• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Conspiracy theories

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Central-Scrutiniser
    Ask yourself, who benefited from the attack,and there you will find a pointer.
    Well I guess road sweepers made a lot from overtime, so it must have been them. Just goes to show that you can't trust anyone.


      I'm sure there were all kinds of reasons for Desert Storm 2. The influence of companies and government insiders who would benefit financially from rebuilding Iraq and buying up Iraq companies. The influence of right wingers with an agenda to remove people they consider undesirable. A genuine concern to tidy up the world. A desire to ensure the stability of the oil supply. Overconfidence, political naivety, and a belief that they could overturn Saddam in a few weeks and then it's done and dusted. Can you really pin it all on one cause? I suspect that the last point is important.


        Yesterdam I meniotned that I expect Rumsfield to resign over Iraq ,seems Im not alone ...

        General joins attack on Rumsfeld over Iraq war

        · Fourth retired officer calls on defence chief to resign
        · Rift between military and civilian leaders deepens

        Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
        Friday April 14, 2006

        The Pentagon yesterday faced a deepening rift between its civilian and military leadership over the war on Iraq after a fourth retired general called for the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to stand down.
        In the latest in a torrent of criticism centred on the Pentagon chief, Major General John Batiste, who led a division in Iraq, said Mr Rumsfeld's authoritarian leadership style had made it more difficult for professional soldiers. "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork," he told CNN on Wednesday.

        Gen Batiste's comments were especially startling because he is so closely associated with the civilian leadership, having served as an aide to one of the architects of the war, the former deputy Pentagon chief Paul Wolfowitz.

        The ferocity of the attacks and calls for serving officers to go public with their dissent was starting to cause concern among military analysts yesterday. "If this opens up so we have more and more officers speaking up and blaming Rumsfeld and blaming senior civilians, then it is possibly heading towards a fairly dangerous civilian-military crisis," said Andrew Bacevich, a military historian at Boston University.

        Earlier this week Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, the former director of operations for the joint chiefs of staff, published a scathing critique of the planning for the war in an essay for Time magazine. Gen Newbold said he regretted not objecting more forcefully to the invasion of Iraq while he was still in uniform.

        He went on to call on those still in service to speak up. "I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't -or don't have the opportunity to - speak."

        Last month Major General Paul Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi troops until 2004, also went public with his criticism of the civilian leadership, writing in the New York Times that: "Rumsfeld has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower."

        Retired Marine general Anthony Zinni, the former head of US Central Command and a long-standing critic of the war, has also been criticising Mr Rumsfeld while on tour to promote his new book.

        The attacks on Mr Rumsfeld come at a time of increasing debate within the military on the obligation of professional soldiers to voice their criticism of policy, and a revival of an influential military history, Dereliction of Duty, which criticised the joint chiefs of staff during the Vietnam war. But the professional military's resentment of Mr Rumsfeld dates to the run-up to the Iraq war when the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, was sidelined.

        "It's a bursting of the dam in some ways of the frustration and anger, not only with the policies but with the way that Mr Rumsfeld has interacted with people, the disrespect he has shown to the military," said Richard Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina.

        Although most analysts believe that only a small number of retired military officers would go public with their misgivings, growing public doubts about Iraq are encouraging others to speak out.

        "You have a group now that is looking back and saying: 'Wow. I should have said something earlier.' I think as time goes on it is natural that more and more generals after agonising over what they have seen over the last three years might voice their concerns," said Robert Work, a retired Marine colonel and an analyst at the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

        But some in the military are anxious to avoid blame for the Iraq war. "The senior civilian leadership is going to do everything it possibly can to avoid having responsibility for the war fixed on them, and the senior military leadership is equally determined to have them left holding the bag," Mr Bacevich said.
        If you have done no wrong then you have nothing to fear ...perhaps.


          Originally posted by Central-Scrutiniser
          As it stands I expect to see Rumsfield taking much of the blame and expect to see his retirement from office sooner rather than later.
          What kind of a statement is that? Thats like saying Brown will retire sooner than later???

          And as for nine eleven, I am still at a loss as to why the rubble was shipped out hastily to China.
          What do you call hastily? The last bits of scrap werent cleared away from ground zero until May 2002. Surely if this was such a hasty clear up then it would have been done well before 2002?

          One thing is for sure though, nothing conspiracy nuts post as proof is actually what they claim it to be.

          "There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".
          And so much for investigators not having access to the scrap too



            "One thing is for sure though, nothing conspiracy nuts post as proof is actually what they claim it to be."

            The problem with a lot of consipracies is that you do get a few nutters jumping on-board, then everyone is tarred with the same brush. I would like to see a program where both sides of the arguments where cross-examined at the same time, rather than people picking out the obvious things that are wrong then claim it's all wrong.


              ps One thing's for sure, Tory Bliar does not lie.