"I watched the youtube and I wonder why all these people don't pool their own resources and pay for their own investigation?"

Unless it's financed by the US government it's not an official finding.

And these investigations cost hundreds of millions of dollars:

"However, the cost of investigating Clinton cost $110 million ..."
http://www.techimo.com/forum/1692972-post38.html

"Politics make strange bedfellows." This is an unavoidable consequence due to ambitions predicated on the urge to overcome or destroy one`s adversary without any consideration for future consequences. Nazi Germany and Communist Russia signed and ratified a peace agreement between themselves during WWII. As to the US relationship between Sadaam and our government, there were far fewer military and economic ties with Iraq than there were with European countries and the USSR. Sadaam`s military and his WMD programs were provided by European suppliers; his oil customers were Europe and Japan. Sadaam was a master manipulater who even found a way around the Oil for Food program to divert funds for re arming.

The truth as revealed from past terrorist groups is that the Left Wing radicals have been sympathetic to Islamic terrorist ie radical Islamic extremists quite frequently in the past. These ties can not be disputed. The events which led up to the invasion of Iraq were among other things, the discovery that Sadaam was funding suicide bombers killing Israelis inside Israel. After twelve years of maintaining no fly zones(because of Sadaam`s chemical attacks etc.) the US made a decision to overthrow Sadaam; our frenemies in Europe were back door dealing with Sadaam and it was time to end that shit.Europe dropped the ball; having ambitions of their own to expand the EU empire by offering Eu membership to former communist countries under control of the Soviet empire, they soon found themselves pinched by both Russian and Islamic opponents within and without; bombing and invading Serbia on the side of Islam fucked Both Europe and the United States Royally. Islam, expressed as a theocracy came out the clear winner as evidenced by paramilitary groups still operating in the region blowing things up, destroying churches and executing soldiers and civillians alike from Macedonia to Russia; meanwhile, with Saudi oil profits brand new Mosques are springing up with religious schools which teach Wahabbism to the students. The United States enjoys the buffer offered by two oceans which allows a greater degree of containment against the proliferation of violence from both the Left and the Right Wing extremes, neither of which has been received with open arms; more to the point, they usually end up getting their asses handed to them by Americans unwilling to take heed to their obvious excesses. Not so on the European continent where Nazis and communists have been going at each other since the Roaring Twenties. Today, the entire shitfest is gathering momentum again with Russia preparing once again for war against the West, using Iran as one would use a pawn on a Chess board. This time around, I hope the USA stays out of the European theater altogether and establishes diplomatic relationships with the winner.

Intervention in Iraq
Ralph Zuljan



International interest in Iraq prior to the US-led intervention in 2003 arose from the exceptional status this country occupied in the decade since the Gulf War 1991. At the conclusion of that conflict, the United Nations (UN) imposed severe limits on Iraqi sovereignty. How best to bring about an end to its exceptionality was a widely discussed topic and the United States, a permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC), held the opinion that nothing less than a regime change could justify an end to Iraqi exceptionality. The fact that none of the other UNSC members seriously proposed ending Iraq's exceptional status, so long as Saddam Hussein continued to rule, suggests all permanent members agreed to some extent with the American opinion. The Bush administration made a concerted effort to build an international consensus on a forcible regime change in Iraq.

Initial American efforts to build a coalition to support a military intervention in Iraq were based on allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that the Baathist regime had ties to Al Quida. Neither assertion was widely accepted within the UNSC. However, all the discussion pointed to the fact that while there a great deal of disagreement over the means, there was a general consensus at the UNSC for a change of government in Iraq in order to end Iraq's special status. The disagreement at the UNSC was over the means to bring about a regime change, there was general agreement on a need for a regime change.

Obviously, war or a UN sanctioned military intervention was an option on the table but it did not have even majority support within the Security Council, much less the unanimous consent of the permanent members. But what other options existed? Hope for a revolution in Iraq, still the most widely preferred solution, seemed unrealistic by 2002. The status quo established at the end of the Gulf War had already been in place for a decade. No reasonable observer expected the Baathists to lose control of Iraq, within the limits of Iraqi sovereignty imposed after the Gulf War. However, there seemed to be growing interest in ending the exceptional status of Iraq within the UNSC. The case for war then, spearheaded by the USA but supported by other countries as well, can be seen as the only realistic option available to resolve the exceptional status of Iraq and re-establish unlimited sovereignty.



The failure of the Bush administration to secure broad support for a military intervention was evident in the lack of a new UNSC resolution on Iraq. American determination to press ahead regardless resulted in the ad hoc creation of the "coalition of the willing" and a unilateral decision to intervene in Iraq on the basis of the existing Security Council resolutions. The United States rationalized its military intervention on this basis as a result of its claims that Iraq continued to possess WMDs and had ties to Al Quida terrorist network while also asserting its rights to defend itself from this perceived threat to US security. Within the context of the UN system the unilateral decision by the US was completely legitimate.

For some time, there was a great deal of debate about the legitimacy of the US-led intervention in Iraq. However, the United States carried out its military intervention in accordance with the expectations of the UN Charter and operated within the bounds of international legitimacy. It is worth noting that no UN member state ever formally questioned American actions within the confines of the United Nations. The debate about the legitimacy of the coalition invasion of Iraq was essentially carried out for public consumption and not diplomatically significant. Governments of most member states were probably relieved that the problem of Iraq had been resolved even if they could not formally condone American unilateralism.

A great deal of the Iraq problem arose from inability to agree on a legitimate means to the end of bringing about a regime change in Iraq. Although the UNSC wanted an end to the Baathist dictatorship in order to restore Iraqi sovereignty, it could not find a legitimate means to arriving at this goal. Most UNSC members balked at the evidence provided by the US administration as justification for a military intervention in Iraq. It was fairly transparent, even at the time, that the goal of such action was to affect a regime change in Iraq. Indeed, after the American fait accompli failed to produce any convincing evidence of WMDs or Baathist links to Al Quida, American officials began to publicly emphasize the removal of Saddam as a consequence of the intervention. This would have been indefensible in the UN system as a casus belli. http://www.onwar.com/articles/0604.htm

The truth about the war in Iraq is very simple; while members of the UN Security Council publicly criticize the USA, they have continually issued signed and ratified mandates authorizing US military intervention since before the first bomb hit a target inside Iraq in 2003. It is part and parcel of global politics to throw bones at dogs like you to give them something to chew on while quietly supporting an accomplishment which was needed.

Here you go ya dumb pooch; chew on this bone. What you say can easily be trumped by what you hide.

U.N. extends mandate for force in Iraq

Edith M. Lederer Associated Press


The resolution was adopted in response to a request from Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari for the U.S.-led force to remain in the country.

The current mandate authorizing the presence of the force expires on Dec. 31, about two weeks after parliamentary elections -- the end point of the political process as defined by the Security Council.

The resolution extends the mandate until Dec. 31, 2006, with a review after eight months. Under its terms, the council will "terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the government of Iraq."

The force comprises 157,000 American troops and 22,000 troops from other countries.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton called the unanimous vote "a significant signal that the international community's committed to making the process in Iraq -- as they attempt to create institutions of representative government -- succeed."

Bolton said the resolution was adopted nearly two months early because its sponsors wanted "to show the solidarity of international support for the electoral process in Iraq and to avoid it becoming an issue in the upcoming election."

After the vote, Iraqi U.N. Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie thanked council members for their backing, saying the upcoming election and formation of a new government are vital interests of the international community.

"Failure would be too awful to contemplate and would represent a threat to regional and international peace," he said.

Al-Jaafari had requested the yearlong extension in a letter to the council last month. He said his nation was nearing the end of a political transition that began with the toppling of Saddam Hussein by U.S.-led forces in 2003.

When the multinational force might be able to leave remains a major question for the council -- and its key troop contributors.

On Oct. 29, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote a letter to the council saying "substantial progress" has been made to build and train Iraqi security forces and allow them to take on more security responsibilities. She said she expects more progress in the next year.

"Together, we will build towards the day when the Iraqi forces assume full responsibility for the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq," she wrote.

Bolton stressed to the council, however, that "there is still much work to be done on that front."

Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry urged U.N. member states, especially Iraq's neighbors, to help keep terrorists and their weapons and financing out of Iraq, while Russian ambassador Andrey Denisov emphasized the resolution's respect for Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

In Egypt, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan denounced the insurgents, saying they had a strategy to turn Muslims "not only against the West but against each other."

He said, however, that Iraq's bloody insurgency was inevitable following the U.S.-led invasion.

"Opinions among Iraqis differed widely, as they still do, about the reasons for the foreign military presence in their country," Annan said in a speech at the American University in Cairo.

"It was foreseeable that some would choose to resist by force of arms."

The resolution also extended the mandates for the International Advisory and Monitoring Board and the Development Fund for Iraq until Dec. 31, 2006. The fund was set up in Baghdad to receive Iraq's oil revenue and frozen assets from Saddam's regime. It is now controlled by the Iraqi government.

The board was established by the Security Council in May 2003 to oversee the fund's operations. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20051109/ai_n15842160

UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the mandate of the nearly 180,000-strong multinational force in Iraq for a year, a decision the United States called a strong sign of the international commitment to Iraq's political transition.

Well I`ll be dipped in shit; when the Security Council votes unanimously everytime the mandate is renewed, it means the bones they throw at dogs like you are essentially a diversionary tactic. Am I laughing at you? Ten four pooch! Want another bone pooch?

link

NIST's explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11th follows the logic in the cartoon above.

Specifically, NIST claims that the collapse of building 7 is "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building".

But then goes on to argue:

"The fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event"

In fact, the fires in WTC 7 were orders of magnitude less than other high-rise fires, which did not produce collapses.

Debunking NIST's Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel

The US government is still lead by the very same people who did the first inestigation so chances are the second official inquiry will yield the same results.

So why waste another 100 million on another investigation?

Another pile of people will not be happy and will demand further investigation etc....

All for what?

Would the Germans have done anything different if they saw Hitler burn down the Reistag on televison. I doubt it.

Every single human being on Earth knows George Bush lied America into an unjust war and the Americans elected him to a second term with their eyes wide open.

Even today the McCain Republicans are in the running for the Presidency. Go figure.

Thats a stretch Chris... It is fairly clear that at least one of those elections were rigged. I personally don't consider that "elected him to a second term with their eyes wide open".

I think you might have a stronger argument to suggest the first election was rigged. Al Gore was cheated.

I read somewhere on Lew Rockwell about Lyndon Johnson. A remark about rigging elections abroad during his Presidency was spiced with the fact that Jonhson had been rigging elections for 30 years before he got to the Big chiar.

And when you think about it, there hasn't been an unrigged election in American history, likely the history of the world.

Kind of makes you think about the value of your vote eh?

"If voting worked, it would be illegal"

G..you say you go by linking events together, and timelines and such.. but.. um.. 9/11 spawned the war in Afghanistan.. not Iraq.. we didnt go into Iraq immediately after 9/11.. you're thinking of Afghanistan..

Most of the people on this forum (most liberal, a must assume..) seem to want to leave that little tidbit out all together.. why is that? Because it doesnt fit into your little theory..

Some of us watched the attacks with our own eyes, we arent coming back years later and watching cropped up youtube videos with some ominous voice over, or hard to read text on the screen and making claims based on rhetoric.

There is all kinds of motive for the goverment to do alot of horric things.. it doesnt mean they'll do it. Im not one to blindly trust what my government tells me, but im also far less likely to believe the shit I see on the internet.

The internet IS one of the last great bastions of free speech left in the world.. but its also a breeding ground of ignorance. Any moron with any bullshit idea can get on the internet and start spouting crap. Alot of people are very good at making the completely irrational sound compelely sain and possible. Its what script writers and screenplay artists have been doing since the very first play was performed..

We also need to ask our selves what Americans enemies have to gain, from coming back and making it look like we did it to ourselves.. Right after 9/11 there was so much unity in country spawned it was breath taking. "united we stand" was printed on EVERYTHING. And now.. years afterwards, here comes all this inside job crap.. Trying to turn the United States citizens against their own government and letting it tear them down from the inside.. sounds like a pretty genious battle plan to me.. esspecially from a network of small countries without the resources to launch any real invasion.

No one seems to want to think that road though.. We've had decades of movies portraying our government as the 'bad guy' and we have had a good number of politicians that turned out to be corrupt and greedy in the end, so we have been being prepared for this as a society for awhile now. So now here they come with the 'real deal'. Holy god the movies just came true and here our government is, killing thousands of its own citizens for OIL! OhNOEZ!! ...but wait.. we didnt attack iraq's oilfields.. <.< We attacked the mountains of Afghanistan.. Oh yeah.. when we went into Iraq, we werent attacking oil companies and oil fields.. we were attacking Saddams troups.. Oh yeah.. we didnt rape thier economy, we're trying to help get their government put back in place (after removing a murderous dictator) and the big threat to that? THE TERRORIST AND EXTREMEST AND LEFTOVER GUARD STILL EXECUTING SUICIDE ATTACKS AGAINST --CIVILIAN-- TARGETS, as well as military. Saddam raped his countries economy long before we showed up.. we try to help and get blamed for his mess.. maybe we didnt find the weapons we were looking for.. doesnt mean he didnt move them out of the country.. Oh wait.. what was that report about Serbia harboring them for him? I mean.. I've gone through the better part of my adult life seeing him saluting and waving in a balcony, with truckloads warheads, and missiles. I've watched the news reports of Sadaam tesing biological agaents on his own people.. and then he can just up and say "I dont have anything." I'd go look for that report but Daniel would just claim I didnt say anything or answer anything so whats the point?

We must learn to look past screen again.. We hear all the time, you can always believe what you read.. and the same has come to hold true with video. We must learn to do this research again.. WITHOUT THE INTERNETZ AND GOOGLE TELLING US WHERE TO LOOK. Google is a Billion dollar a year company that makes its money making information available at the stroke of a key.. but how do you think that info is so easy to find? KEYWORDS. Any and every search engine works with keywords/phrases. you can find any website that will swear up and down that anything is as true as the day is long..

I am in great fear when I look at where we are headed as a people, when so many can be made to believe anything just by putting together a few smart sounding articles on the internet.. and then in no time you've got books and movies and experts and confessions coming out of the wood work..


After looking over several of the rooms in the socializing lounge.. i think i'll stick to the grow rooms.. too many 'Me too!'ers in here for me.. all these "facts" being tossed around that arent facts at all..

I dont know if Im smoking the wrong weed, or if its just cause I wasnt raised by a bunch of leftwing hippies or if its just that I've truely been the only mother fucker awake for the last 20 years, or if im the only guy paying attention to what my politicans are actually DOING, instead of letting other retards try and TELL me what they're doing but.. Im really feel like im surrouned by a bunch of retards in here.. (im sorry to the few sain ones.. really I am.. Im speaking in general terms here)

I came CC because I was looking for a community to share my love of cannabis and maybe talk about some ideals but I come in here and im so outnumbered by far leftwingers and "Me Too!" hacks that its hard to breath.. and it makes me fear for the future of our WORLD if this is all the COMMON SENSE the youth of our WORLD has..

"and it makes me fear for the future of our WORLD if this is all the COMMON SENSE the youth of our WORLD has.. "

This is a peer reviewed evaluation of 9/11 ... what about it doesn't convince you it was an inside job?

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/04/374838.shtml

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM





The "common sense" you speak of seems to me to be what you call the conspiracy theorists:

140+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
530+ Engineers and Architects
120+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
280+ Professors Question 9/11
210+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
160+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html