The REAL 9/11

[Dean]

The U.S. assassination of Salvador Allende and the military coup of 1973 (http://dean.roushimsx.com/allende.htm)

[Tupac-Amaru]

Wot's your point?

[Dean]

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 11 2006, 10:04 PM
Wot's your point?
If we'er egoing to remember a september 11th, I think this one is a lot more important and was a lot more of a tragedy.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Dean+Sep 11 2006, 11:45 PM--> (Dean @ Sep 11 2006, 11:45 PM)
Tupac-[email protected] 11 2006, 10:04 PM
Wot's your point?
If we'er egoing to remember a september 11th, I think this one is a lot more important and was a lot more of a tragedy. [/b]
because it ended a socialist dictaotrs?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Dean+Sep 11 2006, 06:45 PM--> (Dean @ Sep 11 2006, 06:45 PM)
Tupac-[email protected] 11 2006, 10:04 PM
Wot's your point?
If we'er egoing to remember a september 11th, I think this one is a lot more important and was a lot more of a tragedy. [/b]
in terms of death and destruction, you can't even compare the two. pinochets takeover may have started a dictatorship, but atleast it gave the chilean people a productive economy, where they'd be starving under allende because the price of food rose everytime they went to the store.

911 not only killed close to 3000 people and caused billions in damages, but deepened an economic recession and started 2 wars where thousands more would die.

[Quills]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:38 AM

because it ended a socialist dictaotrs?
No, because 30,000 people were killed or tortured and a democratically elected leader was toppled and replaced by a military dictatorship.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

There are too many sad Bourgeois-ordered massacres to count, to commenmorate every mass-massacre and act of destruction in history would be a idealistic waste of time - everyday of the year would be spent "commenmorating".

And Allende was the candidate that had the most votes - supported by the people, yet too soft of a person - he refused to purge the facists and CIA-spies, so eventually they killed him and established the infamous "Dirty War" which even the US attacks now, as they know its political-suicide to try to hide/justify that.

[bcbm]

Why the REAL 9/11? Both were terrible and caused the deaths of many proletarians. Tragedy pimping is disgusting.

[colonelguppy]

wait wait so you only care if poor people die?

[Avtomatov]

Proletarian does not equal poor. We only care if proletarians die.

[Dean]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 12 2006, 02:46 AM
Why the REAL 9/11? Both were terrible and caused the deaths of many proletarians. Tragedy pimping is disgusting.
my point in referring to it as the "real" 9/11 is to show that it was not only a worse tragedy, but that it was a direct symptom of american imperialism that gives it a more historical significance. perhaps calling it the "real" 9/11 doesn't say much in itself, but I don't think that it diminishes the importance of the deaths of those who died in 2001. They are treated like gods today while they should be treated just as any other fallen civilians; they were not martyrs or heros except perhaps for the firemen and others who risked their lives to save others. They deserve less consideration than the tragedy of 1973, not because thye deserve less recognition as people, but because historically their deaths or the tragedy as a whole says less about what our empire is about. I don't want to worship the dead, especially when it comes to no good end.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:56 AM
wait wait so you only care if poor people die?
despite what others might say, I don't wish death on anybody. Communism isn't about dividing people, even along class lines; it's about making those lines moot and subsuming all classes into a single, egalitarian - minded class. There is no room for death wishes and destruction - worship in this ideology.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 10:03 PM
Proletarian does not equal poor. We only care if proletarians die.
ok so you only care if non-capital holders die? excuse me for using morally relative phrasing, but you're a heartless basterd.

[RNK]

Instead of mourning the 3,000 Americans who died on September 11th 2001, we should mourn the 30,000 women and children who died of starvation on that same day (and the day before, and the day after, and every day since). We should mourn the 10,000 or so people killed during the "Shock & Awe" (aka "Terror") attacks on Iraq. We should mourn the 1,000 Lebanese who were killed last month, the 2,000+ American soldiers sent to die in the pursuit of oil and wealth, the 45,000 Americans killed in automobile accidents in 2001, etc.

[colonelguppy]

no people were starving before pinochet took over you've, got it backwards.

and wtf, automobile accidents?

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:56 PM
no people were starving before pinochet took over you've, got it backwards.

and wtf, automobile accidents?
http://www.grandrapidscarcrash.com/images/Stolcenberg%20Accident.jpg
These thingies

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:13 AM
Instead of
Why not both? Why make it seem as if those who died were worthless? <_<

[encephalon]

Originally posted by s3rna+Sep 12 2006, 06:01 PM--> (s3rna @ Sep 12 2006, 06:01 PM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 05:56 PM
no people were starving before pinochet took over you&#39;ve, got it backwards.

and wtf, automobile accidents?
http://www.grandrapidscarcrash.com/images/Stolcenberg%20Accident.jpg
These thingies [/b]
Indeed, what are these things you call "automobiles?"

[Tupac-Amaru]

Hey...allright allright allright...

How about we mourn BOTH 9/11s...then everybody&#39;s happy&#33; :)

[red team]

Hey...allright allright allright...

How about we mourn BOTH 9/11s...then everybody&#39;s happy&#33;

Yeah, we should mourn BOTH 9/11s being that BOTH crimes were committed by the same government.

Some questions:

If a 757 jumbo jet hit the pentagon then why is the hole on the side where the "supposed" collision took place only 16 feet across? Why no plane parts, bodies and body parts, luggage and skid marks on the pentagon lawn area? Look at the CDs or tapes again and tell me if the damage looks consistent to a collision with a jumbo jet.

Look at WTC 7. Not the south or north tower that were actually hit, but this building went down in free fall time like in prepared building demoltions. You&#39;re going to tell me that a building that wasn&#39;t even involved in the collisions went down like a ton of bricks just from damage from flying debris?

Can you say Reichstag fire? I knew you can.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

No, no, no. No governmental conspiracy theories, please. :rolleyes:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

it wasn&#39;t a jumbo jet, it was, as you said, a 757

[red team]

No, no, no. No governmental conspiracy theories, please. :rolleyes:

Yeah, like it&#39;s not conceiveable that a government that willingly firebomb Tokyo, Dresden and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not also commit a crime against "their own" people if they need a reason to go to war. :rolleyes:

Pentagon (http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/bradm/911index/pentagon.html)

WTC 7 (http://www.wtc7.net/)

WTC 7 and the pentagon were just two of the most blatant screwups in the government terrorist action. View the information and judge for yourself.

The WTC 7: Building don&#39;t just collapse like in controlled demos. Parts of the building collapses when supporting structures weaken while leaving some parts still standing up. Remember that huge bomb that demolished half the government building in Oklahoma? Even after extensive structural damage half the building was still standing.

The Pentagon: Again, a low flying aircraft that is a big commercial airliner leaves evidence upon being smashed to pieces. The question is, where are the pieces? All burnt up? That would take the sustained heat of a iron smelter. Further, the entire plane just don&#39;t conveniently go right into the building to be all incinerated upon exploding on impact. The operative word here is exploding as what all containers with combustable fuel do upon impact. Exploding means blasting pieces outwards.

[Just Dave]

From Wikipedia:
The unemployment rate in Chile increased from 4.3% in 1973, to 34.6% in 1983. Meanwhile, real wages declined by 40%. The regime also promised that a market economy would eliminate homelessness, but the percentage of Chileans without adequate housing grew from 27% to 40% from 1972 to 1988, and there was an increase in diseases such as typhoid and viral hepatitis that has been attributed to the government&#39;s slashes in public health funding. The economy went into recession of the early 1980s, and the ensuing stock market collapse destroyed the pensions that were privatized under Pinochet. What is more, Chile has since developed one of the highest rates of income inequality in the world. Ten years after the fall of Pinochet, the country&#39;s Gini coefficient was measured at .571.

Yeah great economy Pinochet left Chile with :rolleyes:

I think inflation also rose to a massive amount, not sure about the figure though

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 04:56 PM
no people were starving before pinochet took over you&#39;ve, got it backwards.

and wtf, automobile accidents?
people starved before allende, less during allende and plenty during pinochet.

people starved under allende because henry kissinger and nixon imposed economic sanctions and "made the economy scream" according to a declassified conversation between the two.

[colonelguppy]

edited by RedZeppelin
Note: the claims made in this post are not based on any factual data whatsoever




no they starved because price caps led to shortages.

[theraven]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 13 2006, 02:10 AM

No, no, no. No governmental conspiracy theories, please. :rolleyes:

Yeah, like it&#39;s not conceiveable that a government that willingly firebomb Tokyo, Dresden and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not also commit a crime against "their own" people if they need a reason to go to war. :rolleyes:

Pentagon (http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/bradm/911index/pentagon.html)

WTC 7 (http://www.wtc7.net/)

WTC 7 and the pentagon were just two of the most blatant screwups in the government terrorist action. View the information and judge for yourself.

The WTC 7: Building don&#39;t just collapse like in controlled demos. Parts of the building collapses when supporting structures weaken while leaving some parts still standing up. Remember that huge bomb that demolished half the government building in Oklahoma? Even after extensive structural damage half the building was still standing.

The Pentagon: Again, a low flying aircraft that is a big commercial airliner leaves evidence upon being smashed to pieces. The question is, where are the pieces? All burnt up? That would take the sustained heat of a iron smelter. Further, the entire plane just don&#39;t conveniently go right into the building to be all incinerated upon exploding on impact. The operative word here is exploding as what all containers with combustable fuel do upon impact. Exploding means blasting pieces outwards.
it concievible..its also concievble that your really a semi intellgent dog. neither are very likely.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Man&#33; You got to open your eyes to the truth man&#33;

I definitely beleive the gov. planned the whole thing.

"This ain&#39;t not consipracy theory this shit is real; written on the dollar under the masonic seal&#33;" - Immort. Tech.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 14 2006, 04:44 PM--> (patton @ Sep 14 2006, 04:44 PM)
Tupac&#045;[email protected] 14 2006, 09:11 PM
Man&#33; You got to open your eyes to the truth man&#33;

I definitely beleive the gov. planned the whole thing.

"This ain&#39;t not consipracy theory this shit is real; written on the dollar under the masonic seal&#33;" - Immort. Tech.
Man i just took a dollar bill out of my wallet......No No you are right it is under the seal. [/b]
I don&#39;t believe this conspiracy stuff necessarily, but are you guys just going to bullshit around, or counter the claims they&#39;ve made?

[red team]

Highly flammable jet fuel which exploded with the plane on impact and burns at high temperature and the Pentagon lawn and trees wasn&#39;t even singed.

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/bradm/911index/200109114-800JPG.JPG

Look there&#39;s still leaves on the tree&#33; :lol:

http://pentagon.batcave.net/010912-N-3235P-010--2a.jpg

And pages of a book on a stool&#33; :lol:

http://pentagon911.0catch.com/_webimages/hole.JPG

And an earth shattering explosion that didn&#39;t cause the window panes to break&#33; :lol:

[colonelguppy]

the tree looks pretty singed to me. of course not all the glass is going to break, the pentagon has reinforced glass installed in most windows.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

red team, you&#39;re making us look bad

[red team]

Just being skeptical at everything shown to me or said to me. It&#39;s not as if I&#39;m making a claim that flying saucers or ghosts are real. The official explanations of events just seem too unbelievable given what can be actually seen from records of the events.

However, in the interest of "political respectability" I&#39;ll refrain from further displays of physical evidence to debunk official (government) explanations that goes against all known laws of established physics. But, we all know how bad a reputation "conspiracy theories" have. :rolleyes:

Worry not. This will be my last post concerning "conspiracies".

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 13 2006, 02:10 AM
Yeah, like it&#39;s not conceiveable that a government that willingly firebomb Tokyo, Dresden and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not also commit a crime against "their own" people if they need a reason to go to war. :rolleyes:
I think Napoleon Bonaparte&#39;s dictum is especially applicable here:


Never attribute to malevolence what can be explained by simple incompetence

I think Alex Cockburn&#39;s latest article says it all:

http://counterpunch.org/cockburn09092006.html

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:24 AM
edited by RedZeppelin
Note: the claims made in this post are not based on any factual data whatsoever




no they starved because price caps led to shortages.
people starved because the soviets would not ofer economic aid and america imposed sanctions. people were starving before excessively, allende alleviated that tremendously but the sanctions took their toll. Before, most of the money was leaving the nation; allende allowed it to stay there to help the people, but US aid and loans being cut off led to economic disaster, as there was not even any capability for preparation for these problems.

[Zero]

Look at yourselves; you question economic systems, you question social hierarchies, you question the future, you question what really happened in the past, you question religion, you question spirituality... yet questioning the official events of power grabs is &#39;too much&#39;?&#33;

props to red_team. :)

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:24 PM
edited by RedZeppelin
Note: the claims made in this post are not based on any factual data whatsoever




no they starved because price caps led to shortages.
real mature

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 24 2006, 06:37 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 24 2006, 06:37 PM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 07:24 PM
edited by RedZeppelin
Note: the claims made in this post are not based on any factual data whatsoever




no they starved because price caps led to shortages.
real mature [/b]
Mature like making baseless claims?

[colonelguppy]

no, its not baseless, its a historic fact that allende created hyperinflation and instituted price caps which led to shortages.

google is your friend.


http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/for/chile-73.html#2D

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 06:57 PM
no, its not baseless, its a historic fact that allende created hyperinflation and instituted price caps which led to shortages.

google is your friend.


http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/for/chile-73.html#2D
Funny, I was under the impression that historic facts had to be rooted in facts. Facts tend to come from more reliable sources than the one you just presented.

[colonelguppy]

fine, deny reality, your loss.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

that url is&#39;t working for me

[colonelguppy]

oh shi, put it in quotes

http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/for/chile-73.html#2D

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The part including those claims seems to be lacking a bibliographical annotation. Interesting.

[colonelguppy]

so based on this your saying it never happened?

theres a few more sites i found using a simple google search

heres a wikipedia search with plenty of sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Alle...ponents.27_View (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#Opponents.27_View)

and heres a good pbs documentary about it (individual chapters atleast), its not too long

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/...p02_06_300.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/video/qt/mini_p02_06_300.html)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/...p02_07_300.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/video/qt/mini_p02_07_300.html)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Okay. Fine. It&#39;s a ligitimate, albeit short-sighted criticism.
Statistics posted by various members here show for a fact that conditions in &#39;73 were great. Especially compared to the neo-liberal glory years of the &#39;80s.

[colonelguppy]

i wouldn&#39;t call it great.

the transtional period of the 1980&#39;s was rough, it takes awhile to remove a dependencia and close to command style economy and institute a thriving market (international finance troubles in the 80&#39;s didn&#39;t help), but now that the basic infrastructure for investment has been laid its created close to two decades of economic success, which also sprung a liberal democracy.