Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
PNAC Founder, Neocon and Fox News Pundit William Kristol Heckled in Austin
dailymotion.com — William Kristol, founder of the Project for a New American Century (the neo-conservative think tank which called for a "New Pearl Habor" a year before 9/11), attempted to speak at the University of Texas in Austin but was heckled and booed by the audience.
tandytk9- 1029 diggs
- digg it
- mightydavefish, on 10/12/2007, -45/+248Probably because the audience knows that PNAC is in fact an enemy of the USA and their policies are responsible for much of the trouble the US is in. Their dinosaur politics of domination have no place in the modern world. Their belief that the US should dominate world politics by any means neccessary is detrimental to progress and guarantees the the failure of their schemes.
The PNAC members in the Bush adminstration have again and again been involved in morally or ethically questionable actions. The whole Plame outing was a PNAC member scheme to discredit ONE MAN, and to do so they had to blow a covert agent's cover, which incidentally blew the cover of every other agent who was using the same cover as Plame, as well as blowing the cover of EVERYONE SHE EVER MET WITH. Then they lied about it. This is a perfect illustration of how PNAC does business. Ethics is not a factor in their decision making.
Watch the video. I can smell ***** a mile away, and this guy reeks of it.
Why sit there and listen to someone try to lie to you (by giving you the bizarro PNAC view of the world)?
Kristol is part of the problem, he'll never be part of a solution.- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -33/+28I've seen this video before it's awesome. Notice how he stands there laughing away then when Aaron says the magic word BOHEMIAN GROVE the laughing stops and they ask the cops to escort Aaron out.
Look how pissed off David Gurgan gets when Alex confronts him about Bohemian Grove! :-D
http://youtube.com/watch?v=32z6Cw21OAk - iChuckles, on 10/12/2007, -47/+21I never understood, and still don't, while Plame was outed, the members of the media who reported it are not charged with anything. Plame would not be an issue if no one reported it. It is the lust for money and first reporting that is the real criminal here. Same with the wire tapping and same with informing Ossma was being tracked by his cell phone. It brings me to a boil that the media makes news out of state secrets.
- mattxb, on 10/12/2007, -19/+35@ichuckles
The crime was telling the press who Wilson's wife was. The press shouldn't have known the information to begin with, and it seems you're assuming that the members of the press who printed the information knew that it was classified (which the person in the government who leaked it did know or atleast should have) - Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -31/+18"The crime was telling the press who Wilson's wife was."
Apparently not, seeing as she wasn't a covert agent and Fitzgerald has already said no crime was committed in that regard. - DAGONthehauge, on 10/12/2007, -25/+47Goebbels heckled and boo-ed during a visit to Poland, in 1937.
- FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -41/+74Someone please tell me when its time to storm the White house and drag these Traitors into the street.
These people have the same mentality as Hitler. - spankaccount, on 10/12/2007, -60/+30PNAC is a think tank and nothing more. Furthermore PNAC never called for a "New Pearl Habor". You need to read at least the full paragraph for the context and luckily, all of PNAC's papers are public...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Who let the truthers out? - evi1, on 10/12/2007, -28/+71I am proud of my university.
- mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -52/+5auto-dugg down
- dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -24/+58"Someone please tell me when its time to storm the White house and drag these Traitors into the street."
This would seem to imply vigilante justice, perhaps it's time we took them all into protective custody...in GITMO. Or one of the secret prisons in Poland.
Strictly for their protection, of course. - dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -29/+78"the shouting audience members just sounded like crazies."
I think it's time we got crazy. I'm sick as ***** of the right wing spreading insults and lies but we're supposed to just sit back and try to engage them with intelligent questions?
He was damn lucky they didn't drag him into the street and stone him. Would have served him right. - mrfoos, on 10/12/2007, -59/+22William Kristol is a true free thinker, and you guys are just mad because your socialist masters have deemed him an enemy of your communistic cause. You won't find anyone more intellegent, well spoken, or clean - or more on the side of America's freedom. Sorry Obama... you're just a poser. Kristol is for real. He reminds me of our founding fathers. Go Bill!
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -40/+26I feel bad for him. What a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy nuts. If you listened to him, he DIDN'T call for a "New Pearl Harbour", he (well, someone in his group) said one was necessary to rally the people to increase increase defensive spending. An entirely factual statement. The people then take that and say that he likes 9/11 or wanted 9/11 to happen (if they're not saying OMG IT WAS FAKE).
The people in the crowd were just a bunch of lame ass conspiracy theorists. They specifically state that the guy was responsible for 9/11. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -35/+20Regardless, he should of been afforded protected free speech. Its amazing how the same people preventing him from talking etc are the same ones who value "free speech" most highly. What a blatant double standard, to celebrate this is terrible - no matter the message, respect the speaker.
"I feel bad for him. What a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy nuts. If you listened to him, he DIDN'T call for a "New Pearl Harbour""
It doesn't matter, thats what some people want to believe that he said. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -34/+70DISCLAIMER: I don't like the Iraq war, nor am I a neo-con. But those conspiracy nuts in the crowd acted out of hand.
Why do so many American's think the right of free speech means the right to heckle? It means you can say what you like, it doesn't mean you can say it whenever you want. The guy has no manners. Bringing up the first amendment when he was asked to leave is stupid. He was told four or five times to stop talking, because it was the PNAC dude's turn.
He still had all of his damn constitutional rights. No one was blaming him for WHAT he was saying (that would've been a breach of rights), it's just he was interupting the speaker mid-sentance. It's stupid to draw conclusions that your right's are being infringed in instances like that. - truspark, on 10/12/2007, -27/+18Gawtmilk wrote:
>>Why do so many American's think the right of free speech means the right to heckle?
Free speech can only be infringed upon by the government. Shouting down a chronic liar as he spreads more lies at a private speaking engagement is not a capital act - it's a public service. He's had plenty of time to speak, it's got us where we are today. It's time to shut him down wherever he goes and tell everyone the truth. He wants more war because his benefactors make their fortunes from war. Look at all the PNAC members who have increased their fortunes since the start of the Iraq war. In my opinion, any time someone speaks for or against the war it should be disclosed if they stand to gain financially if the path they are espousing is taken. - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -22/+16"These people have the same mentality as Hitler."
yes, you do... - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -30/+20"Why do so many American's think the right of free speech means the right to heckle?"
The left only believes that people have a right to free speech when they agree with it. Hell, the left doesn't even believe you have the right to think different (refer to "hate" crime legislation that punishes people for their thoughts.) - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -21/+13What a bunchy of angsty "mad for the sake of being mad" college students...
I'm in their age bracket, and I'm embarrassed. I can't stand that "we know it all" attitude, more so the feeling they have the right to interrupt the guy and barely let him respond.
"The left only believes that people have a right to free speech when they agree with it. Hell, the left doesn't even believe you have the right to think different (refer to "hate" crime legislation that punishes people for their thoughts.)"
See, these dicks disgrace everyone on the "left" to and encourage people to generalize. Now everyone who doesn't agree with Bush is a 9/11 truther, and these kids are making that more true. - NoStoppingUs, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13PNAC was involved in a conspiracy to out plame? wtf
richard armitage (who just happens to not be a big fan of the white house) openly admitted to fitzgerald that he was the FIRST one to out her to the press.
.:hands out tin foil hats to everyone:. - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32@spankaccount
This is from the link you provided.
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."
I remember eating lunch in NYC on September 11, 2001 listening to the "Great Decider" talk about this attack as being our generation's Pearl Harbor. Now tell me again they didn't call for a new Pearl Harbor. - SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -13/+13Am I the only one that thinks heckling and public stunts is NOT a superior form of public discourse? Am I the only one that thinks heckling and similar tactics actually HURT the cause? Am I the only one that thinks that hecklers are actually LESS intelligent than the target of their heckles, and thus that's why that method of communication is chosen?
Since when do we believe that acting like an uncivilized idiot in public is somehow superior to reasoned debate and acceptable public behavior?
It's so sad that the left is so radicalized. No rational individual wants the extreme right in power, but when the left acts like this, I understand why the political situation is the way it is. - 13B1303, on 10/12/2007, -14/+14People that heckle and talk over others in a setting like this make it clear that they can't handle a view that contradicts theirs. They had ample opportunity to have a civilized debate but it was obvious that they had no interest in discussion, only to accuse and run for cover. If Kristol and the PNAC are as bad as thees people say this would have been the perfect place to pin him down and ask the tough questions. Instead the hecklers look like ass holes (and they are) and Kristol remains composed and even answers some of of the people that attack him.
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35"People that heckle and talk over others in a setting like this make it clear that they can't handle a view that contradicts theirs."
Generally I would agree, but there comes a time when quietly listening to a pure sack of ***** spewing out it's filth on the audience needs to be addressed directly and while the ***** is spewing. - Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -15/+12---------------------------QUOTE--------------------------------------------
@spankaccount
This is from the link you provided.
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."
I remember eating lunch in NYC on September 11, 2001 listening to the "Great Decider" talk about this attack as being our generation's Pearl Harbor. Now tell me again they didn't call for a new Pearl Harbor.
--------------------------END QUOTE--------------------------------------------
Stating the *obvious* (that a military build-up would follow an attack like Pearl Harbor) isn't *calling* for anything. It's merely just. . . wait for it. . . stating the obvious.
I mean. . . this is just. . . DUH! Hell there's a line from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings where Frodo says: "I often thought that what the Shire needed was an invasion of Orcs or Dragons. But now that it's come to it, I don't feel that way at all." My God! Frodo was a war-monger! He probably planted the ring where Bilbo could find it and bring war to the Shire!
People have been saying for decades that a major attack on the U.S. would unite it and finally bring the Left around and shake away its pacifist fantasies. That was the source of all that "united we stand" garbage immediately after 9/11. But, of course, as I suspected, not even something like 9/11 can unite a country so bitterly divided.
P.S. It's sad when you have to geek out and go to Tolkien to point out something that should be sand-poundingly obvious to someone. But when people believe everyone they disagree with is "evil". .. they'll twist words beyond all rational meaning so they fit their world-view. - furryplanet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19austin has some good people!
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@Hurin
Wow, I'm glad you get your political philosophy from a work of fantasy fiction. Makes me know I'm dealing with a true intellectual.
One question, with all of the military fighter aircraft in the metropolitan New York area, why were four hijacked planes allowed to fly unmolested into their final destinations with no military response?
FAA called these hijackings in, as is procedure, and the military did nothing, against their standard operating procedures.
We had then, as now, the worlds most technologically advanced military force. Since the attacks we have not added millions of service members, we have not added hundreds of thousands of fighter planes, so if the "New Pearl Harbor" was to bring about an military build-up, where is it? Seams to me I hear a lot about the Army not having enough soldiers to fight.
The US was united around attacking those who attacked us, Al Queda and not Iraq. - littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Let's just clarify who the OTHER members of the "Project for the New American Century" are. Real stand-up bunch:
Current members include William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Bruce P. Jackson, Mark Gerson, Randy Scheunemann, Ellen Bork, Gary Schmitt, Thomas Donnelly, and Reuel Marc Gerecht.[3]
Former members include prominent members of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Other former members include:
* Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate, president of American Values
* James B. Borow, former deputy director of the NSA, co-founder of the Illinois Center for Core Values
* Rudy Boschwitz, former US Senator from Minnesota
* Eliot A. Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University
* Steve Forbes, multi-millionaire publisher of Forbes Magazine, former presidential candidate
* Aaron Friedberg, director of the Center of International Studies
* Frank Gaffney, columnist, founder of Center for Security Policy
* Fred Ikle, Center for Strategic and International Studies
* Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador
* Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist
* Christopher Maletz
* Daniel McKivergan
* Norman Podhoretz, Hudson Institute
* Dan Quayle, former vice-president
* Stephen Rosen, Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs, Harvard University
* Henry Rowen, former president of Rand Corporation (*cough* Michelle Mulkin)
* Abram Shulsky, former Director of Office of Special Plans
* Vin Weber, Minnesota congressman
* George Weigel, political commentator
* R. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency for President Bill Clinton, vice-president at Booz Allen Hamilton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_new_american_century - nowayhoseb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17"...Or one of the secret prisons in Poland"
Or one of the secret prisons - run by the CIA -in Poland. The Polish people had nothing to do with this or any or this NeoCon policy. Thanks. - Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7@davesbrain
I brought up that quote from Tolkien because it's absurd. Just as absurd as stating that because someone said it would take another Pearl Harbor to wake America up to the dangers of the world. . . that they *obviously* then went ahead and orchestrated it.
Indeed, if you were the type to orchestrate it, you'd think you wouldn't say such things. I love how these people are evil geniuses one moment, and morons the next.
As for air defenses not responding. You're merely demonstrating that you don't understand how our air defenses work. There have been *many* reputable analyses of why these passenger liners were not intercepted. None of them indicated that the cause(s) was anything other than confusion, the nature of the attack (civilian aircraft), and a peace-time stance on the part of our interceptor force. While it's a dramatization, the best distillation of what was going on that is readily available to the masses remains the film "United 93." I suggest you check it out and just for a moment consider that it might actually be a bit *more* likely that bad things happen without it necessarily being an evil Karl Rove plot.
Of course, conspiracy-mongers both claim that they weren't intercepted because Bush/Rove/Satan wanted it to happen. . . and then in the same breath beat their chests about how we shot down United 93!
Man, it's scary how many conspiracy-mongering nut-jobs there are out there. . .all convinced that *they* are the brilliant ones because they see through the "web of lies!" But, of course, it's their *desire* to see themselves as brilliant and "in the know" that causes them to be convinced that there is a "web of lies" to begin with. - iChuckles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@mattxb - Yes the journalist should have know it was illegal and he too should have been tried. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5@Hurin
I found nothing overtly absurd about you quoting Tolkien, it appeared to me you were trying to draw a correlation between what Frodo said and what GWB said.
What I am pointing out is that it seems an awful stretch to say the PNC stating they needed a "new Pearl Harbor" and GWB saying the exact same thing on September 11, 2001 is mere coincidence. Yes, I know he probably had excerpts of the PNC document read to him, but it's still a remarkable coincidence.
I have never said they admitted to orchestrating the attack, they deny any involvement, which makes sense. What I have said is the evidence I have seen leads me to strongly question the government's report on how the events unfolded that day.
As to failure to intercept, how is it a little Cessna can be intercepted within ten minutes of going off course, yet four hijacked commercial airlines fly around for over an hour without being intercepted?
The evidence I have seen points to Cheney running a military exercise where terrorists hijack planes and fly them into buildings. This exercise filled FAA radar screens with false blips, which is why for several hours we all thought up to twenty planes had been hijacked. Remember that? Our responder forces were off with dummy rounds flying around over Canada and the Atlantic Oceans .
I know what you'll say: this only proves they couldn't have known or else why would they run the exercise? To confuse, which is the exact reason you gave me for them not responding. Hmmmm, pretty convenient for that little military exercise to take place on September 11, 2001.
As for the movie "Flight 93." I feel so sorry for you that you get your evidence from a Hollywood movie. Ever heard of a little thing called propaganda?
Evidence I have seen suggest that Flight 93 was shot down via air to air missile because when the passengers entered the cockpit they discovered there were no pilots. The plain was being flown via remote control, something the Air Force has the ability to do since the fifties. Yeah, I know, put on my tinfoil hat. If you can't attack the comment, attack the person. You and "analyze" run from the same play book.
It's amazing how you feel it's so necessary to denigrate your opposition while you attempt to make your point. - HodakMoment, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://www.knife-party.net/flash/barry.html
This is a really cool animation summing up the danger that PNAC/NeoCons pose for our country and the world. - Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7@davesbrain
Wow. . . where to begin?
So, you actually think it's odd/signifigant that GWB referred to 9/11 after the fact as "Pearl Harbor." And you think this is more ominous because someone stated the obvious on a prior occasion (that a new Pearl Harbor-like attack would cause the United States to beef up its military).
These are two totally natural, obvious things to say. GWB was one of *millions* of people drawing a parallel between a surprise attack on our own soil by a foreign entity (9/11). . . and the last time it happened (Pearl Harbor).
To draw any type of conclusion from him making that analogy (along with everyone else at the time) is just. . . well. . . incredibly silly. To say that he needed PNAC's press release read to him before he could come up with the analogy is likewise silly. It's an *obvious* analogy. That you see it as somehow some indication of complicity is just mind-blowing.
-----------------------------------------------------
As to failure to intercept, how is it a little Cessna can be intercepted within ten minutes of going off course, yet four hijacked commercial airlines fly around for over an hour without being intercepted?
------------------------------------------------------
Uh, because we're now *looking* for them and have many more domestic "no-fly" zones. To point to our heightened state of alert *since* 9/11 as some indication of what we would have done *on* 9/11 were Cheney not pulling all the strings is downright illogical. We were not hunting down Cesnas all over the U.S. for being "ten minutes off course" prior to 9/11.
--------------------------------------------------------
The evidence I have seen points to Cheney running a military exercise where terrorists hijack planes and fly them into buildings. This exercise filled FAA radar screens with false blips, which is why for several hours we all thought up to twenty planes had been hijacked. Remember that? Our responder forces were off with dummy rounds flying around over Canada and the Atlantic Oceans .
---------------------------------------------------------
Speechless. Just speechless.
---------------------------------------------------------
As for the movie "Flight 93." I feel so sorry for you that you get your evidence from a Hollywood movie. Ever heard of a little thing called propaganda?
----------------------------------------------------------
Again, I said it was the most readily accessible to the masses. And represents a good distillation of the reputable analyses (several of which I've read). But, of course, your sources aren't propoganda, even though their claims are patently *absurd* on the face of them. I *love* how Cheney *himself* is sitting in some dark control room pulling all the strings at the FAA, the military, etc. It's just too perfect. Was he wearing a black cape at the time?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence I have seen suggest that Flight 93 was shot down via air to air missile because when the passengers entered the cockpit they discovered there were no pilots. The plain was being flown via remote control, something the Air Force has the ability to do since the fifties. Yeah, I know, put on my tinfoil hat. If you can't attack the comment, attack the person. You and "analyze" run from the same play book.
--------------------------------------------------------------
It's not an attack on you to point out that your assertions are silly. They just simply are. This one takes the cake. Depsite all the cell phone calls from United 93 passengers stating that there were terrorists on the plane. Despite reports from them that the pilots had been stabbed. And despite intercepted radio transmissions of a scuffle, etc. . . you think that the plane was under remote control. It's just positively mind-boggling. And it makes me worry for our Democracy that there are people out there voting who can hold onto outlandish stuff like this. - Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Eeek, bad edit.
- ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They shoulda said it the way I woulda said it
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Hurin
I think it's significant that PNC wrote what they did a year prior to the attacks and that GWB used the exact same terminology. I do not recall one single member of the press referring to these attacks as a "New Pearl Harbor" until after GWB said it, so yes, I think it's odd/significant that GWB is the only person to draw that analogy.
The Cessna, and other intercepts, I was referencing were prior to September 11, 2001. Do some simple research and you will discover that prior to September 11, 2001 there is not one single case of a plane flying off course and NOT being intercepted. So there is no reason to believe there is any reason our SOP would change for one day and with four planes.
And the exercise Cheney was running is a FACT. I never said he was pulling the strings orchestrating the attacks, he was running a military exercise playing a scenario pertaining to what was actually occurring at that time. You said it was confusion that caused the intercept failures, and I referenced this exercise as a plausible reason for said confusion. Because you have chosen not to investigate this is not my responsibility, so remain speechless because that's what this administration wants you to be.
As for the movie, keep watching FOX and movies, hey, maybe you should check out "Twin Towers" by Ollie Stone, I'm sure there's tons of valuable information in there for you to reference in future posts. I get my information from documentaries, books, and research articles, and yes, I read them whether they follow the governments logic, or tread into the insane because I want as much information as I can gather so I can make my own determination. I will not take as truth a movie that is produced for the sole purpose of enriching a movie studio.
And as to flight 93, I never said there were no terrorists on the plane, I only stated I have read articles stating there is evidence the plane was shot down because the passengers entered the cockpit. The debris field for Flight 93 is not consistent with a impact crash, but rather an air explosion. As to the cell phone calls, why were all of the phone conversations suddenly and simultaneously cut off the moment the passengers entered the cockpit? The plane would have taken time to crash and people would have been talking about that happening, yet no one did, why is that?
Feel free to call my assertions silly, even asinine. But when you constantly reference your opposition as "tin-foil hat wearing nutballs," or wackos, it does little to strengthen your argument and reflects poorly upon your character.
And I feel the same way about your assertions. It's equally as absurd to believe three men who had never flown a plane in their lives took control and flew three commercial jets into buildings. - Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I may seem dismissive, but only because your selectively applied logic makes me think that there's really no getting through to you. So, I'm really posting more for others who might be momentarily taken in by your oddly applied logic and absurd "facts", than I am for you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's significant that PNC wrote what they did a year prior to the attacks and that GWB used the exact same terminology. I do not recall one single member of the press referring to these attacks as a "New Pearl Harbor" until after GWB said it, so yes, I think it's odd/significant that GWB is the only person to draw that analogy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this just absurd. I'd expect that just about *EVERYONE* with even a basic knowledge of history thought back to Pearl Harbor that day. You can keep saying that GWB was the first. But that's just, again, absurd on the face of it. It's a totally natural, *obvious* analogy. Your need to see something sinister here is where you betray your biases and inability to just see that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cessna, and other intercepts, I was referencing were prior to September 11, 2001. Do some simple research and you will discover that prior to September 11, 2001 there is not one single case of a plane flying off course and NOT being intercepted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is just silly on the face of it. There had NEVER been a plane that flew off course without being intercepted? How can you actually type that and not feel silly? It happened, all the friggin' time! Many, many airline disasters began with the plane "drifting off course". Presumably, we don't hear about the F-16s that must have *always* been trailing them when they met their demise. Wow. . . just speechless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the exercise Cheney was running is a FACT. I never said he was pulling the strings orchestrating the attacks, he was running a military exercise playing a scenario pertaining to what was actually occurring at that time. You said it was confusion that caused the intercept failures, and I referenced this exercise as a plausible reason for said confusion. Because you have chosen not to investigate this is not my responsibility, so remain speechless because that's what this administration wants you to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, based on your prior two "FACTS", and the FACT that nobody but you are here alleging this "fact". . . and you've yet to provide a reputable source, and I suspect that any source you provide will be on the same level as those who "proved" that we faked the moon landings, I guess I will just remain speechless. No, I don't believe Cheney was actually sitting in a control room somewhere overseeing an excercise that portrayed exactly what happened on 9/11 while 9/11 was happening. Again, absurd on the face of it. And you have done nothing to document your assertion. The burden of proof isn't on me, my friend. I'm not asserting the absurd. And, please note that I stated that "confusion" was only *one* of the reasons we didn't magically muster interceptors instantly during peace-time and shoot down passenger liners filled with civilians. Others have documented the *real* reasons why this was impossible and/or unlikely. The simplest answer is usually the correct one. But you seem to assume the opposite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the movie, keep watching FOX and movies, hey, maybe you should check out "Twin Towers" by Ollie Stone, I'm sure there's tons of valuable information in there for you to reference in future posts. I get my information from documentaries, books, and research articles, and yes, I read them whether they follow the governments logic, or tread into the insane because I want as much information as I can gather so I can make my own determination. I will not take as truth a movie that is produced for the sole purpose of enriching a movie studio.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love how you belittle even as you claim the moral high-ground. Which you've done since the beginning. But regardless, you *clearly* don't approach your "research" with an open mind. Indeed, the fact that you go so far out of your way to dredge up "documentaries of the absurd" which nearly all unravel when their selective facts, flawed logic, and questionable editorial methods are exposed, just demonstrates your bias. There's something in you that is attracted to the "minority report". . . believing in it makes you feel smarter, empowered, and superior. So, you seek it out, believe whatever it tells you, then join discussion forums to demonstrate your superiority. Then, of course, even here (a largely Lefty environment), people laugh. That's my take on it, anyways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And as to flight 93, I never said there were no terrorists on the plane, I only stated I have read articles stating there is evidence the plane was shot down because the passengers entered the cockpit. The debris field for Flight 93 is not consistent with a impact crash, but rather an air explosion. As to the cell phone calls, why were all of the phone conversations suddenly and simultaneously cut off the moment the passengers entered the cockpit? The plane would have taken time to crash and people would have been talking about that happening, yet no one did, why is that?. . .It's equally as absurd to believe three men who had never flown a plane in their lives took control and flew three commercial jets into buildings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, let me get this straight, you just dismiss all the records of these people having flight training? So, to you, it is more likely that the government couldn't find patsies with flight training. So instead, they put in remote control devices that were good enough to fly a planes into a building (and pilots that were willing to do it, who all remained quiet), but still put terrorists on the plane? And you consider it more likely that the plane was shot down because the passengers became aware of this than the accepted story that the terrorists crashed the plane when the passengers overtook them? As for the debris field. . . the plane may have broken up in mid-air (as planes often do) when stresses were put on it for which it was never intended (as would happend when novice pilots or amateur passengers struggle over an aircrafts control, or someone is committing suicide and doesn't care to keep the airframe intact). Or, maybe it *was* finally shot down and the government is loathe to admit that they had a hand in the deaths of those on United 93 (especially when it came to light that they were fighting back). Or they didn't want to diminish the "story" of them fighting back, so they let it stand. But even if it was shot down, that doesn't mean it was remote controlled or part of a vast conspiracy by the government to perpetrate 9/11 itself. As for "nobody talking" about it "taking" time for it to crash. The plane was relatively low by the time the passengers attacked. That's a fact, it wouldn't have taken long. Further, I'm not sure that it's human nature to be on your cell phone while terrorists are screaming at you and wielding knives. Those who got through did so quickly and said they had to go quickly (probably to share the phone). And when the time came for an attack, and the plane is shucking and jiving, do you think the natural thing to do is to call mom? But there are radio recordings of the last few moments in the cockpit (which I'm sure you think are doctored). Again, you see something that makes sense. . . invent something that makes less sense, and then latch onto the latter, EVERY TIME.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to call my assertions silly, even asinine. But when you constantly reference your opposition as "tin-foil hat wearing nutballs," or wackos, it does little to strengthen your argument and reflects poorly upon your character.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I love how you belittle others even while you decry others doing it to you. And you've been doing it since the beginning. Let's sum up why you can safely be called "silly" without it necessarily being an insult. . . but merely an accurate descpription of the totality of your views on this subject:
Davesbrain absurd assertions:
1. Nobody every thought of or made the comparison between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 before Bush. And he only got it from Kristol's talking points a year before.
2. No plane had *ever* gone off course without F-16s immediately appearing on either side of it, EVER!
3. Cheney was running an excercise that mimiced 9/11 while 9/11 actually happened.
4. The terrorists were on the planes. But the planes were under remote control. Because, *that* makes more sense than terrorists who were trained to fly.
5. United 93 was shot down instantly as soon as it became clear that the passengers had discovered that the plane was under remote control.
Some of that is just factually inaccurate and absurd (Bush and Pearl Harbor analogy, and planes *never* being off course without interception). . . and the rest is just totally unrealistic. But your ability to claim the prior with a straight face makes it possible to understand how you can believe the latter. And even repeat it. You are living in a fantasy world where you are a brave "truth teller". . . even if you have to invent and/or believe ridiculous, false "truths" in order to claim that mantle for yourself. - Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3FOLLOW-UP for davesbrain:
Just thinking about your absurd claims for just a few minutes (as you don't seem to do) brings up all sorts of interesting questions:
Tell me, regarding all this wonderful research you've done via journals and documentaries that have led you to believe that the airliners were remotely controlled by our government and not by terrorists trained to fly. . . did these reputable researchers ever go and ask the pilots of the planes that were flying them immediately prior why they didn't report the large contraptions (including cameras, etc.) that were necessary to rig an airliner for remote flight? Did your "researchers" investigate the maintenance records to make sure that they weren't taken out of service immediately prior to their 9/11 doomsday flights for such installations to be secretly undertaken? Did they ask why the now-dead *actual* air-line pilots of these planes on 9/11 didn't report: "Hey, there's all these new devices in the cockpit and a camera on the nose!" Remote control capable of flying a plane into a building at those high of speeds (as documented on video from the ground) requires cameras and sophisticated equipment. Do you think that airliners are so open to modification that even one (much less four!) of them could have such contraptions secretly installed in a hidden fashion and *nobody* (aircrew, maintenance, or airlines that owned them) would have noticed?
But again, you *have* to believe this stuff. Both because it makes you feel important and because it's the only way you can make 9/11 fit into your worldview. The only way 9/11 is "acceptable" to your worldview is if Bush did it. - Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Fun link for those who want to look into davesbrain's conspiracy theories:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm#3
And the BBC is hardly "pro-Bush" or "pro-war." And is not an American news agency. So unless you think it's a tool of the Illuminati and the world bank, why would they be part of the conspiracy:
Some choice snippets that speak directly to some of the more outrageous things you've alleged:
***United 93 being "shot down" because debris was found far from crash site***
"The reports of wreckage at Indian Lake were accurate in so far as small, light fragments of insulation material and paper from United 93 were found by residents at the lake, having blown there from the crash site on the prevailing wind.
However, the distance between the two locations was misreported in some accounts. In fact, in a straight line, Indian Lake is just over a mile from the crash site. The road between the two locations takes a roundabout route of 6.9 miles - accounting for the erroneous reports.
Also, the fragments of debris which were found at Indian Lake were downwind of the crash site and east of the plane's flight path. Had United 93 started to disintegrate in mid-air, wreckage would have fallen below the flight path - to the west of Shanksville."
***The hijackers had no flight training. So the planes were remote-controlled***
"The two future hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar settled in San Diego, where they started to take lessons at a local flying school."
Presumably, they couldn't get enough trained though, so some others were remote controlled. Sigh. . .
Of course, I'm sure you read all the common sense explanations like that and say: "That's what Cheney *wants* me to think!" (Cue ominuous music. Enter Sculley and Mulder).
Those of you who still want to take people like davesbrain seriously, just do your own googling and try not to be as selective as davesbrain is when choosing to accept and/or discard facts. And remember, common sense can go a long way.
Not of course, that anyone is still reading this stuff. It's pretty much wound down. So, realizing that davesbrain is hopeless and cannot be convinced of his dementia, and nobody else is actually going to see this, I now give the floor to davesbrain. He can write whatever he wants. And I could come back and address what he's written. But then he'd just re-state the same nonsense and ignore inconvenient facts. . . and so on. I trust people can see beyond it. - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Hurin
I may seem dismissive, but only because your selectively applied logic makes me think that there's really no getting through to you. So, I'm really posting more for others who might be momentarily taken in by your oddly applied logic and absurd "facts", than I am for you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I reply in kind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this just absurd. I'd expect that just about *EVERYONE* with even a basic knowledge of history thought back to Pearl Harbor that day. You can keep saying that GWB was the first. But that's just, again, absurd on the face of it. It's a totally natural, *obvious* analogy. Your need to see something sinister here is where you betray your biases and inability to just see that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you'd expect and what was reality may not mesh, have you ever thought of that? Did you think of Pearl Harbor? Oh, nevermind, I know the answer. I never used the word sinister, you did. I am simply pointing out the fact that it is a strange coincidence that the PNC and GWB used the same wording to describe the attacks. I never heard it described that way until GWB did it on television. So if we were all sitting there thinking this was Pearl Harbor all over again, as you assume everybody was, why did not one single reporter say it until GWB? Give me proof of one single person prior to GWB using these words and I shall concede.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is just silly on the face of it. There had NEVER been a plane that flew off course without being intercepted? How can you actually type that and not feel silly? It happened, all the friggin' time! Many, many airline disasters began with the plane "drifting off course". Presumably, we don't hear about the F-16s that must have *always* been trailing them when they met their demise. Wow. . . just speechless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, give me proof of a plane flying off course and not being intercepted. In the year prior to the attacks 65 planes were intercepted. I remember reading about the plane that was followed from Texas into the Atlantic where it ran out of fuel and crashed. Turned out the pilot had a heart attack and was dead, the plane just kept going in the direction he was steering at the time of his death. And many airliners that are crashing generally drift off course for a few seconds and then crash. Not an hour and half as with 9-11-01.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, based on your prior two "FACTS", and the FACT that nobody but you are here alleging this "fact". . . and you've yet to provide a reputable source, and I suspect that any source you provide will be on the same level as those who "proved" that we faked the moon landings, I guess I will just remain speechless. No, I don't believe Cheney was actually sitting in a control room somewhere overseeing an excercise that portrayed exactly what happened on 9/11 while 9/11 was happening. Again, absurd on the face of it. And you have done nothing to document your assertion. The burden of proof isn't on me, my friend. I'm not asserting the absurd. And, please note that I stated that "confusion" was only *one* of the reasons we didn't magically muster interceptors instantly during peace-time and shoot down passenger liners filled with civilians. Others have documented the *real* reasons why this was impossible and/or unlikely. The simplest answer is usually the correct one. But you seem to assume the opposite.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously any documentation I could provide would be useless. but here you go:
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
I would like to see your "real" reasons, however, if you care to post the links because I would like to see them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love how you belittle even as you claim the moral high-ground. Which you've done since the beginning. But regardless, you *clearly* don't approach your "research" with an open mind. Indeed, the fact that you go so far out of your way to dredge up "documentaries of the absurd" which nearly all unravel when their selective facts, flawed logic, and questionable editorial methods are exposed, just demonstrates your bias. There's something in you that is attracted to the "minority report". . . believing in it makes you feel smarter, empowered, and superior. So, you seek it out, believe whatever it tells you, then join discussion forums to demonstrate your superiority. Then, of course, even here (a largely Lefty environment), people laugh. That's my take on it, anyways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the initial post, you initiated the belittling remarks, I've just been responding in kind. The very wording of this clearly demonstrates how open you think your mind is as you reject anything contradictory to your thought process or conceptions. I have never claimed this was wholly an inside job, or that our government planned the whole operation. I am merely pointing out contradictions in the official report offered by the government with the reality of the events. I am not here to demonstrate my superiority, as you like to think, I am here debating others and learning their opinions. Contrary to what else you might think, I actually do read links people post. How is it flawed to see what engineers and physicists are saying about these events and seeing the logic in their arguments? And if people are laughing at me, as you like to think, why am I getting dugg up, and you are getting dugg down? Besides, let them laugh.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, let me get this straight, you just dismiss all the records of these people having flight training? So, to you, it is more likely that the government couldn't find patsies with flight training. So instead, they put in remote control devices that were good enough to fly a planes into a building (and pilots that were willing to do it, who all remained quiet), but still put terrorists on the plane? And you consider it more likely that the plane was shot down because the passengers became aware of this than the accepted story that the terrorists crashed the plane when the passengers overtook them? As for the debris field. . . the plane may have broken up in mid-air (as planes often do) when stresses were put on it for which it was never intended (as would happend when novice pilots or amateur passengers struggle over an aircrafts control, or someone is committing suicide and doesn't care to keep the airframe intact). Or, maybe it *was* finally shot down and the government is loathe to admit that they had a hand in the deaths of those on United 93 (especially when it came to light that they were fighting back). Or they didn't want to diminish the "story" of them fighting back, so they let it stand. But even if it was shot down, that doesn't mean it was remote controlled or part of a vast conspiracy by the government to perpetrate 9/11 itself. As for "nobody talking" about it "taking" time for it to crash. The plane was relatively low by the time the passengers attacked. That's a fact, it wouldn't have taken long. Further, I'm not sure that it's human nature to be on your cell phone while terrorists are screaming at you and wielding knives. Those who got through did so quickly and said they had to go quickly (probably to share the phone). And when the time came for an attack, and the plane is shucking and jiving, do you think the natural thing to do is to call mom? But there are radio recordings of the last few moments in the cockpit (which I'm sure you think are doctored). Again, you see something that makes sense. . . invent something that makes less sense, and then latch onto the latter, EVERY TIME.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don;t dismiss the records of their flight training, however, I think it's highly unlikely that three men who never flew a plane in their lives and one who had a pilot's license but was so incompetent he couldn't get a job as a pilot were able to pull this off. Does that mean I think it's impossible, no. I have also seen interviews with the men who trained these four men and the trainers said these guys were so incompetent that they could not even fly level and straight in the simulators, much less turn off the transponders and automatic pilots. Once again, you jump to the conclusion that I believe 100% in everything I've posting, I'm putting out contradictory evidence. It's obvious you believe 100% in the government's version and will not entertain a single question to the contrary, so be it. Regardless of the altitude of the plane, tell me you heard one single recording of any passenger saying "Oh my God, we're crashing." Thanks for letting me know I think the recordings are doctored.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I love how you belittle others even while you decry others doing it to you. And you've been doing it since the beginning. Let's sum up why you can safely be called "silly" without it necessarily being an insult. . . but merely an accurate descpription of the totality of your views on this subject:
Davesbrain absurd assertions:
1. Nobody every thought of or made the comparison between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 before Bush. And he only got it from Kristol's talking points a year before.
2. No plane had *ever* gone off course without F-16s immediately appearing on either side of it, EVER!
3. Cheney was running an excercise that mimiced 9/11 while 9/11 actually happened.
4. The terrorists were on the planes. But the planes were under remote control. Because, *that* makes more sense than terrorists who were trained to fly.
5. United 93 was shot down instantly as soon as it became clear that the passengers had discovered that the plane was under remote control.
Some of that is just factually inaccurate and absurd (Bush and Pearl Harbor analogy, and planes *never* being off course without interception). . . and the rest is just totally unrealistic. But your ability to claim the prior with a straight face makes it possible to understand how you can believe the latter. And even repeat it. You are living in a fantasy world where you are a brave "truth teller". . . even if you have to invent and/or believe ridiculous, false "truths" in order to claim that mantle for yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look back at the first post, you initiated the belittling remarks, I am only returning what you offered in kind.
1. I said no reporter mentioned it until GWB did, that is the truth, find me one instance and I shall concede. I fail to see how this observation is a silly remark.
2. Find me a documented case of FOUR commercial civilian jetliners, no, just find me one case of a commercial civilian jetliner flying off course for over an hour and I will again concede.
3. An alternate theory that you seem unwilling to entertain.
4. Again, an alternate theory.
Being able to fly a plane via remote control is not absurd, it's a reality. You're choice to ignore contradictions and reject all other opinions demonstrates your total lack of individual thought. What can I say, you live in the fantasy world your government creates for you where you are the ardent patriot defending God and Country to the last, ultimately commiting your altruistic suicidal sacrifice in defense of the realm. I would rather live in my world than yours any day. - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Hurin
FOLLOW-UP for davesbrain:
Just thinking about your absurd claims for just a few minutes (as you don't seem to do) brings up all sorts of interesting questions:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, thanks for letting me know what I do and do not do, very helpful.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me, regarding all this wonderful research you've done via journals and documentaries that have led you to believe that the airliners were remotely controlled by our government and not by terrorists trained to fly. . . did these reputable researchers ever go and ask the pilots of the planes that were flying them immediately prior why they didn't report the large contraptions (including cameras, etc.) that were necessary to rig an airliner for remote flight? Did your "researchers" investigate the maintenance records to make sure that they weren't taken out of service immediately prior to their 9/11 doomsday flights for such installations to be secretly undertaken? Did they ask why the now-dead *actual* air-line pilots of these planes on 9/11 didn't report: "Hey, there's all these new devices in the cockpit and a camera on the nose!" Remote control capable of flying a plane into a building at those high of speeds (as documented on video from the ground) requires cameras and sophisticated equipment. Do you think that airliners are so open to modification that even one (much less four!) of them could have such contraptions secretly installed in a hidden fashion and *nobody* (aircrew, maintenance, or airlines that owned them) would have noticed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A laser guidance system isn't that large, they put them on relatively small bombs, so it's quite conceivable that these could be placed in the nose section of the plane where the pilots don't inspect. There are plenty of places a remote system could be placed where the pilots would not discover them. Show me the maintenance records of these four planes. Has anybody seen them? Do you know where these planes were prior to these flights? Were they under routine maintenance?
Where are the black boxes? I've never heard of a plane crash where they were not found, well, until these four.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But again, you *have* to believe this stuff. Both because it makes you feel important and because it's the only way you can make 9/11 fit into your worldview. The only way 9/11 is "acceptable" to your worldview is if Bush did it. by Hurin 7 minutes ago
[comment buried, show commenthide comment] + 0 diggs Fun link for those who want to look into davesbrain's conspiracy theories:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm#3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, thank you for telling me what I currently think, and what I need to think.
Went to your link, what it fails to point out is that although the steel would have lost half its strength, it still would have had four or five times the strength needed to support the building. It also states there was little visible wreckage at the Pentagon. Look at the pictures shortly after the attack and show me anything that even remotely resembles any part of a plane.
Watch this, if you dare:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7662934057256174552
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the BBC is hardly "pro-Bush" or "pro-war." And is not an American news agency. So unless you think it's a tool of the Illuminati and the world bank, why would they be part of the conspiracy:
Some choice snippets that speak directly to some of the more outrageous things you've alleged:
***United 93 being "shot down" because debris was found far from crash site***
"The reports of wreckage at Indian Lake were accurate in so far as small, light fragments of insulation material and paper from United 93 were found by residents at the lake, having blown there from the crash site on the prevailing wind.
However, the distance between the two locations was misreported in some accounts. In fact, in a straight line, Indian Lake is just over a mile from the crash site. The road between the two locations takes a roundabout route of 6.9 miles - accounting for the erroneous reports.
Also, the fragments of debris which were found at Indian Lake were downwind of the crash site and east of the plane's flight path. Had United 93 started to disintegrate in mid-air, wreckage would have fallen below the flight path - to the west of Shanksville."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This crash is not consistent with other plane crashes where the plane goes down quickly and at relatively low altitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***The hijackers had no flight training. So the planes were remote-controlled***
"The two future hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar settled in San Diego, where they started to take lessons at a local flying school."
Presumably, they couldn't get enough trained though, so some others were remote controlled. Sigh. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, possible, but unlikely that these men could pull it off.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, I'm sure you read all the common sense explanations like that and say: "That's what Cheney *wants* me to think!" (Cue ominuous music. Enter Sculley and Mulder).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, never thought that, don't really care if you believe me either.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those of you who still want to take people like davesbrain seriously, just do your own googling and try not to be as selective as davesbrain is when choosing to accept and/or discard facts. And remember, common sense can go a long way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right back at you and all the people who read your posts and think you might be on to something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not of course, that anyone is still reading this stuff. It's pretty much wound down. So, realizing that davesbrain is hopeless and cannot be convinced of his dementia, and nobody else is actually going to see this, I now give the floor to davesbrain. He can write whatever he wants. And I could come back and address what he's written. But then he'd just re-state the same nonsense and ignore inconvenient facts. . . and so on. I trust people can see beyond it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, right back at you. Honestly I could care less if anybody else reads this, I'm interested in what you have to say and what points you bring up, regardless of what you may/like to think. I do hope your read this, and I also hope you watch the video of Dr. Steven Jones. Since it's plain that you are hopeless and suffering from an overdeveloped sense of patriotism, even if you do watch the video, nothing in it will penetrate your neocon psychosis. As you state that I would simply restate what I have already stated, so it is with you. Which leaves us here: why bother in the first place? - Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you'd expect and what was reality may not mesh, have you ever thought of that? Did you think of Pearl Harbor? Oh, nevermind, I know the answer. I never used the word sinister, you did. I am simply pointing out the fact that it is a strange coincidence that the PNC and GWB used the same wording to describe the attacks. I never heard it described that way until GWB did it on television. So if we were all sitting there thinking this was Pearl Harbor all over again, as you assume everybody was, why did not one single reporter say it until GWB? Give me proof of one single person prior to GWB using these words and I shall concede.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, first, I don't even remember GWB saying anything about Pearl Harbor on 9/11 itself. But I do recall hearing many pundits state: "This is like Pearl Harbor. This is an act of war." Again, such a sand-poundingly obvious comparison to make that I'm just dumbfounded that you are so desperate to attach any signifigance to it.
Once again, you try to put the burden of proof on those who are not alleging anything out of the ordinary. The onus is upon *you* to provide a transcript or a video of GWB mentioning Pearl Harbor on 9/11. Every moment of his public comments on 9/11 are out there. You should be able to find it if he said it. But wait. . .
Even *if* he did. . . and I just don't recall it. . . your need to see some connection between that obvious analogy that so many were making and an obvious statement that many were making a year prior (that a new PH would cause a military build-up). . . it's just a "So the f--k what?" moment for anyone but you. But you see a "strange coincidence" where everyone else sees: "Yeah, an attack out of the blue by a foreign entity = Pearl Harbor." Right here, in this argument is the distillation of everything that makes you a conspiracy monger. You see a "strange coincidence" where everyone else sees normalcy and even what is expected.
Just a quick Google leads me to 911truth.org where even they can't find Bush mentioning Pearl Harbor in public. Instead, they apparently have a spy in the whitehouse with access to GWB's diary and somehow know that he wrote:
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today."
Even if accurate, so what? It's a completely natural association to make. And, indeed, Henry Kissinger wrote roughly the same thing online immediately after hearing the President's speech:
"The government should be charged with a systematic response that, one hopes, will end the way the attack on Pearl Harbor ended with the destruction of the system that is responsible for it."
To someone who saw 9/11 as an attack on the U.S. this is a completely *expected* thing to say/write. To a Lefty who thinks we deserved it, or someone who thinks *Bush* did it, it's something to be somehow tied into another innocuous statement made a year prior that was merely stating the obvious: That an attack on this country like Pearl Harbor would reverse the trend in military spending. AGAIN. . . DUH!
Saying that America needs a stronger military but (alas) won't do anything about it until its too late and something like Pearl Harbor happens isn't the same thing as "calling for" another Pearl Harbor. Just the use of the term in that document indicates how "Pearl Harbor" is synonymous with the U.S. being attacked by an outside entity (and the associated response). It's just common parlance for people discussing national security and military preparedness. So, I'm sorry, but you have to have an agenda and/or just plain blind to common sense to see that document and any later reference to 9/11 as evidence of collusion or complicity. It just plain *does* not make any logical sense to anyone who is approaching the issue from any perspective other than: Bush = Evil and that 9/11 couldn't *possibly* have been the act of terrorists. It *must* be Bush.
As for the rest of your "rebuttal." You've now switched from "remote control" to "automated laser guidance?". . . that's nice. So, there was someone pointing a laser designator at the towers now too? And laser self-guidance systems from missiles are of course very easily adaptable so that they can operate all the control surfaces on a 737? Sure, just plop them in! Of course! And, tell me, how would they follow this laser all the way out from Pennsylvania in the case of United 93? Oh wait, don't tell me, *now* you'll change it so that there *are* terrorist pilots. . . and the remote/laser guidance only takes over right before impact? Jeeze, you do realize that your "no pilots" idea is now totally unravelling, don't you? But just keep changing things randomly to accomodate inconvenient realities and then arrogantly assume that whatever you've invented in your head ex nihilo *must* be the truth of what happened (sigh!).
You first said that the passengers found the cockpit empty. Now I'm sure you'll say that the terrorist pilots were there and flying the plane because they hadn't gotten close enough to turn on the "laser guidance" system. Do you even hear yourself? Why can't you just believe that someone who can fly a plane can fly it into a building the size of the WTC? Why all the need to make youre already unbelievable theory even *less* plausible? If you wanna say Bush was in on it, go ahead, but then you just can't help yourself and you and your buddies have to throw in junk about remote control, laser guidance, no pilots (oh wait, nevermind, there were pilots but *also* laser guideance). . . etc. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
And, again, the onus is upon those alleging misdeeds to investigate maintenance records, etc. But, of course, rational people wouldn't see the point since the planes weren't under remote control. Though, from your warped perspective, the failure to investigate every wacky conspiracy is actually indicative of a conspiracy! ("What! They didn't look into whether the planes were under remote control! They must have been then!"). So you're always being vindicated by people not taking craziness seriously enough to substantively address it. They also didn't look into whether the planes were flown by extraterrestrials or controlled by telekenesis. Why? Because it's not a plausible theory!
I note that you state that no black boxes were ever found. Yet in that very link I sent, it states plainly that the black box for the flight that hit the Pentagon was indeed found. I seem to recall that others were as well. You just either don't bother to read such facts, or you *dismiss* them for no reason other than that they don't fit with your conspiracy. So, there's no point arguing with you.
You find one wacko who says: "The building still could have stood up to all that steel becoming weak due to 800c heat" and you then just decide to ignore all the peer-reviewed science done in several fields (from engineering to architecture) that has explained why the buildings collapsed that is consistent with "only" planes filled with jet fuel crashing into them.
Just listen to yourself: Cheney running a secret 9/11 scenario *on* 9/11. Remote-controlled (now laser-guided) planes (must be some long-range lasers!). Bombs planted in the WTC *on top* of the planes (why not just do the former and still blame it on the terrorists?). You believe this stuff because it makes you feel important and smarter. That's all I can surmise.
While there's no shame in patriotism, it's not patriotism to point out the flaws in someone's hare-brained conspiracies. - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hurin,
If you see this, answer this one question. If this was a crime scene, why was the investigation performed by NOT: NYPD or NYFD or FBI or NOT even the NTSB, but by FEMA? WHy is it FEMA is so good at investigating 9-11-01, yet completely dropped the ball with Hurricaine Katrina? Oh, I know, they were just a little confused. Why was evidence removed and sent to China before it was examined? These are questions I am asking you, so the onus is upon you to answer them.
I feel the same way about you. You continue to argue in support of the government's contentions with total disregard to any contradictory evidence or theories. The government puts out what IT thinks and you just chime right in with all your babble about having an open mind and utilizing reason and thought, yet I see nothing more then the simple regurgitation of government theories. Here's one, the terrorist killed the pilots then switched on the automated guidence sytem leading to their final destinations. But, then I know what you'll so: "OMG, davesbrain, you're changing your story again you wacky ***** libtard kook." So be it, but at least I AM THINKING.
I also like how you selectively choose to ignore questions you are unable to answer. Show me one picture of the Pentagon shortly after the attack where debris from the plane is present.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -33/+28I've seen this video before it's awesome. Notice how he stands there laughing away then when Aaron says the magic word BOHEMIAN GROVE the laughing stops and they ask the cops to escort Aaron out.
- neonic, on 10/12/2007, -94/+97Oh man... Know-it-all College hippies, the worst kind.
These students were incredibly rude. I mean, seriously Just let the guy talk. He seemed to be answering all the questions he was asked. He waited patiently and tried to explain his own points of view. I think that the person with the camera was by far the stupidest.
"Why am I being removed? What about the 1st amendment?"
He was being removed because its private property and the speaker was invited there. You should respect his right to speak and then when you have something to ask/talk about then actually formulate a question about some issues, not just be a dick who thinks hes a bad ass for practicing civil disobedience The one person who questioned what the line about a new pearl harbor meant, that was a good question, it conveyed his opinion in an adult manner and stuck it to him just the same. I don't care what your views are, I personally think Mr. Kristol is not right in a lot of things, but for christ sakes, these little ***** weren't interested in serious politics or anything of the sorts, they were interested in making themselves feel important by going to a speech and yelling pointless comments like "9/11 was a lie" and that he was a murderer, and his father was a communist supporter.- fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -60/+82Despite my extreme dislike for Kristol, his views, and neocons in general, I have to agree with you. He is there expressing his views in a private forum. The solution would have been to work out a way to debate him, not to heckle him from the crowd and act astonished when they take you away.
- tandytk9, on 10/12/2007, -23/+116It was in a public forum. The University of Texas at Austin is a public, taxpayer-funded university.
- orientis, on 10/12/2007, -24/+100Agreed. All I saw there was a wasted opportunity. Imagine the questions that could have been asked in a civil manner that would have, as you said, stuck it to him.
I was also struck by Kristol's smarm. Even when faced with the Pearl Harbour question he had a smirk on his face. Does anyone recall that video (I think it was on Digg) of Clinton being heckled at a press conference about not doing enough about reports of possible attacks? He wasn't smirking and dismissing the questioner, he took the question seriously and gave an excellent rebuttal, with civility and passion. The difference between the two is striking. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -28/+56@anyone digging neonic down. Why? He makes an excellent point. As I said, this was an excellent opportunity to ask meaningful questions - who knows, perhaps Kristol might have slipped and said something blatantly evil and it would have been on record. Instead the dissenters yelled meaningless slogans. "9/11 was a lie" ? That's pathetic! Why not wait patiently until your turn to speak and have a good, pointed question prepared in advance?
- mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -31/+19As long as it doesn't degenerate into a lynch mob, there's no reason to fear vigorous discourse. If you want Robert's Rules, nominate a Char. Otherwise? We alls EQUAL here.
BUT, the MOST important thing for Kristol, was that he got handed a check for his speaker's fee and expenses.
For what they must have paid that guy, he should have sucked the dick and eaten the snatch of anyone who wanted it. Figure the private plane ride was 25 grand, Hotel Suites, Couple of limos on call for the duration, etc.
These guys' riders match those of any rockstar you'd consider. I'm sure the guy who arranged it really didn't want it to leave his control. Likely his job is on the line if this goes too off script. - smoothmedia, on 10/12/2007, -17/+56That was so irritating to watch because absolutely nothing was accomplished. Civilized discourse is needed for a debate, or a question forum. These two smart asses would have been better served to refrain from yelling and interrupting him, and instead stuck to pointing out the flaws in his belief system and asking tough questions. They showed flashes of brilliance.....but were mainly just arrogant tools.
- spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -27/+39the kids were acting like a bunch of 5 year olds. They should have gotten much more than just getting kicked out, they weren't even kicked out for a while either. And what pathetic excuses; "Why am I getting kicked out... cuz of the 1st amendment?" Wah wah wah. Too bad that guy didn't have a mother that could teach him some common decency.
- MiloMindrbindr, on 10/12/2007, -18/+22@neonic -- I totally agree, but I also understand the heckling. I know the feeling of not being able to stop yourself from saying something because everything they stand and live for is just vile, disgusting and disrespectful to not only me, but my family, future generations, etc. I can guarantee that these are the feelings (if you remember this) the guy who was telling Dick Cheney to ***** off was having when Cheney came into the Katrina area after the disaster. I hope that makes sense. But yeah, these kids really do come off as just that: kids.
- honeymonster, on 10/12/2007, -23/+26Yeah, just because you keep shouting ‘it’s a lie’ and '9/11' over and over again doesn’t make it true. That guy managed to make a coherent defence of himself (in the quiet periods) and the shouting audience members just sounded like crazies.
- Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -20/+33-----------------------------------------------
That guy managed to make a coherent defence of himself (in the quiet periods) and the shouting audience members just sounded like crazies.
-----------------------------------------------
It's even more amazing considering the video is edited in such a way so that its focus is on the heckling and what they have to say (dismally silly as it is). Despite the best efforts of the editor, the "protesters" come off as idiots and Kristol still comes off as calm and rational. Unless of course, you already hate the guy with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. - FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -20/+9"Heckling" is a "debate" where only the NEO gets to speak.
- dondiggs, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2excellent points, nicely expressed
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -18/+18They did a find job of calling the piece of crap for what he is. You really think he would have answered the questions properly and not evasively? They raised a few points and said it to the man's face. He deserved it for writing about America needing a Pearl Harbor alone.
- darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6@neonic - I wouldn't go so far as to call them "college hippies" (plus yesterdays hippies are todays conservative policy makers), but some members of the audience were rude and did act childish, but from the looks of the views they were in the minority.
- phonetik, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3As much as I can't stand the guy, I have to agree.
If we take away his right to express his views and opinions, we're just as bad as the current administrations policy of suppressing protests and speech against the war.
I find it ironic how rich college hippie know it alls are clashing with rich ex-college yuppie conservatives and they think they're the noble ones. Unbelievable.
This is a ***** embarrassment.
DID YOU EAT THEIR BROWNIES KYLE??!?!?! DID YOU EAT THEIR BROWNIES?!?!?!?!
And look at all the internet revolutionary males that are coming out of the woodwork. - nowayhoseb, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"Imagine the questions that could have been asked in a civil manner "
People have been asking for answers IN A CIVILIZED manner for 6 years now and look what it ot them. Stop lecturing people on how to debate...the american public is being shaped into a permanent mangina, day after day after day by comments like that. The civil war was not debated, it was fought. - ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Boo-hoo! Since when did speaking truth to power had to be done a certain way? You're concerned with tone and rudeness then write Miss Manners about it. Freedom of speech means just that...the Freedom to speak whether its loudly or in a rude way. Go cry about it to the founders of this Nation. Kristol has all the resources and TV time to spread his ***** "aw shucks, we're just a think tank" diatribe. They got to him when they could the way they were able to get to him. No amount of fake gasps is gonna change that..Continue clutching your pearls ladies
- jdibiase, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1@ClosedCaption - the point is, they didn't "get to him." They had the chance to get to him and chose to squander it by shouting, accusing, and whining, without substantiating anything, or questioning his supposed evil motives. That's the problem I have with this ... they blew it, all for the sake of creating a web video.
If he's so obviously evil, they could have easily asked legitimate questions that should have, would have, could have had a much better outcome for their cause. But they didn't, which leads me to believe that they don't know what they're supposedly talking about. - ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ jdibiase
I dont care how many adjective you use, they asked and said what they had to say whether or not you think it was legitmate or whining is another issue all together. Its all subjective, I bet you think you have better ways and questions the same way that I believe I have better ways and questions. Get it...they spoke truth to power and what they said is being pushed aside to concentrate on the WAY they said it. That sounds like my chick talking - jdibiase, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@ClosedCaption - "Get it...they spoke truth to power ...."
They maybe spoke to power ... it's still up for debate whether they spoke the truth.
- JoCliMe, on 10/12/2007, -40/+76I'm sorry, but I don't care if you disagree with someone, you still need to be respectful when they are speaking. If you don't want to hear them speak, politely get up and leave. Quit violating another's free speech. This goes for EVERYONE.
- unicornhunter, on 10/12/2007, -31/+54I second that. Don't disrespect a man while it's his turn to speak. It makes your own POV worthless.
- iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -14/+15I agree for the most part. We must question and discredit these people in the most effective manner. I'm not sure that anything was accomplished here and maybe more would have been if the people were more civil about things.
That said, history will judge how evil this man truly is. People stood by and watched Hitler rise to power in an all to calm fashion. How I wished more people would have screamed and yelled and taken action back them to stop him before he took power.
Maybe screaming in this case will drive more people to google this guy and his Neo-Con friends and find out the truth about these fake conservatives.. or maybe it wont. And that is why I'm not sure how effective this is. It was people shouting and protesting that woke me up enough to do some research because I knew in my heart that people like Rush and Hannity were frauds but I tuned in every day all day to listen only because I thought that there were only two sides.. Left and Right but it was screaming people like this that woke me up to the fake debate going on to keep us in check. Divide and conquer. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -24/+22His turn to speak? He's had his turn, it was a god damn disaster. The man is a mouthpiece for several magazines as well as fox news. He's got the money and influence for airtime. Free speech isn't buying time on air. I'm pretty sure its someone else's turn now.
- Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -34/+16I love how the Left always wants to talk about the "Rise of Hitler" in regards to Bush, Neo-Cons, or Republicans in general. Meanwhile, our government is involved in a war to transform a region dominated by a hate-filled ideology bent on creating another holocaust even while its leaders deny that the original holocaust ever happened.
We've got a violent, backwards region of the world filled with world-class anti-semites declaring jihad on the West while being on the verge of developing their own nuclear weapons. . . and the Left sees Hitler and the "real threat" here at home. It's just absolutely depressing.
The West is doomed, because we've raised a generation so filled with self-loathing that we now lack the will to defend ourselves. Indeed, we even lack the ability to recognize threats to our values and even our existence.
I keep reading how everyone's so concerned about what Kristol and his ilk have done to our Constitution and/or our way of life in the U.S. People point to the Patriotic Act as though it shot their mother and imprisoned their dog. It's all quite silly. Yet, if our efforts in the Middle-east fail (as so many here seem to desire), I don't think our way of life, our Constitution, or our freedoms will survive the types of trials that would await us in a world where our cities might disappear instantly in a blinding flash and the world is engulfed in a world-wide war because we didn't do enough to transform the Middle-east tinderbox before it is too late.
But, hey! Bush doesn't support Kyoto! So he must be the real threat!
When people start comparing their political adversaries to Hitler, it's time to re-evaluate with whom you've decided to have political discourse. - thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -9/+57@ Hurin
Sorry, but you just don't understand do you.
It isn't that the left "wants the US to fail". It is that the left sees the *current policies as a path to failure*. Military action will not, and typically does not, reduce the threat of long term enemies to the US. It does an excellent job of solving short term problems of aggressive states (aka. Hilter). But it will not bring about the kind of change required to produce a prosperous secular ally. For that we need peace and economic engagement.
If you doubt this, answer this question. Which nation is more of a threat to the US:
Post-war Iraq, or post economic boom China? (Or compare Iraq/Dubai if you like)
Who is more of a threat to the US economic Ally South Korea, or our military enemy North Korea?
“The Left” doesn’t want us to fail, it wants us to succeed. So does “the Right” for that matter, it is a question of what each side believes will lead to success. Casting it in such simple terms only shows your personal bias, not any great insight.
“I don't think our way of life, our Constitution, or our freedoms will survive the types of trials that would await us in a world where our cities might disappear instantly”
I’m sorry, then you severely underestimate the US. The power of the US is not in the fact that it has some big cities with a large population. The power of the US comes from its institutions, its courts, its laws, and the constitution. That is why the US is the power that it is, and it is why a threat to the constitution is a much greater threat than to a city. If 4 major cities were to be nuked, it would be a tragedy on a historic scale… but we would recover, much like Japan has. However, if we loose our freedoms and constitution to gain a sense of safety, we might never recover from that. - texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8"It makes your own POV worthless."
I disagree. The shouting doesn't make your point of view any less valid than who you're shouting at...but it DOES tend to not advance your cause or message because everyone just sees you as an ass. - FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23Some of you people act as if this was an open debate forum and it WASNT. That is why people were talking out of turn and making comments instead of questions. The Neocons and open forum debates are like oil and water.
- Akufen, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17"I'm sorry, but I don't care if you disagree with someone, you still need to be respectful when they are speaking. If you don't want to hear them speak, politely get up and leave. Quit violating another's free speech. This goes for EVERYONE."
Nobody is violating his free speech, he can still talk, just no one will be listening. Free speech is exactly that.
What those people should've done is stand up and USE their free speech to chase that ***** out of there. People have been polite to these criminals for far too long. - viviwanu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10joclime, respect has to be earned, it's not a given right. Submissive subjects like yourself got us into this mess because the lying politicians know they can sell you anything without consequences. "Free speech" my ass, how about our freedom to live in a ethical, peaceful, and free society!
- Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3@thefirelane
I'm not sure you got the point. You're saying that I underestimate the U.S. because I think we're much more likely to lose our freedoms after a world-engulfing conflict or after cities begin disappearing in nuclear blasts. But the far Left *already* says that we are living in a dictatorship. Hell, Randi Rhodes and her followers were claiming that it was a *tryanny* because all branches of government were held by one party (via *elections*). And, of course, they can't seem to stop calling those with whom they disagree "Hitler" at every opportunity.
But, yes, I do think that our Republic is a more fragile thing than some seem to believe. And I don't think it can long endure a large portion of its population being brought up to reflexively hate itself and always see its goals and motivations as evil (not just viewed skeptically). This nation now exists in a dangerous world where roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of its populations reflexively sides with those who would wish us harm. And if we fail in the middle-east now and withdraw, we're almost certain to be in a much bigger war sooner rather than later.
But please note, that I'm not calling them evil, nor Hitlers, nor any other names. I just think they're misguided and in love with that pseudo-intellectual thrill that they get when they "fight the power." It's addictive. And gradually, it just comes to govern how they see every issue. - thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10>dangerous world where roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of its populations reflexively sides with those who would wish us harm
Sorry, but when you say things like this, you make it very clear that you just simply don't understand the world and you view it in a simplistic "people do it my way, or they're with the terrorists" way.
You can oppose Bush, oppose all the limits placed on our freedoms, oppose the detention of human beings without trial.... AND STILL want to fight the terrorists.
You can be BOTH against Bush AND the terrorists. Do you honestly not understand that? - archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"This nation now exists in a dangerous world where roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of its populations reflexively sides with those who would wish us harm."
You're talking about Bush's supporters, right? Because Bush and the neocons have done *much* more harm to the US then the "libruls" ever could. - idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Hurin
Even though I almost entirely disagree with your opinion, after seeing how you have defended it without degenerating into mindless name-calling like so many people do on all sides (and even in these threads), I felt obliged to friend you. You have good points and present well thought-out and worthy arguments.
But I still think you're wrong :P - ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"I'm sorry, but I don't care if you disagree with someone, you still need to be respectful when they are speaking."
Until when? When a war is started? When soldiers die? When lies are presented as truth?
I'm just trying to find out when and how I should start treating this guy or others like him, like the pieces of ***** liars that they are. The ppl with no voice when giving the chance will scream the loudest but if you let tone distract from the point then...you dont know the difference between a point and being rude. You can do both
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -15/+35impeding on free speech or fighting propaganda?
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7Impinging on free speech.
If they didn't want to hear what he had to say, they should not have shown up. That would have had a much bigger effect. - Troika37, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1The left is all about 'free speech for me but not for thee.' Didn't you get the memo?
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7Impinging on free speech.
- strangerzero, on 10/12/2007, -22/+52William Kristol is a truly sickening individual.
- Yout, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2William Kristol might be sickening and quite dangerous to boot, but I am not familiar with his work and only passively familiar with PNAC. After watching this video, I was left feeling sympathetic for him as he patiently and graciously handled a handful of disruptive, rude, and at times belligerent individuals.
Was that the intention of these individuals, to make a possibly dangerous ideologue appear sympathetic? - ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ yout
You feel sypathetic but no very little about PNAC? No wonder you feel that way..and if you throw sympathy towards anyone being attacked just because they're being attacked without knowing why you're easily manipulated. Reminds me of Alito's wife crying and everyone saying "Aww look at her, he should get the job"
- Yout, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2William Kristol might be sickening and quite dangerous to boot, but I am not familiar with his work and only passively familiar with PNAC. After watching this video, I was left feeling sympathetic for him as he patiently and graciously handled a handful of disruptive, rude, and at times belligerent individuals.
- Kavok, on 10/12/2007, -28/+18I despise the neo-cons however a lot of this crowd was way out of line.
- skiesel93, on 10/12/2007, -22/+43Bill Kristol gets plenty of free speech- on Fox "News", on CSPAN, in the syndicated press, and so forth. Even though it would have been more effective if people had prepared a more intelligent counterattack to the insult of Kristol's evangelizing, people like Kristol have all the guns, money, and lawyers, literally and metaphorically speaking, not to let some working class college students get to say anything to make him look stupid, not for long, at least. Belligerent and loud protest of his presence sends a basic message about the public's reaction to a man who has had plenty of time and space to make his opinions and positions known. It says not in our house, not at our school, not on my watch. And if we all said that then no amount of cash or political influence on earth would be able to get in our way.
- Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -26/+21I think you're kidding yourself if you think the video makes Kristol look bad.
Those that are already on the fringe and believe that a person saying "The U.S. will probably not increase military spending dramatically until something like 9/11 happens" (which seems obvious) constitutes some sort of *evidence* that he and his idealogical bretheren *manufactured* 9/11. . . well, they'll of course continue to think ill of Kristol while polishing their tinfoil hats.
Those who respected Kristol before will continue to respect him. Especially since he handled himself so well in the face of such idiocy.
And those in the middle who are undecided? Who neither hate nor like Kristol? Do you *really* think that they will be persuaded by people interrupting a soft-spoken man with yells of: "Scumbag!"
It's an f'ing shame how low political discourse had gotten in this country. And it's even worse that so many now cheer its descent.
H - spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -19/+11well said hurin.
- knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13i'd like to have the opportunity to let the victims of 9/11 speak.
but the evidence sailed away (illegally) to china to be smelted down into hyundais and sold back to us. - DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Your argument is that the speaker gets plenty of time on a news channel? That is really your argument for curbing someone's free speech?
Well, let us apply that to the free speech zones. The people in the free speech zones will be on the news, so their free speech rights are violated. - phoggey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6"It says not in our house, not at our school, not on my watch. And if we all said that then no amount of cash or political influence on earth would be able to get in our way."
It wasn't just their house. Kristol just didn't walk into a random house and start talking. Those students do not own the University of Texas. He was asked to come there to speak and then answer questions, in that order.
I'm 100% sure there was atleast 1 person who was also present wanted to hear what he had to say. Sorry if they don't spend 10 hours a day researching everything about him and watch CSPAN/Fox regularly to hear him, then know what he's all about even before they show up to the forum. I don't believe the initial opening speech was for those people, which is why they gave an opportunity to discuss afterwards for the people who do know everything about him but wish to know his views on topics not regularly discussed.
What kinda students want to represent their school as a bunch of heckling idiots? I can't believe UT students acted this way in the face of someone that disagrees with their beliefs. This is Austin, above it is Round Rock, one of the most conservative areas in the nation. Tolerance had to have been learned somewhere.
You don't yell at someone and call them a traitor when they are exercising their first amendment rights. That's called immaturity. You're a college student, you're almost a ***** grown up, you can stop yourself from yelling obscenities and preform at least a couple full, concise questions. You don't interrupt them when he is a guest speaker at your school. You don't act like a complete idiot yelling "FIRST AMENDMENT!!" acting surprised that you are escorted out.
You want to express how much of an idiot you are? Do it on your own time, not while a guest speaker at a school is present. You go to a school to learn and discuss, not to be some type of anti-neocon police officer. Really, what did anyone learn by hearing you spout off "TRAITOR, BABY KILLER, DOUCHEBAG"?
Saying that ***** just shows how bad you really need to be at school. High School.
This guy orchestrated 9/11? For *****'s sake, are they retarded? I don't even need to go against the overwhelming evidence to support otherwise, just search on digg. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4UT is a public university, yet I very much doubt those same students who pay both tuition and taxes had ANY say in whether that man was invited.
Ideally they would have organized a student and faculty wide boycott, and maybe even taken pictures of everyone who went in to see him, especially in the UT administration. Better to embarrass the people who support these assholes than scream and yell and have noone even notice you. - elenadragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@phoggey
I am not defending the students, but Austin is not conservative. It may be in the middle of Texas, but check out this map:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
That little blue county in the middle is Austin (Travis County). - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Austin has also recently been gerrymandered by the Texas legislature. There's an intersection where several districts meet with a little sign that says "Here is where democracy died." or words to that effect.
http://rangevoting.org/TXtravis24.png - phoggey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yes, I know all about Austin. I live in Austin. I go on UT campus regularly. I go to a college in Austin.
I never said that it was a conservative city, 100% of my teachers would love to see the president get impeached or worse and hate neo-cons. However would my respected teachers do ***** like this? No. Respectable adults don't heckle any human being the way these ass-munches did. That's why most normal conservatives never take liberals seriously. You think they really persuaded people into believing that this man orchestrated 9/11 by calling him a killer with no clear evidence or not even enough sound judgment to keep their mouth shut until they had their turn?
I said that right ABOVE it is a very, very conservative area. The city is called Round Rock, just a few miles north, and is where I grew up. If you look at the map you've given, right above it is a red county, Williamson. They are red, red, red. I said "This is Austin, above it is Round Rock, one of the most conservative areas in the nation. Tolerance had to have been learned somewhere." I had to learn tolerance of liberal, low income, stupidass hippies that live in Austin a long time ago. I don't like their beliefs and think they're ***** stupid, but they have more than enough right to tell me all about how bush has this master oil plan, tax breaks are for the rich, and "loose change" is real. Hell I'm not even going to call them traitorous for saying bush should be dead.
Just look at the map, they are surrounded by red. So, they should know what tolerance is, as they have to deal with plenty of conservatives whenever they leave Travis. Conservatives have a different view on politics, just like this Neo-Con has a different view on politics. Tolerance should be given to both unless you have direct evidence showing they've done something horrendous.
Conservatives are the majority in central Texas, and believe it or not, not all students at UT come from Austin. It's a state college. - elenadragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I've lived in Austin for 7 years. Got married in Round Rock. :) It's next to Austin, but we're not talking about Round Rock, we're talking about a college campus in Austin. It is a liberal city. Like I said, I'm not defending what the students did, I'm speaking only about Austin here.
- phoggey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah they're definitely liberal at UT. I wasn't doubting that for a second. Just saying that if they're liberal, they should atleast sort of respect others views, as there are a lot of opposing views around them. Being liberal is not an excuse.
Sorry, not attacking you directly. Just making a general statement to defend my stance :-) it was really a combination of the people who replied. You seem like a nice person just by your writing so I don't mean to offend by harsh words, just my style when I'm angry, lump everyone into one person as it's easier :-D. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think things are a little beyond tolerance at this point. When they are putting people in "free speach zones" I don't think tolerance is on the menu.
As far as it goes, I don't think those hippies you hate have any more going for them intellectually than this neocon thug. They are exactly equal in my mind, the difference is, he's got the money and power.
- Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -26/+21I think you're kidding yourself if you think the video makes Kristol look bad.
- somesthetic, on 10/12/2007, -30/+13I don't follow politics.
heres what I learned from this video:
the crowd is stupid, the speaker is smart.- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13And that's why if you get that you have to say "would you like fries with that?" each and every time properly or not will be the defining moment of your life.
- mrfx2, on 10/12/2007, -26/+8I open the boarder to Iraq and served for my country to defend a crowd of people like that just makes me sick.
I HATE LIBERALS THEY ARE LIVING IN THE UNKNOWN! - knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12dear mrfx2:
with hate is only the power to destroy. with love is the power to heal. the 'lilberals' are speaking up because they don't think your life, and every one of the three thousand one hundred and eighty eight lives of your fellow brothers and sisters in arms that have died to date in iraq (2007-03-08), is worth black sludge in the ground.
my friend, there were no weapons of mass destruction. - jdibiase, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6@knomevol - in that video, and in many of the comments here, the only hate I see is coming from the Bush-hating, closed-minded, radical liberals. With suggestions that the White House be raided, that Kristol should die, etc., etc., I'm not seeing much in the way of intelligent discourse from those that agree with the hecklers.
I don't know about anyone else, but I would have had a very difficult time of reacting as calmly as Kristol did. - captaineuphoria, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4lol mrfx2, stop trying to convince yourself that you defended the US, by assisting in the occupation of some far-off country. You're not a hero, you're just a worthless grunt.
- knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4wouldn't that just be the saddest?
any person at all being considered worthless.
i just refuse to believe that. - knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8dear jdibiase, look where these people are coming from. they believe that two thousand and sixty two people were murdered in new york city on the eleventh of september, and they want ans
