Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Posted on WC
Published on September 10, 2006 By Draginol In War on Terror

I made a news item on WinCustomize.com tonight about the 5th anniversary of 9/11.  It's always a touchy thing putting up a political hot potato on WinCustomize.com.  One thing I have learned over the years is that many non-Americans who visit WinCustomize.com have an extremely poor opinion of the US, its policies.  I don't think that's representative of foreign readers of WC, just those who happen to post.

But 9/11 was a big deal. And at the end of the day, we're an American company.  We have people from all over the world that we work together with. A good portion of our development team is from UK for instance and we also have developers in Italy, Poland, and elsewhere.  But we are not neutral. What happened on 9/11 was unprovoked, monstrous, and required a strong response.

If nothing else, people, especialy people outside the US, need to understand how big of a deal 9/11 was in the United States.  I don't think most people, even today, realize the scale of 9/11.  There's been no terrorist attack, anywhere, in history that is remotely on the scale of 9/11.

The twin towers, even when pictured, don't show their scale because the pictures are so far away.  The twin towers alone supported a population that about a quarter of Detroit Michigan. And those two buildings weren't the only ones that were destroyed as a result (a couple of other nearby buildings were also destroyed).  Largely, only by luck, was the death toll not catastrophically higher. 

The twin towers, supporting up to 150,000 people when at full capacity, were cities unto themselves. Cities full of innocent people who had just gone to work that day.  Destroyed over an evil, fascist ideology that is based on a particular interpretation of Islamic theocracy. An ideology that is widespread in the middle east but not generally acted out upon - thankfully.

9/11 was a wake up call to the United States that the people who want to exterminate every man woman and child that adheres to western culture really were getting serious and needed to be dealt with now rather than wait until they managed to obtain even deadlier weapons.  The product of a failed culture that blames those failures not on themselves but on external enemies believes that if they can appease Allah and reintroduce the Caliphate (as a starting point) modeled after the Taliban, that Allah might then strike down the decadent, corrupt, immoral western nations and pave the way for a world of Islamic fascism.

The word fascism, has become a pejorative. A word that is used to insult rather than as a strict definition. I use the term fascism in its true sense -- a form of organization that is led by a single person or small group that is not accountable to the people and promotes an ideology based on the hatred of outsiders, other religions and racism. That is the way of life that these fundamentalist Muslims have in mind for the world.

It is something that must be fought against. It cannot be ignored. While one can debate the effectiveness of the current administration's attempt to fight Islamic Fasicm (Or Islamism), there should be no doubt that it exists, is real, and must either be dealt with now or dealt with later (except at a vastly higher cost).

Those who think that the problem can be ignored need only look at history.  9/11 was merely the most recent and most deadly attack by these extremists.  Since 9/11, the US has improved its intelligence, defense, and covert operations to the point that no new attacks have occurred on US soil since 9/11 (while there have been attacks overseas in places easier to carry out such attacks).

To see the announcement on WinCustomize.com along with the responses to it, click below.


Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Sep 12, 2006

If we want a good example of a facist leader we need only to look at Bush and this administration and their violations of the constitution and our freedoms.

That's a pretty idiotic statement. Do you know what fascism is? Did you see the definition I gave? On what basis can you make the assertion that a Democratically elected leader to the executive of a country whose supreme law comes from the constitution in which the state has relatively little involvement in the economy is fascist? 

Why is it that the far left has to be so dumb? It's frustrating because you can't even have a decent discussion because they lack even the most basic knowledge to start from.

on Sep 12, 2006

I dont understand why you respond to him like that. Can you refute him point by point? I see alot of this "looney conspiracy theorist" type insult but i rarely see a blow by blow response that actually puts the so called "looney" argument to bed. Surely if its so far left of field it should be a trivial matter to knock him off his so called loopy perch.

I consider myself a fairly rational and down to earth individual and theres nothing in what James has written that is completely "tropo" to me. Surely these kinds of things about which he speaks (which sound alot like claims made in films such as Loose Change 2) should be quite easily and scientifically refuted if they were so far fetched.

Id really like to see a point by point dissection of the claims because to me they seem entirely credible.... especially when the only answer such people (and lets face it...its not just one or two) seem to get is something like that posted by drmiler.

I mean all Ive "actually" seen with respect to 9-11 is 2 planes crash into a couple of skyscrapers. Beyond that everything is just heresy. I did and do find it remarkable that the buildings fell the way they did, it still amazes me that the Pentagon attack has all of 5 or so frames of footage of the attack from a single point of view.... and in none of which do i see a 747. Im sure such things as financial transactions should easily be confirmed. Why are such question so off limits?

There are all kinds of questions. Perhaps the answers are entirely logical and provide support for the official story. If so great. That would be a very good thing. I would like that to be the case. What i dont understand is why so many interested parties get so flustered about what seems to be some very simple enquiry. If the truth is the truth then wouldn't it easily stand up to any and all forms of scrutiny?

If nothing else such claims are interesting.... now why are they incorrect again?

There's a new book on Amazon.com called Debunking 9/11 Myths from Popular Mechanics.  The reason people don't have patience with nutjobs is because it is not worth anyone's time to argue with someone who is relyong on data that was simply made up from thin air and passed on.

on Sep 12, 2006
Alex Jones has an army of empty headed little drones dropping their fly specks all over the internet. He's the Howard Stern of conspiracy theory, with about as much depth and quality.
on Sep 12, 2006
I don't think it's illegitimate to give some consideration to conspiracy theories,


I agree. Sometimes it pays to scoff at the scoffers.

thinks it's unpatriotic even to say 9/11 wasn't the worst thing that ever happened to America, an open mind on this issue lowers your credibility with them.


When someone like James talks about financial transactions and the like, events that a) could be verified and have yet to be refuted then yes Iam very open to the possiblity that all is not well and I fail to understand why he is dismissed as a tin hat. Isn't he just advocating some forensic analysis of some financial transactions? How is that so off center? Did Kroll buyout GFP? Was GFP analysing computer records that could implicate some persons in something untoward? Is Kroll the private CIA that spoken of? etc etc This is hardly tin hat thinking. Remember it was me not James that introduced the Pentagon blur (to illustrate a point) after the fact.

Beyond that all ive said is that I have no first hand knowledge of the 9-11 event other than the various images of the twin towers collisions and a half dozen frames of something hitting the Pentagon. After that everything I know is just hearsay. And from that follows many different questions. When someone like yourself can provide evidence that closes open questions or supports the various pieces of the official story then until someone provides a more compelling argument otherwise Im inclined to believe that Yes a 747 did hit the Pentagon. Just not before.

Ultimately I could care less how someone thinks my timing (in terms of when i begin to accept or deny a certain point of view) affects my credibility. Afterall I dont find those in positions of selling "because I say so" type positions very credible either.




on Sep 12, 2006
and a half dozen frames of something hitting the Pentagon.


That 'something' was very definitely a plane. There was wreckage all over the lawns, including parts of the tail with the airline's logo. There was no conspiracy. You can see the pictures and read just one mythbust here: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
on Sep 12, 2006
I'm afraid I do... sorry if I'm boring y'all.


Not at all.

New Zealand touches like calling an idea "tropo." (Is that real slang? I wonder where it came from, maybe global warming discussion is mainstream over there and you hear more talk about the troposphere


Well to tell you the truth Im not perfectly sure of origin but yes up and down the country we'd all know what you meant if you referred to someone as having gone or otherwise being "tropo".

I think it has it's origins either as

a) an outdated (and in no way current) racial slur. The idea being that native populations such as our own were often dismissed as savages with their sticks and paint etc. When in the 18th century you downed anchor off some Island Bay theres a good chance the natives might either think you to be White God and kill some virgins in your honour or otherwise a good source of free grub and subsequently look to slaughter all aboard your vessle and toss them in the pot. Given cultural differences and white mans typical insensitivity to them that latter was more common. As such peoples from the "tropical" South Pacific were often considered highly volitile savages. "Bog-a-wooga so to speak" Hence to be tropo means to be a nutter.

Let me emphasise though that all such racial connotation in the term has well and truly gone by the way side.

Possibly from the World War II when our troops were off fighting in tropical climates against the Japs etc. Im unsure how well travelled you are but regardless Im sure you can appreciate that it takes some time to acclimatise to high humidity climates etc especially when fighting and that the climate in such locations can often make you go a little mad. Either that or in reference to the mental degradation one suffers in war which for us was often fought in the tropical climates. Hence the term "tropo".

The term is itself is almost universally acceptable. Its meant to convey meaning rather than insult. Use of the term falls under the slang but definitely not the swear category of words.

on Sep 12, 2006
Rarely highlighted footage of an NBC news anchor commenting that the collapse of the twin towers was by no means accidental and that it was a \"planned\" event, emphasizes the point that before the official mind control script was introduced and parroted forevermore, everybody\'s first reaction was \"controlled demolition.\"


www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhDOq305oh0&eurl=


Are you trying to tell us that you do not believe the 2 planes hit the towers? Because you obviously don't know much about controlled (explosive) demolition. When they do a building one of the MAIN things that is blown are BASE supports. Can you show me where the explosions occured during the collapse of tower 1 or 2? They usually set charges all over the place so the building comes down in a pile of rubble. This DID NOT happen at the WTC. Check the link and actually WATCH a controlled demo and then go watch the towers coming down. Then come back and discuss it.

Link
on Sep 13, 2006
Do you know what fascism is? Did you see the definition I gave? On what basis can you make the assertion that a Democratically elected leader to the executive of a country whose supreme law comes from the constitution in which the state has relatively little involvement in the economy is fascist?

Your definition said, "a form of organization that is led by a single person or small group that is not accountable to the people and promotes an ideology based on the hatred of outsiders, other religions and racism." All you have to do is deny that voting makes Bush accountable to the people (it sure doesn't do much), and exaggerate Bush's unilateralism, Christianity, and domestic policy record and you're there. That's why I prefer more specific points of comparison like the ones I gave upthread.

I'd like to see you address how Islamofascism meets your definition of being "led by a single person or small group." Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Hezbollah are not led by a single group, in fact they're pretty diffuse and leaderless within themselves. Many terror attacks like the 7/7 bombing in London are coming from Western Muslims who have little contact with any Islamic groups.
on Sep 13, 2006
The reason people don't have patience with nutjobs is because it is not worth anyone's time to argue with someone who is relyong on data that was simply made up from thin air and passed on.


Sure but my point was that what he had posted was not nutjobbish in nature. There was a logical connection of events from which a series of questions were raised.

Hardly makes him tin foil material. Inquisitive perhaps but not a nutjob.
on Sep 13, 2006
New 9/11 Eyewitness Video

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5841197953012597968
on Sep 13, 2006
Nice video but why were two critical parts edited out?

Anyone else notice after the second plane hit, that couple said "It was a military plane.".. "A military plane just hit the second tower.".
on Sep 13, 2006

This is what I get for allowing anonymous people to post. Nutcases like "James" posting their conspiracy theories.

And ScoffPiggy - yes, people who latch easily on to conspiracy theories are idiots at best, nut jobs at worst.

on Sep 14, 2006
"This is what I get for allowing anonymous people to post. Nutcases like "James" posting their conspiracy theories."

And... you get me! But I think you prefer the Jameses because they are fun to mock.
on Sep 14, 2006
The bulletin boards for the James randi foundation at
forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64
has pretty comprehensive rebuttals of most of the CT claims.

3 Pages1 2 3