SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Penguin · 05-22-11, 11:33 AM

I'd like to pick up the motive ball and ask about the one of the U.S. government. I certainly don't trust any government more far than I could throw its members, but I have failed to hear an explanation about the government role:
- the 3 billion insurance money mentioned before are clearly peanuts for a government, we saw this bitterly proven at the bailout madness.
- a reason to go to war would have been easier to make
- to unite the public against a common enemy would need much less effort; the less people involved, the better

If the U.S. government planned or at least knew about the attacks: Why did they used it not as a great propaganda coup, to present themselves in a good light, let W. hold a powerfully wrtitten speech and show that they clearly handle the situation, rather than looking incompetent and surprised. Or does this show the brilliance of the plan?
They could used forged evidence to clearly point at the enemy, instead of going the hard way and following several leads :"Oh, look, we found Osama's business card in one of the planes"

And a government which was able to clandestinely plan and carry out the biggest attack on U.S. soil is later unable to plant one tiny fake WMD in Iraq to proof its claims?
It came out that Rumsfeld and the others lied about the WMD issue, but nobody of the people involved in 9/11 talked or presented evidence of a conspiracy which would have included significantly more people who were informed than the Iraq claims?

05-22-11, 11:33 AM	#692
Penguin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Rheinische Republik Posts: 3,322 Downloads: 92 Uploads: 0	I'd like to pick up the motive ball and ask about the one of the U.S. government. I certainly don't trust any government more far than I could throw its members, but I have failed to hear an explanation about the government role: - the 3 billion insurance money mentioned before are clearly peanuts for a government, we saw this bitterly proven at the bailout madness. - a reason to go to war would have been easier to make - to unite the public against a common enemy would need much less effort; the less people involved, the better If the U.S. government planned or at least knew about the attacks: Why did they used it not as a great propaganda coup, to present themselves in a good light, let W. hold a powerfully wrtitten speech and show that they clearly handle the situation, rather than looking incompetent and surprised. Or does this show the brilliance of the plan? They could used forged evidence to clearly point at the enemy, instead of going the hard way and following several leads :"Oh, look, we found Osama's business card in one of the planes" And a government which was able to clandestinely plan and carry out the biggest attack on U.S. soil is later unable to plant one tiny fake WMD in Iraq to proof its claims? It came out that Rumsfeld and the others lied about the WMD issue, but nobody of the people involved in 9/11 talked or presented evidence of a conspiracy which would have included significantly more people who were informed than the Iraq claims?