I am wondering where people would vote on this proposition:

The Official 9/11 Report was flawed but at this point it is better for the US government to act in accordance with its conclusions and
recommendations instead of opening a new US Government investigation into the causes of 9/11.


I disagree with this proposition, but am curious as to what others think.

The reason I post this is because I notice so much debate on here about one of the alternative conspiracy theories on this forum, but almost never do
I see a take it or leave it type of evalution on the government's conspiracy theory.

"Better" FOR WHOM?

Bush and his handlers?

The people?

It is improper to say "the US Government", since the vast majority consists
of loyal people following orders. If the "government" was involved, name
the criminals within it...not just the patriotic workers doing their bidding.

Jack

Absolutely not. Though, of course, there never was and will never be a real investigation by the US government into 911. That would never do. A real investigation and its conclusions and recommendations would be altogether different from the pulp fiction that was printed. Most of the recommendations are just a full blown police state green light. Total information control. Orwell's 1984 on steroids. ( http://grumet.net/911/recommendations.html ) The whole report is more than flawed. It is a travesty of the truth and if I was a US citizen I would be insulted that the government thought me sooooo stooopid. But given that my own government considers itself a US poodle (and so we cop the consequences too) I feel I can have a say in this.

If the report was flawed then the conclusions are too. Why implement recommendations based on flawed conclusions?

The whole thing was created by US policies. Even if you just start at the arbitrary place (ignoring the very large elephant in the room - Israel) of US creation and funding ( http://www.proxsa.org/resources/9-11/Brzez...5-interview.htm ) of the mujahideen used to fight a proxy war in Afghanistan first against the Afghan government then against the Soviet forces that were INVITED by the Afghan government to help them in their fight against US terrorism on Afghan territory. What was so bad about the Afghan government that the US conducted a terror campaign against it? They wanted land reform. To distribute the land amongst all the Afghans not just a few feudal families who had it all. They wanted free education for both boys and girls. Illiteracy was 90%. 600 schools were opened. Now there's something subversive for you. Trade unions. Lower working hours. Higher wages. Life expectancy of 35 years. Free health care was established. Banned forced marriages for women. Universal sufferage. Abolition of debt bondage. Nothing there that most of us on this forum would not take for granted in our own lives but was unacceptable to the US. Once again the US supported the rights of feudal male elites and fought every democratic policy the Afghan government tried to introduce. Other sources of funding for this suppression and undermining of democratic and human rights came from the bastion of freedom and democracy (and the good friend of the US) Saudi Arabia whose own royal parasites no doubt felt vulnerable. And, of course, the US would never have been motivated by the loss of their poppy fields either.

Leaving aside the whole issue of whether or not the US was an active participant in 911 or just let things happen that day their own conspiracy theory says that 19 hijackers motivated by Islamic fundamentalism flew planes into these buildings. The US has done more than any other country in the world to promote Islamic fundamentalism. In the first place by nurturing and funding it and then by inflaming their sensibilities (support of Israel against Palestinian people, bases in Saudi Arabia etc) So when the chickens came home to roost in the guise of American and United Airlines hijacked flights why be surprised? When the World Trade Centre was bombed (by the FBI but blamed on Muslim 'terrorists') in 1993 hundreds of calls were received from different groups all claiming responsibility. There are a lot of people out there somewhere real angry with US policies. Those policies do not serve the interests of the US people but do serve the interests of some especially those who profit from the MIC. Follow the money.

The US policies that lead to terrorism are not now nor will they ever be on the table for change or even debate. Too much money to be made by some.

==========

The people of course.

I did not say the US Government in the context of involvement in the conspiracy itself, but rather in the context of accepting following its recommendations and accepting its conclusions. In this context there are so many different departments involved, as well as the Legislative Branch, that I don't know of a better term.

We can make a poll here, if you like.

One recommendation that was implemented was a national intelligence director. I remain mystified that the CIA, whose director was top dog in U.S. intelligence, allowed Congress, which it has long controlled so efficiently, to pass such legislation. One more unanswered question about 9/11.



The purpose was to set what Carter's adviser Brzenski (sp) called the "Afghan trap," to lure Russia into the fight and thus give Russia "its own Vietnam." Which raises another unanswered question, which is why the peace-loving Carter signed off on this human slaughter business. Was he scared into complying by the "assassination attempt" in Los Angeles?

Given the spectacular uselessness of the intelligence service in general and in particular their failure to foresee 911 or even the end of the Soviet Union/Cold War instead of setting up yet another intellegence apparatus they should dismantle them all and put all the spooks to good use dismantling cluster bombs. Save themselves a lot of money too.



Yes, Carter's actions are interesting and it is uncharacteristic. The Soviets really didn't want to go into Afghanistan. They knew it would likely not go well.

Yes please. Jack will guard the guardians, which is fine by me!

If anyone would like to suggest a clarification in the wording of the proposition, that might also be constructive.

I can't make a poll within the thread, so I have started a new poll. Let me know if you are unhappy with the question and / or choices.