The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

Thumbs up. Now discredit the fifty other sources on that link please. :-)

Thanks, but there are a lot more than fifty that would disagree with your sources.

Hmmm, now I know what they mean by Shrill.

Get off your high horse and read some.

Tell me again how the decision to invade another nation was made after the attack on the twin towers.

Or was that decision already made, and needed only an act of outrage to convince the populace?

The only one around here who is shrill is you, and you're the one on the high horse. You're making claims you can't substantiate. Far from claiming that no one thought of invading Iraq until after the September 11th attacks, i have, including in this thread, pointed out that PNAC had an invasion of Iraq as a part of their agenda at least as early as 1997. That's not at all the same as that bullshit you posted to the effect that the decision to invade Iraq (calling for an invasion when you're not in government, and deciding to do it when you are are two entirely different things) was "stitched up" within hours of the the attacks.

Get back to me when you've actually got some reliable evidence for your bullshit claims and not some shrill conspiracy theory hysteria, 'K?

You know, I really enjoy your posts, Setanta.

Even these ones where the spittle is flying all over your keyboard.

Where you and I differ is, I don't take this personally.

I'm not about to cross swords with you on the keyboard. Merely providing some information that you either read, or don't read.

Your choice. Some very esteemed members of American heritage commenting on what is a very American scenario.

Take it or leave it.

"Spittle flying all over my keyboard?" This is typical of your posting style. You don't have any sound argument, so you resort to remarks intended to discredit your opponent with an implication of anger. There's nothing about conspiracy hysteria such as yours which makes me angry, i just find it pathetic. Your arguments are all over the road, you can't follow a train of thought for even two consecutive posts, and your "evidence" doesn't even necessarily address you claims. Take for example your reference to Wesley Clark. He questions the quality of intelligence before the event. Nothing in what he says for a moment suggests the complicity of anyone other than the obvious perpetrators--the hijackers.

On the basis of the complete lack of any convincing argument on your part, i'll leave it.

I would like to propose that you are "leaving it" simply because you can't deny what is the elephant in the room that you've created to mourn the loss of security for your nation.

Sleep tight, Setanta.

I do sleep tight, and i don't "mourn" the loss of security for my nation--not the least of which reasons is that i live in Canada. This is all of a part with what passes for logic at your house, though. You just make assumptions, you don't have any reliable information. There's no elephant here other than in your imagination. You haven't provided a single compelling and indisputable piece of evidence. All you have is your conspiracy theory paranoia. Have fun with that, 'K?

a canadian perspective, i've always read it as one who talks **** (gob = mouth, as in shut your gob and shite = ****), i'm most familiar with it from Britain

1. gobshite
Loud-mouthed person who talks a lot, but nothing with any value - as in shite coming out of their gob
"Shut it, you little gobshite!"



3. gobshite
A word of irish origin, meaning a person who blabbers on about incredibly senseless things.
"Shut up, you stupid gobshite!"

Actually, I don't think georgeob stupid as such.... just selectively.

I have been trying to find the male equivalent of "shrill harpy"......so far the best I have done is "grunting wife-basher"

Or "brachiating kid-******"

What do you think?

Good for you Setanta.

You haven't provided a single compelling and indisputable piece of evidence that the existing explanation is feasible or accurate, so I guess we are meeting in the middle then, aren't we?

Not at all. Those who make extraordinary claims have the burden of proof. Two aircraft were seen to fly into the World Trade Center towers. Another aircraft was seen to fly into the Pentagon. A fourth aircraft was known to have crashed in Pennsylvania. All four aircraft were known to have been hijacked. Nineteen of twenty Al Qaeda operatives were subsequently identified, and those 19 died in the attacks. Any explanation which goes beyond the straight forward account of 19 men hijacking four aircraft is an extraordinary claim.

I don't have to prove anything. If you wish to claim that something other than the obvious explanation occured, you assume the burden of proof for that. I've seen no reliable evidence from you that anything other than the obvious explanation is what occured.

Even if the decision was made and only needed an outrage, it doesn't prove the outrage was implemented by those making the decision. It is far more likely they used an act by someone else that was convenient for their purposes.

Those who make extraordinary claims do have a burden of proof.

Speak to your admin about those claims.

The rest of the developed world is laughing about the "official" story, Setanta.

I would have thought you, of all people here, would be aware of that fact.

So what? In the first place, it is an ipse dixit claim on your part that the rest of the world is laughing at the explanation. You would do well, also, to keep in mind that the current administration is not responsible for the explanation you're ridiculing. The September 11th Commission delivered its report more than seven years ago. You've now added to your burden demonstrating that "the rest of the worrld" is laughing at the explanation from the first Bush administration and the Commission. You just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

I accept that there was a conspiracy. The evidence is that 20 young men, members of Al Qaeda, conspired to hijack four planes and to fly them into targets in the United States. Three of the four succeeded in that goal. Anyone alleging any other scenario assumes the burden of proving such an allegation. You won't even clearly state what you believe happened, never mind providing any evidence for anything other than the obvious explanation.

Why don't you show some intellectual honesty and courage, and flatly state what you allege "actually" happened if you are unwilling to accept what you are please to call the official explanation? I doubt that you can do that coherently, though, given your performance so far.

Wrong thread, Setanta.

Too much horror in this one.

Tranlation: Lacking a coherent explanation, you don't have the guts to admit it. I'm not surprised.

On the contrary, my friend, you have been given several opportunities to explain your position in regards to the official explanation, and you have fallen back to this feeble position of tossing the hot potato into my hands.

Those with more than two nickels to the dime are shaking their collective heads at the feeble excuse for an explanation, and you, in your smug little corner of insular correctness are demanding an explanation of what intelligent minds are proposing?

For once in your secluded self-protecting life, look outside of your bubble, and take a breath of the air around you. Suck it up.

It won't poison you. It might, in fact, be a joy to your lungs.

No, that's a lie. I have explained my position, and you have not explained yours. All your silly metaphors taken aside, you have not, and i suspect cannot, provide an explanation which is consonant with the event, but which significantly differs from the obvious explanation. You're just playing games now. I'm not going to bother with you any longer, because it's clear that your only object is to imply dark conspiracy, without actually stating your position; and taking every cheap shot you can which you hope will be insulting to me. What a sad case.