Is the War On Terror a Complete Hoax?

[nawainwright]

Old school terrorist....

NWO, Illuminate whatever name it has are the real terrorist. How is Bush bailing out wall street not an act of terror against our economy. The jihadist is a terrorist and we go kill him. Bush gets a pass? He condemns using torture early in the Iraq campaign and sends US military personel to prison for following orders that he brags about in his book as the means to get the info on bin Alden's location. See every act of BHO and you'll find acts of terror.

Power, money and influence will buy you the opportunity to commit terror while the MSM will give it a positive spin so the sheeple feel good and safe.

Strange days we live in.

To imply that our founders were terrorists is a bit of a misnomer. We declared war on an overreaching British authority. For the most part we met them face to face on the battlefield. It was a revolt, not a terrorist insurgence. If anyone was using acts of terrorism, it was the British. They burned houses, people, fields etc for even the appearance of aiding the rebels. Terrorism is an military action taken against a civilian population. Our founding fathers took military action against military targets. This revisionist history is really starting to irk me.

 

[buckstopshere]

To imply that our founders were terrorists is a bit of a misnomer. We declared war on an overreaching British authority. For the most part we met them face to face on the battlefield. It was a revolt, not a terrorist insurgence. If anyone was using acts of terrorism, it was the British. They burned houses, people, fields etc for even the appearance of aiding the rebels. Terrorism is an military action taken against a civilian population. Our founding fathers took military action against military targets. This revisionist history is really starting to irk me.

From the perspective of the British, they were treasonous terrorist. The way in which we fought the war was very non conventional for its time by imploring guerilla tactics vs meeting up with their superior army and exchanging volleys. We targeted officers and made use of snipers. I'm sure the crown would call them terrorist.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighters.

 

[Ogre]

From the perspective of the British, they were treasonous terrorist. The way in which we fought the war was very non conventional for its time by imploring guerilla tactics vs meeting up with their superior army and exchanging volleys. We targeted officers and made use of snipers. I'm sure the crown would call them terrorist.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighters.

good point, If ever we were invaded by a foreign nation (I wont speak of revolt, dont wanna get my hand smacked) and they took control, Would we as freedom fighters not use every means at our disposal to make the foreign invaders leave? I would hope we would not resort to the Use or killing of women and children (and Im sure there are many other horrible things that are possible) but if we thought it endgame, then we would probably make the evening news in this foreign land as heathens, terrorists, or insurgants that need quashed.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Some people aren't fighting for freedom though, they're fighting for power. In fact, based on the history of the world, fighting for freedom is a relatively new concept. Pretty much so every war was fought to increase the power of a nation or group of people.

 

[buckstopshere]

Some people aren't fighting for freedom though, they're fighting for power. In fact, based on the history of the world, fighting for freedom is a relatively new concept. Pretty much so every war was fought to increase the power of a nation or group of people.

Agreed. It seems we have come full circle.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

From the perspective of the British, they were treasonous terrorist. The way in which we fought the war was very non conventional for its time by imploring guerilla tactics vs meeting up with their superior army and exchanging volleys. We targeted officers and made use of snipers. I'm sure the crown would call them terrorist.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighters.

good point, If ever we were invaded by a foreign nation (I wont speak of revolt, dont wanna get my hand smacked) and they took control, Would we as freedom fighters not use every means at our disposal to make the foreign invaders leave? I would hope we would not resort to the Use or killing of women and children (and Im sure there are many other horrible things that are possible) but if we thought it endgame, then we would probably make the evening news in this foreign land as heathens, terrorists, or insurgants that need quashed.

While using unconventional tactics against an enemy soldier may be considered "cheating" (SOF saying: "If you aren't cheatin' you aren't trying"), and it may be called various things like "cowardly" and "inhumane", direct actions against an enemy soldier aren't "terrorism".

DELIBERATELY targeting civilian noncombatants for killing, or taking civilian noncombatant hostages and putting them under threat of death, is using terror tactics.

Whoever coined the phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" had no moral compass to speak of. It is NEVER moral to deliberately kill or maim innocents to further a political goal, no matter if it's a matter of attempting to gain one's own freedom, or a nation's freedom. There are plenty of ways to undermine a government or a military force without resorting to deliberate atrocity, and anyone who says there aren't is either a dyed-in-the-wool communist or a totally amoral monster.

 

[buckstopshere]

While using unconventional tactics against an enemy soldier may be considered "cheating" (SOF saying: "If you aren't cheatin' you aren't trying"), and it may be called various things like "cowardly" and "inhumane", direct actions against an enemy soldier aren't "terrorism".

DELIBERATELY targeting civilian noncombatants for killing, or taking civilian noncombatant hostages and putting them under threat of death, is using terror tactics.

Whoever coined the phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" had no moral compass to speak of. It is NEVER moral to deliberately kill or maim innocents to further a political goal, no matter if it's a matter of attempting to gain one's own freedom, or a nation's freedom. There are plenty of ways to undermine a government or a military force without resorting to deliberate atrocity, and anyone who says there aren't is either a dyed-in-the-wool communist or a totally amoral monster.

I understand what you're saying however, your running on the assumption that terrorism is defined the way in which your describing it, an attack on innocent civilians. There is no real definition of terrorist.

It was a terrorist attack at fort hood. It's a terrorist attack when an IED explodes on the side of the road hurting, maiming, or killing our soldiers. It was a terrorist attack on the USS Cole etc, etc, etc...all military targets labeled as acts of terrorism.

I define terrorism as a foe who terrorizes his enemy. A true SOB will use any means necessary including targeting civilians for death. Others will just target citizens in an attempt to enslave them.

And please don't speak about my moral compass, if you were implying me by my use of that phrase. You do not know me from anyone. You have no idea the works that I do and he standards by which I live my life.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I understand what you're saying however, your running on the assumption that terrorism is defined the way in which your describing it, an attack on innocent civilians. There is no real definition of terrorist.

It was a terrorist attack at fort hood. It's a terrorist attack when an IED explodes on the side of the road hurting, maiming, or killing our soldiers. It was a terrorist attack on the USS Cole etc, etc, etc...all military targets labeled as acts of terrorism.

I define terrorism as a foe who terrorizes his enemy. A true SOB will use any means necessary including targeting civilians for death. Others will just target citizens in an attempt to enslave them.

And please don't speak about my moral compass, if you were implying me by my use of that phrase. You do not know me from anyone. You have no idea the works that I do and he standards by which I live my life.

My comment was not addressed to you, most especially because I don't know you. However, I don't agree with your definition of terrorism. I don't see how any tactic of war can properly be called "terrorism" when it is aimed at a military force, no matter what those affected may choose to call it. Neither do I find it "cowardly" to strike stealthily at an enemy soldier or his logistical infrastructure, no matter what the enemy may say to maintain his morale. Shoot 'em, knife 'em, bomb 'em, burn 'em, bayonet 'em, whatever. Do it in the dark, in the day, when he's facing you, when his back is turned, etc. You get the picture. Just don't deliberately kill his children in their beds or on their school buses; don't blow up his children's schools; don't deliberately target his hospitals, shopping malls, theaters, and anywhere else civilian noncombatants may frequent. If innocent civilians die while you're blowing up or shooting up his convoy, that's a regrettable consequence of war. And for damn sure, don't commit atrocities on your own citizens to inflame them against the enemy.

 

[buckstopshere]

My comment was not addressed to you, most especially because I don't know you. However, I don't agree with your definition of terrorism. I don't see how any tactic of war can properly be called "terrorism" when it is aimed at a military force, no matter what those affected may choose to call it. Neither do I find it "cowardly" to strike stealthily at an enemy soldier or his logistical infrastructure, no matter what the enemy may say to maintain his morale. Shoot 'em, knife 'em, bomb 'em, burn 'em, bayonet 'em, whatever. Do it in the dark, in the day, when he's facing you, when his back is turned, etc. You get the picture. Just don't deliberately kill his children in their beds or on their school buses; don't blow up his children's schools; don't deliberately target his hospitals, shopping malls, theaters, and anywhere else civilian noncombatants may frequent. If innocent civilians die while you're blowing up or shooting up his convoy, that's a regrettable consequence of war. And for damn sure, don't commit atrocities on your own citizens to inflame them against the enemy.

Fair enough. Looks like we agree on a whole lot more than we don't, mostly just the terms used.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

STRATFOR has been posting an interesting series on Terrorism.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/dete...readmore&elq=35857bff3aa04167a1a730b97476391e

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/prac...readmore&elq=9f08056e216843f7966182ff2ca9f008

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/dete...readmore&elq=27474e2ecbf14ece931b14cc363662bf

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I'm thinking that this guy could probably answer any question you'd ever have about large jet aircraft .

9/11 Airplane Affidavit By John Lear, Son Of Learjet Inventor | Pakalert Press

The "jist" is this , he says the guberments story of what happened is BS .


"Big picture" wise , looking at all that has happened since 9/11 , the above story seems to confirm (at least circumstantially in my mind) what this man was saying about why we go to war , years ago .

Major General Smedley Butler USMC

"We the people" are getting lied to .

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm thinking that this guy could probably answer any question you'd ever have about large jet aircraft .

9/11 Airplane Affidavit By John Lear, Son Of Learjet Inventor | Pakalert Press

The "jist" is this , he says the guberments story of what happened is BS .


"Big picture" wise , looking at all that has happened since 9/11 , the above story seems to confirm (at least circumstantially in my mind) what this man was saying about why we go to war , years ago .

Major General Smedley Butler USMC

"We the people" are getting lied to .

I missed the part where he testified that he is an aeronautical engineer or a structural engineer.

And I also missed the part where a doctor says that I and about a million other people are blind or psychotic since we WATCHED THE SECOND JET FLY INTO THE BUILDING LIVE ON NATIONAL TELEVISION!

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I missed the part where he testified that he is an aeronautical engineer or a structural engineer.

And I also missed the part where a doctor says that I and about a million other people are blind or psychotic since we WATCHED THE SECOND JET FLY INTO THE BUILDING LIVE ON NATIONAL TELEVISION!

Maybe I missed something , did he testify that planes didn't fly into the buildings ?

 

[ATOMonkey]

He's a pilot. Of course he thinks he knows everything.

 

[repeter1977]

Really??? I have worked with the government, and its amazing to think that this could be planned AND pulled off as a conspiracy. Now, lets add into the fact that NO ONE has come forward and claimed to have been part of it. Come on. Really? No one on their death bed confessed? Yep, just must have been the best planned conspiracy in a lifetime, from the same government that CAN'T balance a check book and that most of you call a bunch of morons.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Maybe I missed something , did he testify that planes didn't fly into the buildings ?

He says a 767 didn't fly into the building and then details all the reasons why it couldn't have flown as fast as he says it did and why it couldn't have produced the damage it did. He also details why the hijackers couldn't have flown the plane (made a BUNCH of unwarranted assumptions in that part) and provided a bunch of (to me irrelevant) facts and figures.

The problem is that many of us saw the second airplane hit the Tower live on national TV, structural engineers have testified that it was the burning jet fuel and other combustibles that weakened the structural members which caused the Towers to collapse, and the appropriate aircraft types disappeared from ATC and never reappeared, nor is there any trace of the bodies turning up anywhere else, AND we have the evidence of the aircraft which flew into the Pentagon and Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

I can't come up with an analogy quite silly enough to explain how screwed up I think this guy's theory is.

 

[ATOMonkey]

He says a 767 didn't fly into the building and then details all the reasons why it couldn't have flown as fast as he says it did and why it couldn't have produced the damage it did. He also details why the hijackers couldn't have flown the plane (made a BUNCH of unwarranted assumptions in that part) and provided a bunch of (to me irrelevant) facts and figures.

The problem is that many of us saw the second airplane hit the Tower live on national TV, structural engineers have testified that it was the burning jet fuel and other combustibles that weakened the structural members which caused the Towers to collapse, and the appropriate aircraft types disappeared from ATC and never reappeared, nor is there any trace of the bodies turning up anywhere else, AND we have the evidence of the aircraft which flew into the Pentagon and Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

I can't come up with an analogy quite silly enough to explain how screwed up I think this guy's theory is.

<----- Mechanical Design Engineer, Gas Turbine Engines

He's just flat out wrong on all of his "structural" anlysis of both the engines and the building, and the airplane as well.

His analaysis of the engine operations, is by the book, but the engines are capable of WAAAAAAAY more than their cert. Also, he knows that "maximum" does not mean maximum in the airplane world. Maximum means maximum rated. So, he's being a bit dishonest.

The NIST findings, while appearing accurate, are the best guesses of people working for the government. So, take that for what it is worth.

I don't know how hard those things are to fly so I can't comment on that.

Was it a false flag operation?

What I do know as indisputable fact is that 2 large airplanes were flown into buildings, and the result of that crash caused them to collapse.

We also know for a fact, that one plane crashed into the Pentagon, and another crashed in a field.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

<----- Mechanical Design Engineer, Gas Turbine Engines

He's just flat out wrong on all of his "structural" anlysis of both the engines and the building, and the airplane as well.

His analaysis of the engine operations, is by the book, but the engines are capable of WAAAAAAAY more than their cert. Also, he knows that "maximum" does not mean maximum in the airplane world. Maximum means maximum rated. So, he's being a bit dishonest.

The NIST findings, while appearing accurate, are the best guesses of people working for the government. So, take that for what it is worth.

I don't know how hard those things are to fly so I can't comment on that.

Was it a false flag operation?

What I do know as indisputable fact is that 2 large airplanes were flown into buildings, and the result of that crash caused them to collapse.

We also know for a fact, that one plane crashed into the Pentagon, and another crashed in a field.

I took his affidavit to mean that it wasn't a 767 that flew into the building. Early in the thread there was a video link that showed unusual structural anomalies compared to a 767 and brought about questions about unusual flashes just prior to the planes hitting the buildings. That video seems to be unavailable now. Check out this link: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRC4lCQuBmc&feature=g-vrec&context=G27e6b5aRVAAAAAAAAAA[/ame]

I took this to mean that a normal, ordinary 767 was not what flew into the building.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I took his affidavit to mean that it wasn't a 767 that flew into the building. Early in the thread there was a video link that showed unusual structural anomalies compared to a 767 and brought about questions about unusual flashes just prior to the planes hitting the buildings. That video seems to be unavailable now. Check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRC4lCQuBmc&feature=g-vrec&context=G27e6b5aRVAAAAAAAAAA

I took this to mean that a normal, ordinary 767 was not what flew into the building.

Well, it's really hard to sneak a specially built 767 into the flight line of a commercial airline, so unless a different plane crashed than the one that took off, I have to chalk any "evidence" up as video anomoly.

Also, I can view vids here at work.

 

[Rocket]

Hoax or not, The war is raging. But in the absence of legitimate terrorists the government is manufacturing them. If you ever swore to defend the Constitution, you might be a terrorist. If you have any religious beliefs, you might be a terrorist. If you beleive in being prepaired for a disaster, you might be a terrorist. Have you noticed the new small military instillation near or in your towns? I just hope that when the DHSS starts a knocking they realize that their overlords are WRONG.

But as for me and my house we shall serve the Lord. And we swear to uphold and Defend the Constitution from ALL threats Foreign and DOMESTIC