Tom's Challenge #3 Winners
Well, my friends, I'm sorry this one was so easy. On the Captain Cook one I googled my own contest and it was a little more obscure and hence only one person got all the answers correct. This one took minutes. I will try to be more obscure in the future to keep it interesting. I will also post the rules of the game with each and every challenge.
So, as every person who submitted an answer got all of the answers correct we simply go in chronological order:
First place goes to Quilldancer
Second place goes to Brooke
and Third place is shared by Auntie Caryl and Bazza
But the one good thing is that I received comments from some of you that in the process of doing the homework, people were learning things. And that's what this is all about to me. Ho Chi Minh led his people through a war with Japan, then a war with France and then a war with the United States. The Vietnamese people prevailed in all of them. but at a loss of millions.
The most disconcerting part about that war was not that the US was wrong in its "Domino Theory" of communism. They couldn't be expected to see the future, even if it was a bit paranoic-- that was just being wrong on a political opinion. What was more disconcerting was that by all accounts, the United states fabricated an act of military agression against the United States in order to gain public support for a war.
Here is an excerpt from Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States that echoes something all to clearly...:
"The Tonkin "attack" brought a congressional resolution, passed unanimously in the House, and with only two dissenting votes in the Senate, giving Johnson the power to take military action as he saw fit in Southeast Asia.
Two months before the Gulf of Tonkin incident, U.S. government leaders met in Honolulu and discussed such a resolution. Rusk (Secretary of State) said, in this meeting, according to the Pentagon Papers, that "public opinion on our Southeast Asia policy was badly divided in the United States at the moment and that, therefore, the President needed and affirmation of support."
The Tonkin Resolution gave the President the power to initiate hostilities without declaration of war by Congress that the Consitution required. The Supreme Court, supposed to be the watchdog of the Constitution, was asked by a number of petitioners in the course of the Vietnam war to declare the war unconstitutional. Again and again, it refused to consider the issue."
Interesting if nothing else. But can we learn from past events? We bought 9/11 against some very disconcerting evidence. Will 9/11 go down as just being another thing created by our government to create a carte blanche for the president?
I haven't presented the disconcerting evidence yet, but who out there doubts that the government is capable of doing something like that to meet its ends?
Let the fur fly.
Peace. TOM
posted by Just Tom @ 7:57 PM
28 Comments
28 Comments:
I for one am having a hard time beleiving that no one has responded to this post, Tom! Are you saying you do believe there is some evidence (significant evidence, I would hope) that the US govmt may be behind the twin towers crumbling, crashing to the ground on Sept. 11, along with the loss of 1000s of American lives?
hmmmm Love ya, AC
"We bought 9/11 against some very disconcerting evidence." I ask the same question that auntie caryl is asking. Does this mean you believe our government orchastrated the attacks to get us into a war? Or are you trying to be contraversial to get a discuss going?
I think you're a brave man Tom, I can sense hackles rising in all corners. I shall keep returning with interest and look forward to what will hopefully be many rational comments.
I have heard the theory put forth that the U.S. govt knew 9/11 was coming, and for their own purposes didn't try to stop it. I have seen some creative interpreting of facts, but I have yet to see proof.
Retaliating to 9/11 isn't where I think the govt went wrong. I think the way they went about retaliating should have been given more thought, and I definately think the segue into Iran was over the top.
The U.S., a country that supposedly supportsd religious freedom world wide is smack in the middle of a holy war, and they are perpetrating the martyardom of people who live to die martyred for their cause. Hello?
For now, I'll just rephrase the question, leave the disconcerting evidence aside, and myself out of it for the moment and ask,"Do you think the US government incapable of perpetrating terrorism on their own soil to meet their own agenda, and if so why?"
Think of it like a murder trial. We don't like to think that a man killed his wife, but the spouse is always a suspect, especially if there is a large life insurance policy or land holdings in her name or what is referred to as "motivation." It happens all the time. So, again, you're the detective, on what basis is the US government incapable of doing such a thing, if indeed you think they are not. High moral standards, etc?
Let the fur fly
LOL, LOL, LOL Okay I get it now...you just want response, any, one way or the other. Okay, certainly, I do feel the government is capable of 'self mutilation' for the 'cause'. People in power trying to please other people in power for each of their own personal gains can and do get carried away. You, on your own, may realize and not act on a immoral, illegal idea. Spread that idea among your friends, encourgage and abet each other into thinking you have all the bases covered, you have all the questions answered that the layman hasn't even thought of asking. You will not get caught and 1st and foremost, above all else....It is for the good of the people (you have the ability to know this because you are a group of enlightened men, your knowledge surpasses that of the layperson by oh so very much!!)(which is another reason you can't throw it out there and have it voted on by the populace - they would never understand, with their lack of experience on 'how these things actually work')
No it is not inconceivable that a group of intelligent men can come up with a very 'unintelligent' potentially self destructive plan. One of the more well known examples being Watergate.
Much love, AC
Excellent feedback and points well made, expecially the reference to Watergate.
One of the things a detective does in considering a suspect, after establishing whether or not there is a motive is to look at their criminal record.
So, what is the United States record, if we were to put it into this context?
Could the govt do such a thing? Would it? As a collective, probably not, but -- as Caryl said -- a handful of the top echelon? Certainly.
Govt as a collective couldn't manage something like this because of the sheer numbers and the secrecy it would require. Someone would talk. The public would rebel.
A Small handful? Well, Watergate was a good example. Then there was the Iran-Conta Scandal. Speculation still abounds over which govt agency actually assassinated JFK. Each scandal seems to be worse than the last --so mass murder seems sadly inevitable at some point.
I believe any government is capable of anything if they are convinced it is for the "greater good". I also believe as much information is covered up as is released. It worries me considerably as to where it will all end and how little control I have over it.
Bazza: question: the greater good of whom? Halliburton? That's Cheney's Company. And let's not forget that Bush is in oil. Hmmm. The greater good.. do you mean the more noble idea of that as in the spreading of democracy and freedom throughout the world?
Not being facetious, as you might suspect, just want to know how you define that. Cheers and thanks for joining in.
Bazzmaster, I just noticed your quotation marks around "greater good," which leads me to believe you were perhaps being somehwat facetious yourself. It's funny how you learn to get tone (and sometimes you're wrong) from the way people write something. I still refuse to use all the smiley face stuff, though.
I agree with Quilly. I think some people could convince themselves that taking out 3000 Americans would be a sacrifice to the "greater good." But I don't think they could keep it a secret. If the secret was confined to a few, they wouldn't have the manpower to carry it off. If more people werre involved, it couldn't be kept a secret. Using the examples given, they did not remain a secret.
I be more likely to believe they had forknowledge of the attacks and allowed them to happen, but I don't think they'd be able to keep that a secret either.
I don't think conspiracies can get too large or go on for very long. They can't maintain themselves after a certain level. They more people involved, the greater the disruption, the more likely it is to collapse.
Another theory of investigation is that many things are probable, but the simplest answer that covers the majority of the evidence, is usually the answer.
QD and Goldennib, very well stated and precisely how I felt after 9/11, to the letter. Then... I came across an interesting documentary called Loose Change, 2nd Edition.
I think that if you guys are interested in pursuing this conversation to the next level you would need to give that a watch and then tell me how you feel about it. Though obviously biased, it gives some evidence that is really hard to explain. Not all of it mind you and please let me state that my jury is still out. However, it's worth a watch.
Type loose change into google and you'll see what all the ruckus is about. Go to the website and give it a watch. Tell me your critique.
Will do and get back to you.
Too tired to be coherent. Maybe tomorrow .... g'night.
Right 2nd time Tom, and as for smiley faces, I'm with you on that one.
Hi Tom:
I have not had a chance to watch the video yet. I've browse the site, but will watch this weekend.
I have read the Wikipedia entry regarding the video. Have you read that yet?
Thanks for the tip, goldennib, I did go to Wikipedia and read the stuff there. Some really good rebuttals and criticisms.
Please note that I am not promoting this film, only suggesting you watch it and pick it apart yourself. There are many, many things in that film that the criticism didn't even touch on and of course I haven't seen all of the criticism. It is interesting to dig into it. My jury is still out.
Tom, give this topic it's own post and a few more folks might comment.
I have watched the first 15 minutes this morning (I will continue later, I must do family stuff now) but I wanted to make some initial comments.
1. This video already smacks of propaganda and not documentary.
2. The intoduction is heavy on sensational music, images and comments, all taken out of context.
3. It is using ideas as proof of actions. Because someone had the idea to do things doesn't mean they actually happened. It's like saying murder mystery writers have actually committed murders because murders happened.
4. The images and comments in this first portion are not credited.
5. Comments by eye witnesses who are in a state of shock, need seperate verification and should not be accepted as the only proof.
As I said, I will come back later to do more watching.
And I think Quilly's idea is a good one.
Great comments, and critical eye on that documentary. Yeah, my inital response was that it was somewhat sophomoric and probably produced by, well, young people (but let's not forget that young, revolutionary minded people have made some pretty big contributions, historically). But there are a few assertions--they make many-- that are of interest. Watch the rest of it, I'll go ahead and watch it again myself and then maybe we can go point by point. I am considering making a post about this but really enjoy doing this analysis with you intelligent people on the down low. Wanna keep my job, you know...land of free. right.
Yeah, we do need to be careful, as always. None of us are as free as we would like to believe.
I'd like a transcript of the video. While watching the rest (and my jury is definitely still out because I have not seen the whole thing) I will try to make notes and search for a transcript. If anyone knows of one, let me know.
And I agree, Tom, that the passion and insight of young people are very important. They have a lack of fear of death and a thinking out of the box mentality that is key for everyone's growth.
I am trying to overlook the things I consider generational qualities and have no real bearing on truth.
When I look at something critically, I consider source: what is the data, where did it come from, is it complete and how is it presented. I always seperate out any emotional content; that only tells me of the passion of the presenters.
Morals? I don't think I've heard that word associated with the media in quite sometime.
So, goldennib, as the only person other than Cindra and I (no one else has acknowledged having seen it yet, anyway)who has seen it, do you agree that though a lot of it is out of context quotes and sensationalized, there are a few things in there, at least, (or yet to be satisfactorily countered) that were a little disconcerting?
Okay, Tom, I just spent an hour and a half listening to "Loose Change."
I still think a conspiracy of this size would be impossible to keep quiet. Somebody would have broken under the pressure and the guilt by now. Do I think the govt. is covering something up? Yes, and I have from the beginning. Do I think the govt capitalized on 9/11? Big time.
I also think G'dubya is a meglomaniac bent on bringing about Armeggedon. I do not think he is a Christian, but I do think he is a religious fanatic -- and potentially more destructive than then any Muslim terrorists.
I did some googling while listening to "Loose Change," and most of the experts sited for as support have links to the video and each other. They are a unit -- perhaps a "conspiracy team" themselves?
The only evidence I found in the least bit compelling was from the Pentagon ... the missing wings and engines. Where are they? Cordite could have destroyed the plane. Cordite's job is to vaporize metal, but if the plane wings didn't hit the building, where did they go?
As to the explosions in the Twin Towers and the gold -- I suspect a different kind of conspiracy. I believe there were bombs, I believe there was to be a robbery, and I believe those involved in the robbery were dupped into helping the terrorists. Now they are dead -- all of them -- and that's how you effectively contain a conspiracy -- kill all the participants.
I think the cover up isn't that our government planned the attack, but that govt personnel did participate in it for their own ends and to meet their own monetary agendas. I don't think our govt wants us to know how corrupt those supposedly protecting us were. ause we'd want to take a closer look at the rest.)
And Bush's Homeland Security has bothered me from the beginning. Does no one remember McCarthyism?
I have just finished watching the entire video.
They do raise some interesting questions, which I will take seriously. If you want to keep this going, I will treat it as an investigation. I haven't had a particularlly good mental challenge in a while. I will pop back, off and on, as i work my way through it, if that's ok with you.
I plan on stepping through the video in a very systematic way and searching for the "proofs" that the video presents.
I will be doing some freeze frames and photo comparisons. I will be looking for sources and independant experts on subjects they bring up.
And most importantly, I will use what I know of the world after experiencing 48 years of what is possible in this odd little voyage we call life (sorry, I've had a couple of glasses of Sunday Afternoon Merlot.)
I looked at the footage of the buildings collapsing and while they do look similar to a controlled demolition, they don't look exactly the same. As for the additional "explosions," I want to look into what other this could have been in the building to explain them, besides bombs.
I'd like to know how they think 200+ people can be hidden in Ohio, without anyone else knowing? I'd like to know who they think would shoot a missile at the Pentagon and not crack from guilt?
I think the Bushes are a filthy, dirty lot. The boys are particularly dangerous because they are not as smart as their fatherand yet they are more fanatical. And because of these qualities, I don't think they could head a conspiracy. But they could be dupes. Others behind the scenes, would have the intelligence and ability, but this is a HUGE conspiracy we are talking about, and I have doubts as to the containment of such a bohemoth.
I have to look more closely at the Osama footage. At first glance, it appears to be someone else, but there is one frame where the angles match, that suggests to me that it's the way the film was made, which is a completely different angle from any of the stills.
The whole thing is intriguing. I will treat it as a research paper. This could be interesting.
Goldennib,
You are treating this exactly as I am. I started re-watching with pad and paper so that I could take notes on the parts that did intrique me and research them, but got interrupted so many times (three kid at home this weekend) that I haven't got it done. Let's treat it like a collective research project and either tear this thing apart or get at how this could be true. Either way it's good exercise.
I think all of us so far on this commentary agree that it seems implausible that such a huge conspiracty could exist without leakage, but it's truly hard to know what to think. Many of the conspirators could have been executed or been duped into being in the building when this thing went down. Still, awfully risky from a coordinating standpoint.
So, let's pick this thing apart and see what does reveal itself with time. If there was a conspiracy, maybe someone will crack.
it is intriguing though.
Here are two websites that say they have transcripts and commentary, pro and con, reguarding Loose Change:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home