently out against the 9/11 lie at Hartford, Connecticut, detailed here: 911hartford.org

Moreover, four 9/11 windows: Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg (the "Jersey Girls") reject the official 9/11 story as detailed in the "9/11 Press for Truth" (on Google Video).

for the rest of us, it's both sad and somewhat offensive.

Isn't the real problem that you have not seriously considered the evidence which proves 9/11 was an act of treason committed by the US goverment?

 

[A_Wanderer]

No, the problem is that you want it to be true, an acceptable explanation for your worldview, you have a preconcieved notion that is validated by selective use of evidence, distortion and outright lie. The truthers are a brilliant example of an echo chamber.

The Popular Mechanics article on the collapse of the towers is a good bit of myth debunking.

 

[financeguy]

a preconcieved notion that is validated by selective use of evidence, distortion and outright lie.

Bit like the rationale for war in Iraq, then.

 

[bofors]

No, the problem is that you want it to be true, an acceptable explanation for your worldview, you have a preconcieved notion that is validated by selective use of evidence, distortion and outright lie. The truthers are a brilliant example of an echo chamber.

Sorry, but I believed the official story about 9/11 for years, in fact until last January. I had never even heard about the so-called "conspiracy thoery". But once I saw the physical evidence of an "inside job", specifically the obvious demolition of WTC Building 7, I started connecting the dots and learned that 9/11 is a lie.

The Popular Mechanics article on the collapse of the towers is a good bit of myth debunking.

I have a doctoral level education in materials engineering from a top ranked university and Popular Mechanics is no authority on anything, it is just a small part of the media complicity in covering-up the truth of 9/11.

To see this, just consider that the three year, twenty million dollar study by the US National Insitutes of Standards & Technology (NIST) on the "collapses" of the World Trade Center buildings. The NIST report does not even try to explain why the twin towers completely "collapsed". Details here: 911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

LOL, financeguy.

Yeah, I'm not one to buy into the 9/11 conspiracy stuff, either. Feel free to believe what you wish, but despite the fact that I have many, many issues with our government, I just can't imagine they'd be that stupid and callous.

Irvine, what a tragic story . I'm sorry for those people's losses.

Angela

 

[U2DMfan]

That's not true, there are many 9/11 family members who understand that 9/11 was an "inside job" and several are speaking out about it.

For example, Robert McIlvaine, Gordon Haberman, Donna Marsh O'Connor and Patty Casazza recently out against the 9/11 lie at Hartford, Connecticut, detailed here: 911hartford.org

Moreover, four 9/11 windows: Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg (the "Jersey Girls") reject the official 9/11 story as detailed in the "9/11 Press for Truth" (on Google Video).



Isn't the real problem that you have not seriously considered the evidence which proves 9/11 was an act of treason committed by the US goverment?

Yes, the dolts in the White House, who couldn't even contain the secrecy of leaking names of covert CIA agents, use of torture, tapping domestic phone lines and politicizing the justice department, among many other things were somehow able to pull off the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world and silence the hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands of people it would have taken to pull off such a stunt.

If there were no credible scientific debunking (as there clearly is) it would still be a load of garbage. Junk science, grainy images, a high school project pieced together by a couple of kids ignited this so-called scholar and engineer to find out about the 9/11 conspiracy months ago when it has been prevalent and mentioned everywhere on the internet, newspapers,magazines and cable news for the last 6 years.

You sir, are also trolling. New registree, using all 5 of your posts to spout 9/11 conspiracy nonsense.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Maybe it's Rosie O'Donnell

 

[bofors]

If there were no credible scientific debunking (as there clearly is)...

Please tell me where is this "credible scientific debunking"?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yes, the dolts in the White House, who couldn't even contain the secrecy of leaking names of covert CIA agents, use of torture, tapping domestic phone lines and politicizing the justice department, among many other things were somehow able to pull off the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world and silence the hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands of people it would have taken to pull off such a stunt.

Heh, good point .

Angela

 

[bofors]

Yes, the dolts in the White House, who couldn't even contain the secrecy of leaking names of covert CIA agents, use of torture, tapping domestic phone lines and politicizing the justice department, among many other things were somehow able to pull off the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world and silence the hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands of people it would have taken to pull off such a stunt.

Actually, this is a common 9/11 myth that is easily refuted. Prof. David Ray Griffin addresses this myth here:

9/11: The Myth and the Reality

9/11 Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now.This claim is based on a more general myth, which is that is impossible for secret government operations to be kept secret very long, because someone always talks. But how could we know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we by definition do not know about them. Moreover, we do know of big some operations that were kept secret as long as necessary, such as the Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb, and the war in Indonesia in 1957, which the United States government provoked, participated in, and was able to keep secret from its own people until a book about it appeared in 1995.18 Many more examples could be given.We can understand, moreover, why those with inside knowledge of 9/11 would not talk. At least most of them would have been people with the proven ability to keep secrets. Those who were directly complicit would also be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the gas chamber. Those people who had knowledge without being complicit could be induced to keep quiet by means of more or less subtle threats---such as: "Joe, if you go forward with your plans to talk to the press about this, I don't know who is going to protect your wife and kids from some nutcase angered by your statement." Still another fact is that neither the government nor the mainstream press has, to say the least, shown any signs of wanting anyone to come forward.

Text here: 911truth.org/article.php?story=20060405112622982

Video here: video.google.com/url?docid=-275577066688213413

Furthermore, there is no reason why 9/11 could not have been perpetrated with by the 19 "terrorists" as Oswald-like "patsies" and small team of people to plant demoltions in the World Trade Center buildings.

 

[melon]

So, let's see, believe the tin-foil hat wearers or a peer-reviewed scientific paper that debunks the conspiracy theories?

I'll take the side of science, thank you.

I have a doctoral level education in materials engineering from a top ranked university

And President Bush has an M.B.A. from Harvard University. Between his failed business ventures and now this, it's pretty obvious that education does not necessarily correlate to intellect.

 

[phillyfan26]

Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

There are a number of documentaries which prove beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center was destroyed by bombs going off in the buildings.

Fascinating. Where are they? Because I've seen some "documentaries" on the subject that are complete and total bullshit. Where are the ones proving "beyond any doubt" that it was an inside job?

Sorry if I have some doubts that George W. Bush can create a conspiracy.

Please give me some credible evidence first, not your educational background and links to a bunch of nitwits spouting off ridiculous nonsense based on 2% facts and statistics and 98% stupidity.

 

[bofors]

So, let's see, believe the tin-foil hat wearers or a peer-reviewed scientific paper that debunks the conspiracy theories?

I'll take the side of science, thank you.

Let's consider examine the paper you cite and see if it is really scientifically valid or not.

Figure 1:

(1) Do you really think a 16 story building-top can plow all the way through some 84 bottom stories intact (note that the top is of lighter weight steel than the bottom)?

(2) Do you really think it could do this at free fall speed (meaning that almost nothing was holding it up)?

(3) Do you really think it could plow down some 84 floors without tipping over (or otherwise taking the path of least resistance)?

(4) Do you know that the 9/11 videos show that the building-top is destroyed at the beginning of the "collapse" (not the end)?

 

[bofors]

Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Where are the ones proving "beyond any doubt" that it was an inside job?

Watch "How the Towers Fell" by Architect Richard Gage: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3118021782753292874

Please note that 214 architects & engineers have endorsed "How the Towers Fell" here: ae911truth.org/joinus.php

Please give me some credible evidence first, not your educational background and links to a bunch of nitwits spouting off ridiculous nonsense based on 2% facts and statistics and 98% stupidity.

Again, start with Building 7:

This is obviously a controlled demoltion, if you can not see that please give me a fair chance to explain it you.

 

[melon]

Let's consider examine the paper you cite and see if it is really scientifically valid or not.

Figure 1:

(1) Do you really think a 16 story building-top can plow all the way through some 84 bottom stories intact (note that the building is made lighter weight steel than the bottom)?

(2) Do you really think it could do this at free fall speed (meaning that almost nothing was holding it up)?

(3) Do you really think it could plow down some 84 floors without tipping over (or otherwise taking the path of least resistance)?

(4) Do you know that the 9/11 videos show that the building-top is destroyed at the beginning of the "collapse" (not the end)?

I'm guessing you didn't read it, because the answers to your questions are in the first two pages.

Many disasters other than the WTC attest to the danger of progressive collapse, e.g., the collapse of Ronan Point apartments in the United Kingdom in 1968, where a kitchen gas explosion on the 18th floor sent a 25-story stack of rooms to the ground; the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Okla., in 1995, where the air blast pressure
sufficed to take out only a few lower floors, whereas the upper floors failed by progressive collapse; the 2000 Commonwealth Ave. tower in Boston in 1971, triggered by punching of insuffi-
ciently hardened slab; the New World Hotel in Singapore; many buildings in Armenia, Turkey, Mexico City, and other earthquakes, etc. A number of ancient towers failed in this way, too, e.g., the Civic Center of Pavia in 1989; the cathedral in Goch, Germany; the Campanile in Venice in 1902, etc., where the trigger was centuries-long stress redistribution due to drying shrinkage and creep.

So, right there, there is considerable precedent for the idea of "progressive collapse." Secondly, any discussion of the WTC and architecture immediately has to point out that the building, itself, was an early example of postmodern architecture, and, as such, valued function over form. That "function" was to maximize office rental space, and that meant sacrificing traditional modernist architectural stability by, essentially, creating a building that was only held up by its exterior. In other words, you cannot necessarily compare the WTC to many other buildings of the modern era, because the building itself was an aberration to the norm. As such, "progressive collapse" was a particular flaw with this building design, which the original architect himself has acknowledged.

The paper also introduces another point that is worth mentioning:

Because of the shroud of dust and smoke, these histories can be identified from the videos of the collapsing WTC towers only for the first few seconds of collapse, and so little can be learned in this regard from that collapse.

This, in particular, is true, because one major fallacy is that video/film/photography is inerrantly reliable. We run into similar problems regarding anti-government Waco conspiracies in the 1990s. The anti-government conspiracy theory writers were good at taking specific frames of video and identifying them as "proof" of some vast government conspiracy; watching the entire videos would often disprove those conspiracies immediately.

I'm sorry, but your arguments do not pass sufficient scientific muster to be taken seriously whatsoever. If you have as many credentials as you say you do, then I would suggest putting your effort where your mouth is and sponsor a research study/paper of your own, open for peer review.

Until then, these ideas are little more than mythic speech.

 

[melon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Again, start with Building 7:

This is obviously a controlled demoltion, if you can not see that please give me a fair chance to explain it you.

The NIST draft report regarding the cause of WTC 7's collapse isn't complete yet.

Regardless, for such a "conspiracy," it has been noted that WTC 7 took on such comprehensive damage that the building was fully evacuated. WTC 7, unlike the other buildings, had been expected to collapse for several hours, due to a very prominent and visible bulge in the building.

From an interview with a 9/11 firefighter:

We were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Q: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
A: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

That sounds far more plausible than an out-of-context animated GIF with 3/4 of the building obscured.

 

[bofors]

I'm guessing you didn't read it, because the answers to your questions are in the first two pages.

I have read the paper, I was asking questions to you so we could determine if the paper is scientifically valid or not.

So, right there, there is considerable precedent for the idea of "progressive collapse."

Sorry, none of the buildings you reference disintegrate to the ground like the WTC buildings did. In fact, that only happens to steel buildings during controlled demolition.

As such, "progressive collapse" was a particular flaw with this building design, which the original architect himself has acknowledged.

No, the WTC twin towers were over-engineered to with stand anything including airplane impacts. There was no "architectural flaw", we know this because NIST makes no mention of it in its 10,000 page report on the "collapses".

This, in particular, is true, because one major fallacy is that video/film/photography is inerrantly reliable.

Wow, that is a new one for me.

If video evidence is inerrantly unreliable, why do banks have cameras?

I'm sorry, but your arguments do not pass sufficient scientific muster to be taken seriously whatsoever.

Please tell us, what are your scientific credentials?