And such are the cheap and transient benefits of suitably vague arguments.
So why exactly did you mention “suspicious”, “a new Pearl harbor” and “The Project for a New American Century” in the same sentence and entirely within the context of 911 conspiracy?
Who are they, what did they want, what happened 2 months after *they *came in to power and most importantly, how do you know?
Either you just sprang into existence one month ago or you have been living under a rock for quite some time.
Or you know perfectly well what persons I am talking about and I am at a loss why you would ask such a silly question.
Still waiting for you to provide conclusive (compelling even) evidence that the US government and/or its representatives were involved in or contributed to acts of terrorism on US soil.
Here:
This is evidence of what exactly?
I see this thread will get bogged down by refuting claims of Truthers. That’s to be expected from Truthers, I suppose.
In any event, re: “New Pearl Harbor” —
Someone who comes upon the corpse of a person who was obviously murdered is a horrible person if they riffle through the person’s clothes looking for valuables. But that doesn’t mean that they killed that person, especially when all forensic evidence shows that he didn’t.
That the phrase was used in the PNAC manifesto, I make no other claims. Just wanted to post it and get it out of the way so the conversation could move on.
But that’s a little too accountable though, isn’t it, Latro? Perhaps we should look to your non-commital and allusory language for the cause of people not ‘getting’ you.
Tell me, when most people respond to you with arguments of stupidity and silly questions, do you not ever think you’re perhaps just a little too learned for these boards?
Anyway, I do have an idea but it is as vague as you’ve allowed it to be.
You said the people who needed a new Pearl Harbor got one a couple of (two) months after they came into power. If we take ‘a new Pearl Harbor’ to represent the day of 911, then who exactly came into power two months before that? Admittedly, this could have been resolved as a nitpick but as I do not know for definite who you are talking about, or either I missed something important in July 2001 while living under my rock, how can one be expected to address your premise without asking a silly question?
Something else that I feel needs clearing up is the ownership of the Project for a New American Century, which had in fact been in existence since 2007, long before they came into power. Yet you claim it was their project? How so if someone else was in power when it was created?
Lastly, I’m sure you can explain how you know what they wanted without palming it off as a silly question?
If it wasn’t written down in RAD (because yes, I agree, that would be a stupid argument), then how do you know and why the need to mention Pearl Harbor?
Ah. Got it.
You really are all over the place …
So, you admit you did indeed know exactly who I meant by “they”.
What then is your problem with:
It wasn’t not vague to you at all. The statement is quite clear; I am suspicious of the coincedence.
You got it, other people got it, so what are you trying to get out of your accusations of vagueness and other insinuations?
You want me to to hand over absolute proof that “they” organised 911 or else I have no right to be suspicious? You can just slap on the label “TRUTHER”, point and laugh.
In your world, does this somehow constitute a sufficient answer to those suspiscions?
Do you think it’s just a big coincedence?
How many “Pearl Harbors” have we had the last couple of decades?
Yes. I would love to see some credible evidence that shows the US gov’t “organized 911”. Exra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. But in this case, I’ll settle for simply credible.
No. I think it’s completely unrelated.
None. What are you talking about?
[QUOTE=Latro]
How many “Pearl Harbors” have we had the last couple of decades?
[/QUOTE]
Given that in Latro-speak, the eight months between Dubya’s inauguration and 9/11 constituted “a couple” of months, the correct answer to his question is clearly one: the actual Pearl Harbor, which happened a couple of decades ago in 1941.
Yes, such are the consequences of a suitably vague argument.
No, not exactly, Latro. Mostly because the ‘they’ I’m thinking of didn’t come into power two months before 911, as you inferred. I do have a good idea but I’m currently researching major events of July 2001 before I commit to an answer.
Ah, you did it again. For the third time of asking, who exactly came into power just a couple of months before 911?
No names, dodgy timescale, reference to an irrelevant statement in a report about improving America’s military capability, mention of a now defunct educational organisation without any reason. Yes, as an argument that’s apparently supposed to convince us that not all truthers are nut-jobs, it’s pretty vague, Latro.
If you were simply suspicious of the coincidence, fair enough. It’s the justification of that suspicion that is problematic i.e. the inexplicable parroting of the requisite for a new Pearl Harbor.
You have every right to be suspicious. I certainly do not have the authority nor the inclination to say otherwise. I can however pursue your reasons for suspicion to demonstrate that your argument, as a whole, is unnecessary in this instance.
I’ve no desire to point and laugh at you.
Making a clear connection between the PNAC and 911 would be a good start. Simply repeating “a new Pearl Harbor” is vague and of little if any use.
Why a big coincidence, Latro? Why the loaded question?
If the coincidence is a terrorist attack and a change of presidency occurring in the same year then yes, of course it’s a coincidence. If a terrorist attack happens on American soil it’s going to happen in someone’s presidency, isn’t it?
If you’re asking me judge coincidence based on anything said in your initial argument, then forget it - I can’t even make sense of it.
Apart from the fact there has only been one Pearl Harbor, ever, I still don’t get why you keep mentioning it.
Please explain the pertinence of Pearl Harbor to me in this context.
I wasn’t, of course. Just illustrating a point.
So, you are hinging your argument, that I am being vague, on the fact that “a couple”= 2 and that for the life of you you can’t figure out what is meant by “another Pearl Harbor”.
What do you mean what do I mean what do you mean?.. :smack:
Just so I’m clear, are you suggesting that Pearl Harbor was also an inside job?
“Pearl Harbor” is like “Aloha”; it means “sneak attack” *and * “massive government conspiracy.”
I am often reminded of how racist many of these conspiracy theories are. White Americans are capable of the most intricate coordination and coverups, but those Japanese or Middle Easterners could never have simply outsmarted us. We must have been controlling the whole thing all along, really.
What? Where do you get that from??