9/11: PNAC Motive and Opportunity as evidence of an inside job

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't entirely disagree with the thrust of the argument, but that's some ridiculous spin there. What did Jon Williams actually say:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/06/reporting_conflict_in_syria.html

Given the difficulties of reporting inside Syria, video filed by the opposition on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube may provide some insight into the story on the ground. But stories are never black and white - often shades of grey. Those opposed to President Assad have an agenda. One senior Western official went as far as to describe their YouTube communications strategy as "brilliant". But he also likened it to so-called "psy-ops", brainwashing techniques used by the US and other military to convince people of things that may not necessarily be true.
Content from External Source
Just that reporting on Syria is hard, because both sides put out propaganda. Yet Pilger practically makes it sound like Western officials are waging a psy-ops operation, when what is being discussed is the the YouTube videos of the Syrian opposition.

Syria is yet another country being destroyed. I think you confuse spin with accurate reporting. A rare thing these days.

Anyone who is still so willfully naive as to not recognize who the real purveyors of 'global terrorism' are in this world is in for a bit of a shock. As the empire slides inexorably into decay and the whole thing starts to break apart - as is beginning now - note how the US military gets its arse kicked everywhere it goes - defeat after defeat dressed up as victory - the debt spiralling out of control as the gangsters in charge (gics) desperately try to keep hold till the very end - the global climate crisis ignored - these synergizing global crises are coming together while the Gics are busy squeezing every last bit of blood and money they can before the whole deal crashes and burns, the naive stand idly by, apparently clueless.....watch those southern borderlands turn more and more lawless, a process already under way - watch while the Mexicans (a proud and resourceful and vibrant people, much unlike those of the US) reclaim what was stolen from them in the US' early colonial conquests....they haven't forgotten - cross-border raids will increase as law and order breaks down - some future to look forward to....it's not a case of 'if' - it's when. I recommend a course in spanish - starting with lo siento. And don't forget all the other peoples shat on by the US over the last few decades - they'll be waiting in line, don't worry about that. Time to change your ways - but it may be too late already. It's going to be one hell of a mess.
 
Wowzer, Lee.

One pont: if the 'gics' are squeezing money out of everyone else before the 'end'....surely that's daft isn't it? Would their wealth be worth much come some apparent massive social and economic disaster? You sound like an ultra-paranoid survivalist in the majority of that post.
 
Wowzer, Lee.

One pont: if the 'gics' are squeezing money out of everyone else before the 'end'....surely that's daft isn't it? Would their wealth be worth much come some apparent massive social and economic disaster? You sound like an ultra-paranoid survivalist in the majority of that post.

And you sound rather naive.

The 'end'? What's that? What happens is a change over time - one only need look at the history of every single empire that ever existed. The 'end' doesn't come in a puff of smoke and a wave of the magic wand - it happens as systems break down, get replaced by other systems - the infrastructure of the empire is taken apart, but it's not replaced by a vacuum, which is what you seem to be imagining - it's replaced by something else. Often with quite a lot of violence and upheaval along the way. Have a look at the end of the Roman Empire - it ended, but Rome still exists today. And 'apparent massive social and economic disaster' is here right now, isn't it? Don't you know? Are you living in a bubble?
 
Please don't patronise me, Lee.

You seemed to be implying a descent into anarchy and I was commenting on that.
 
Do you know how much the weather in the UK has affected the crop yields? Never mind the US (and almost everywhere else!!) - just had its hottest year on record - massive amounts of corn shrivelled in the sun - farmers are beginning to draw water for irrigation from ancient aquifers that will not be replenished again; do you understand the implications? Ask them: What you going to do when that runs out? And they look at you and say: I don't want to think about that....

When will you think about it? Have you seen the cost of food rising as people get poorer? Are we waiting for people to be starving before we think about it? That doesn't sound unlikely to me - that sounds like the road we're on because it quite clearly is the road we're on.

Synergizing global crises are going to kick homosapiens back into the long grass; Mam Gaia is going to take the naked ape down a peg or six. If you can't see it coming - like a kick in the teeth - then maybe it won't hurt so much, but I doubt that.

And what happens next....?


And what do you mean by 'anarchy'?
 
What's a 'terrorist'?

... Some Americans need to read up on their own history before they start blaming other people for 'terrorism'. Shocking ignorance of the 'reality'.

As the empire slides inexorably into decay

massive amounts of corn shrivelled in the sun


Patronizing hubris borne of spite...Avoiding the point simply to attack...

Indeed, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. very insightful lee.

...and the sky is falling??

Guess it always is to someone somewhere.
 
I understand all of these things and it's a passion of mine. These things informed my choice of degree. I do think however that we can and should mitigate the effects of these things. Not that'll be easy but we don't really have a choice.
 
I understand all of these things and it's a passion of mine. These things informed my choice of degree. I do think however that we can and should mitigate the effects of these things. Not that'll be easy but we don't really have a choice.

I'm really pleased to hear that.

Yes, man is the only dominate species (possibly) facing extinction, who has the ability to do anything about it. I don't think the dinosaurs were up to climate modelling and the like! But, M, speaking of degrees you might be in your twenties - if so, you are most certainly going to see the results of our mismanagement - some of it in the terms I described above. It's going to get hard. Don't listen to that vitriolic stuff ^^^^ just up there, it's all straw man gear, as you probably can see. Good luck with your aims, M.

Ps think you'd really enjoy a lecture, it's about an hour long and you can find it on google. Prof Al Bartlett, emeritus prof of physics at Boulder CO, giving a lecture titled, Arithmetic and Energy: How mankind's greatest shortcoming is its failure to understand the exponential function. Sorry, no link, but if you want to, it's easy to find, fascinating and witty to boot. Ultimately, thought-provoking and a little unnerving. All in all - well worth an hour of anybody's time - especially if you're interested in environmental issues.

Would like to hear your thoughts if you give it a spin, M
 
It's this, I assume?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

I'll give it a whirl when I've got some time.

I'm in my early 30s but I'm sure I'll be around to witness significant change.


That's the one. It's a better hour than any you'll ever spend watching anything available on tv!

Also pretty perfect in that the lecture was given in 99, I think (def about then, anyway), so the students he was addressing would be about the same age as you are now.

Let us know what you think. Cheers, M
 
Indeed, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. very insightful lee.

...and the sky is falling??

Guess it always is to someone somewhere.

Indeed, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. very insightful lee.

But I didn't use that banality, you did. Right there ^^^^

...and the sky is falling??

Is it! Bloody Hell! Hang on a sec ---- Sorry mate - looks like it's holding up ok in London, UK. I just looked out the window.

Guess it always is to someone somewhere

Is it?! Sorry that it's happening over your little piece of Cali, man. Hope things improve.
 
Patronizing hubris borne of spite...Avoiding the point simply to attack...

Indeed, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. very insightful lee.

...and the sky is falling??

Guess it always is to someone somewhere.

The definition of a terrorist or an act of terrorism is very unclear, which is quite surprising when you consider it is one of the most bandied around words. You appear to have a clear personal interpretation. I wondered if you would care to define, in a scholarly and informative fashion, your interpretation of what it means... and perhaps give reasons as to why acts carried out by governments, such as described by John Pilger above, do not constitute acts of terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term "terrorism".[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[3]

Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament has stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[4] These divergences have made it impossible to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.[5]

Content from External Source
 
Cheyney and Blair? I've never expressed support for them on here, but I understand your point your're getting at.

Wiki page, due to there being no sources for the bulk of the text on there.

My point though, is that I dispute the 'well regarded' and 'solid background' as you stated.

So Matt, I have to ask... have you revised your position on the validity of Aaron Russo as a credible witness.

If you have not... would you like to elaborate so that I can factor your concerns into my evaluation of him as a credible witness.

Thanks
 
No offense, Oxy...but your random anecdote bears no evidence as to the supposed lack of influence religion has on Islamic extremists.

These guys agrees with you... more anecdotal ex Jihadists now converted to Christianity and 'doing the rounds'

This guy is pretty unbelievable... he states 'prior to 9/11, America was asleep. 9/11 woke America up... it looked around... and went back to sleep'.... ROFL or what!



Terrorists come in many shapes and sizes; nationalists, secular, religious etc...

Maybe, Nations and Corporations as well?

For Islamic extremists, their reactions to the political and economic realities of their world are shaped in large part by their religious beliefs. They view indiscriminate violence not only as morally justified based on their interpretations of the Koran, but also as necessary to attain their goals. Religion is a legitimizing force for such violence.

Agree with that but does it not also apply equally to governments, many idealists, corporations etc where the 'religion' is greed, avarice, imperialism ideology?

There is a growing body of study on the role religion plays in terrorism and some studies have shown that terrorism that is rooted in religious dogma tends to be more violent.

So Stalin's terrorism of his own people, or Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc was not as bad as a suicide bomber who is thinking he will go to heaven?

Religion plays a fundamental role in the beliefs and actions of Islamic terrorists.

Thats not "demonizing" Islam or all muslims or the country they live in.

Its simply acknowledging the reality of the situation.

And it is true... but it is not the full story because it is not the only fundamental role... the other fundamental role is that they have been demonised, disempowered and made to suffer by watching their family and friends mercilessly killed and maimed and their Country destroyed around them. That seems pretty fundamental to me, whatever religion you have or do not have.
 
The definition of a terrorist or an act of terrorism is very unclear, which is quite surprising when you consider it is one of the most bandied around words. You appear to have a clear personal interpretation. I wondered if you would care to define, in a scholarly and informative fashion, your interpretation of what it means... and perhaps give reasons as to why acts carried out by governments, such as described by John Pilger above, do not constitute acts of terrorism.

Sorry- not going to get into a debate regarding the definition of terrorism. Feel free to interpret as you see fit.

The original point was the role of religion in Islamic extremists actions...not a defense of US or any other country's actions. Nice try.

You said there "nothing to substantiate" religion had a major role in their actions...I said it was fundamental to every action they took.

You changed your mind and now "Agree with that" -

I commend you for your honesty


So Stalin's terrorism of his own people, or Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc was not as bad as a suicide bomber who is thinking he will go to heaven?

The point was in reference to specific acts of violence not campaigns or decades long rule. One bomb VS another. An IRA bomb VS a suicide bomber at funeral for example.


they have been demonised, disempowered and made to suffer by watching their family and friends mercilessly killed and maimed and their Country destroyed around them

I am curious how does this apply to OBL and his country of Saudia Arabia?
 
Sorry- not going to get into a debate regarding the definition of terrorism. Feel free to interpret as you see fit.

The original point was the role of religion in Islamic extremists actions...not a defense of US or any other country's actions. Nice try.

But it can easily come across as a defense of U.S actions and in all honesty, I think most people in the West would take it that way. Are you prepared to criticise U.S actions in the Middle East...? So far you have not.

You said there "nothing to substantiate" religion had a major role in their actions...I said it was fundamental to every action they took.

You changed your mind and now "Agree with that" -

I commend you for your honesty

I do not see this as a religious war. Religion will be used, as it always has been throughout history, but I see nothing to substantiate religion as being the cause of the war but as I said before... a rallying call. But yes obviously it has a significant role. As I said before, there are many forms of religion... including greed and power.

The point was in reference to specific acts of violence not campaigns or decades long rule. One bomb VS another. An IRA bomb VS a suicide bomber at funeral for example.
There is a growing body of study on the role religion plays in terrorism and some studies have shown that terrorism that is rooted in religious dogma tends to be more violent.
The above makes not the slightest sense to me... death and maiming is death and maiming... the only way of quantifying whether it is more or less violent is by comparing the numbers affected and the manner in which they were killed or maimed or possibly in their subjective innocence or perhaps their vulnerability, as in children and unarmed civilians. I see no evidence to suggest that that religious terrorists are any more 'violent' than 'other terrorists' or state terrorism.



I am curious how does this apply to OBL and his country of Saudia Arabia?

OBL gave up an elite lifestyle in Saudi Arabia to fight against Russian oppression of his people, Afghans, I think he had a wider view of his nationality than simply being a Saudi.
 
But it can easily come across as a defense of U.S actions and in all honesty, I think most people in the West would take it that way. Are you prepared to criticise U.S actions in the Middle East...? So far you have not.

Lets see...pointing out that religion has a substantial role in the actions of Islamic extremists can "easily" come across as a defense of US actions. Thats quite jump of logic and topic drift. Start a thread on US actions in the ME and maybe I will participate.


I do not see this as a religious war. Religion will be used, as it always has been throughout history, but I see nothing to substantiate religion as being the cause of the war but as I said before... a rallying call. But yes obviously it has a significant role. As I said before, there are many forms of religion... including greed and power.

Now you are seemingly contradicting yourself. You say greed and power are religions- implying the conflict is about greed and power - and yet its not a religious war. I am just being difficult- I know what you are getting at. But you tend to over-stretch from the basic point. You initial comment was "Religion does not come into it other than, as is usual, all sides think God is on their side"- Thats a bit like saying the sun has no role in life on earth...other than making things grow.

The above makes not the slightest sense to me... death and maiming is death and maiming... the only way of quantifying whether it is more or less violent is by comparing the numbers affected and the manner in which they were killed or maimed or possibly in their subjective innocence or perhaps their vulnerability, as in children and unarmed civilians. I see no evidence to suggest that that religious terrorists are any more 'violent' than 'other terrorists' or state terrorism.

How would you know? Have you studied the evidence? or just a general feeling you have? You are correct, the only way of quantifying it is by comparing numbers. Others have done so.

The IRA vs AQ was a pertinent example.





OBL gave up an elite lifestyle in Saudi Arabia to fight against Russian oppression of his people, Afghans, I think he had a wider view of his nationality than simply being a Saudi.

Indeed, he probably thought he was a Muslim before any country. Be that as it may, he perceived the presence of invited US troops in SA as an "invasion" of the "holy land" and thus one of the justifications to kill Americans espoused in his religious edict.
 
Here is just 'yet another', in a long line of 'in the know whistleblowers'.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...y-the-us-navy-does-not-want-you-to-know-about

Gwenyth Todd, censured for her attempts to reveal the transgressions she witnessed, claims she acted to prevent an unnecessary war with Iran, instead ending up in a fight with her own government and in exile from her own country.
Also serving our country in the Navy at the time was Vice Adm. Kevin J. Cosgriff, a man of an even more impressive resume boasting three stars and the command of a cruiser and warship group. Whereas his predecessors had actively campaigned to avoid a stance that might induce war or the like – even instructing Todd to leak a story to Time in order to have a controversial and ostensibly war-seeking plan wiped – Cosgriff had no such scruples, according to Todd and a handful of Navy sources the Post couldn’t name.


Content from External Source
In a series of staff meetings Cosgriff expressed his intention of sending two aircraft carriers, an amphibious helicopter assault carrier and five supporting warships through the Strait of Hormuz with no advance warning to Iran or even to U.S.’s allies in the region.

Retired Adm. David C. Nichols, deputy commander of U.S. Central Command at the time in discussion, noted in an interview last year that Costgriff’s superior, U.S. Central Command chief Adm. William J. Fallon, “wanted to do a freedom-of-navigation exercise in what Iran calls its territorial waters that we hadn’t done in a long time.”
Costgriff, though his plan eerily resembled the notorious Tonkin Gulf incident that precipitated bombing of Northern Vietnam and went on to leave 58,000Americans dead, was not alone in his thinking. Even stronger evidence of the patently strong accord between Fallon and Costgriff was the general consensus that Post sources have espoused that Cosgriff would not have pursued such bold plans without his superior’s consent.
So when Cosgriff instructed Todd and her associates to withhold knowledge of the plan from the State Department, Cosgriff knew something was dreadfully amiss. She called a friend in the State Department. The resulting series of events concluded with a slap on Cosgriff’s wrist and his armada passing through the Strait peacefully after Cosgriff was forced to forewarn the U.S.’s allies in the region and after a critical conference with Iran had ended.


If you believe Todd and other Postsources,that was when her life began to resemble the plot of a Bourne movie.
Content from External Source
Character assassination anyone?
 
LOL... stop laughing at your own jokes Jazzy:)
I was laughing at what was not there. The joke was someone else's.

I can't see any connection between the PTB and a conspiracy to hijack etc. in the above incident. This sounds like normal behavior to me.
 
I was laughing at what was not there. The joke was someone else's.
I know.

I can't see any connection between the PTB and a conspiracy to hijack etc. in the above incident. This sounds like normal behavior to me.
Here is a more in depth article... 6 pages.

The thrust is, AFAICS, machinations by neocons who control in this case, hardware in the shape of aircraft carriers, to provoke further Middle East conflicts.

I include it in this thread because I believe it demonstrates, i) the typicality of these machinations/warmongering both prior to 9/11 and since. ii) I believe it is typical of the manner used to silence whistleblowers.

Let's face it, this typifies the way wars are started by a few hawks who manage to hoodwink or subvert the powers and checks and balances. It directly contradicts the mass projected psy op image of America 'forced to defend itself from crazed religious extremists'. as put forward by SR1419.

Much abridged extract for the core.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...32_1_navy-frigate-shatt-al-arab-new-commander

In 1991, Todd, 27, quickly won a transfer to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, where she gained her first top-secret security clearance and became the desk officer for Iraq, Kuwait and Oman. In charge of analyzing regional events, in particular the effectiveness of economic sanctions against Saddam Hussein, Todd found herself rubbing elbows with Pentagon neoconservatives who she says were already conspiring with Iraqi exiles to replace the dictator a dozen years before the invasion of Iraq. She believed overthrowing Hussein and his fellow Sunnis, implacable enemies of Iran, would be a strategic blunder.

With Bill Clinton’s election victory in 1992, Todd became desk officer for Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. It was a lively time, with covert U.S. involvement in operations to liquidate Pablo Escobar, the Colombian drug kingpin, and Abimael Guzman, leader of Peru’s Shining Path revolutionaries.
Two years later, she was back on more familiar turf, as Pentagon desk officer for Turkey, Spain and Cyprus. Clearly on a fast track, she was appointed special assistant to Walter Slocombe, undersecretary of defense for policy. For her work there, she received the department’s Distinguished Civilian Service Award. And in 1997, she got the brass ring: transfer to the White House National Security Council.
“Very heady stuff,” she remembered. But she was now also involved in another high-voltage relationship.
Cabelly stepped forward.
“Robert had a vested interest in making sure I got a decent job, because I was raising [our daughter],” Todd said. “Robert’s business partner helped me set up my own company,” the consulting firm G.E.T. LLC, in Rockville. Her first client was Nuri Colakoglu, a Turkish steel and shipping magnate.
Unknown to Cabelly, she says, she began an affair with Colakoglu, who showered her with jewels and spun her around the Mediterranean on his yacht. And unknown to her, she says, Cabelly was getting into business with some of Africa’s worst despots, including Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Cabelly never confided the particulars with her, Todd said. “The most detail I ever heard was that Bashir wears cheap, fussy leopard-print slippers,” she said. “But [Cabelly] was always stepping out of the room with his mobile to talk to high-level U.S. officials.”
Cabelly seemed to be providing an unofficial back channel to Sudan, she said.
Then one day in January 2005 she got an intriguing offer from Adm. David Nichols, commander of the 5th Fleet: Come to Manama, Bahrain, as a political adviser, on contract — you can keep your other clients. They had conferred twice the previous year, when Todd stopped in Bahrain during a business trip.
“I was immediately impressed by the sharpness of her mind and the incisiveness of her comments on Middle East strategic issues,” Nichols would write years later, in a glowing recommendation of her work.
The job went well for two years, until Cosgriff showed up.
Nichols and his seccessor as 5th Fleet commander, Adm. Patrick Walsh, had been determined to avoid rhetoric or maneuvers that could lead to an unintended clash with Iran. In one instance, Todd recalled, commanders in Bahrain had used her to leak one inflammatory plan from Washington to Time magazine. It was derailed.
But Cosgriff seemed as eager as the Bush administration hawks to mix it up with the Iranians.
When Cosgriff instructed Todd and other staff not to tell the State Department about his plan to marshal the big decks (two aircraft carriers, an amphibious helicopter assault carrier and five supporting warships) that May in 2007, Todd said, it was just too much. She immediately called a family friend at the State Department’s Iran desk. Her contact alerted superiors, according to sources familiar with events, and Cosgriff was told to stand down, at least until the critical conference with the Iranians was over. He was also told to notify the Saudis and other gulf allies before resuming the maneuver.

The armada passed through the strait a week later, on May 23, without incident. Likewise, in Baghdad, Iranian and American diplomats met as scheduled.
Cosgriff was furious about “the [expletive] storm” coming down on him from Washington because of the leak, according to Todd and another staff member.
Cosgriff declined to comment for the record, but a retired senior naval officer said Cosgriff “was collaborating with ... Adm. Fallon” and had “taken a little heat. ... It was a ‘lessons learned’ thing — you gotta notify people.”
Administration officials privy to the affair, meanwhile, said they were surprised when Fallon portrayed himself, in a much-talked-about 2008 Esquire interview, as nearly single-handedly stopping Bush administration hawks from starting a war with Iran. Because of the uproar over the article, he resigned shortly after.
As for the big-decks conspiracy scenario presented by Todd and others, Fallon called it “B.S.” in an e-mail, but declined to answer further questions.
Todd was relieved. The big-decks surprise had been defused, and Cosgriff didn’t seem to suspect her of leaking the plan.


Then came a stunning revelation: Todd said she learned from a friend that her access had been suspended the same day Cosgriff had dispatched her into the night to verify the threat report.
What? Todd said she felt the room spin. Cosgriff had given her a sensitive assignment — to meet a suspect Shiite — after her clearances had been suspended? It didn’t make sense.
On Feb. 27, 2008, a letter from Cosgriff’s chief of staff, Capt. Joe Sensi, arrived via “unregistered snail mail.” It was dated Dec. 13, 2007, the day of her strange intelligence mission. For the first time, she read that her contract had been terminated because of “unreported foreign contacts ... financial irresponsibility ... [and] the disclosure of classified information to unauthorized persons.”
After a Freedom of Information Act request, the Navy Central Command said it has no records of Cosgriff and Fallon discussing a plan to move the big decks, no records of the intelligence report on Shia unrest, no warning report by Todd and Inman on Dec. 14, and no “records related to the revocation of Ms. Todd’s security clearance.”
The Defense Security Service indicated that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service had a classified file on her; NCIS says it is working on a FOIA response.

Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the mass projected psy op image of America 'forced to defend itself from crazed religious extremists'. as put forward by SR1419.

I never put forward any such notion. I merely pointed out the role religion plays in the actions of Islamic extremists.

Do not put words in my mouth or try and pigeon hole me into your dime store political science analysis.
 
The thrust is, AFAICS, machinations by neocons who control in this case, hardware in the shape of aircraft carriers, to provoke further Middle East conflicts.
This isn't the type of "evidence" that would be needed to prove PTB involvement. Mick has already suggested the correct evidence characteristics.
 
Dominant.


Oh no, man! Right - that's it.......Iv'e just rmveoed the reacciltrnat fngier - deons't seem to be hlepnig.

Hnag on thuogh, statring to get the hang of it!

Jazzy, old boy - how's the thesis coming along? You know, the one you finessed here, the 1200 or so tons of steel brought to melting point (after subtracting 5% for the noise and dust cloud) inevitable hotspot friction welded core still standing all slagged up you MUST consider it's only place the energy could reside (in the steel) theory?

It's so elegant.

Yup, think the recalcitrant finger's back in line.
 
Oh no, man! Right - that's it.......Iv'e just rmveoed the reacciltrnat fngier - deons't seem to be hlepnig. Hnag on thuogh, statring to get the hang of it! Jazzy, old boy - how's the thesis coming along? You know, the one you finessed here, the 1200 or so tons of steel brought to melting point (after subtracting 5% for the noise and dust cloud) inevitable hotspot friction welded core still standing all slagged up you MUST consider it's only place the energy could reside (in the steel) theory? It's so elegant. Yup, think the recalcitrant finger's back in line. Careful now, you'll hurt your tongue stretching it like that.
Have you lost your way?

The thread title is "9/11: PNAC Motive and Opportunity as evidence of an inside job".
 
Ok, lets have this out.
Originally Posted by Oxymoron

the mass projected psy op image of America 'forced to defend itself from crazed religious extremists'. as put forward by SR1419.
You respond thus:
I never put forward any such notion. I merely pointed out the role religion plays in the actions of Islamic extremists.

Evidentially, you did, when you stated...


This one of the most naive/misguided comments I have seen you make...Considering that "they" base their entire ideology on their religion, and that they justify killing based on their religion, that they use their religion to recruit soldiers for their "holy war", it is very much about religion for them. The underlying power politics help stir the pot but the drive for "jihad" goes deeper than that.
By so doing, you massively over emphasised the religious element whilst ridiculously marginalising the politics to a 'vague minor pot stirrer for Jihad'. One has to ask why you would do that?

In response to my saying

"Religion does not come into it other than, as is usual, all sides think God is on their side"-
You comment:
Thats a bit like saying the sun has no role in life on earth...other than making things grow.

Why do you make these simplistic out of context remarks? Exactly what purpose is it for?

Obviously the sun plays a fundamental role in life; but so do many other things; without which life equally could not exist.

And obviously religion is fundamental to many Islamist s; as are many other things, like not being invaded, dispossessed of their lands and seeing loved ones murdered perhaps!

But let us be clear about this... If these lands belonged to peoples who were not Islamic; do you seriously propose they would be less disposed to fighting back from being dispossessed and murdered.

Did the Vietcong fight back any less hard?

Then clearly it is not 'all about religion' as you espouse!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One has to ask why you would do that?

Because I believe its the truth.

And obviously religion is fundamental to many Islamist s; as are many other things, like not being invaded, dispossessed of their lands and seeing loved ones murdered perhaps!

But let us be clear about this... If these lands belonged to peoples who were not Islamic; do you seriously propose they would be less disposed to fighting back from being dispossessed and murdered.

Consider that an "Islamist" is an orthodox Muslim, I would say that religion is fundamental to ALL Islamists.

Islamic militancy as it relates to this discussion is but a small subset of Muslims as whole. The factors in Jihad have a long history and relate to a pan-islamic vision that dates back to the earliest days of the Muslim Brotherhood and before. The rise of Islamic militancy is a response to geo-political concerns but shaped and informed by their religion.

Suggesting that Islamic militancy is simply a response to perceived (or real) slights from the West is too simplistic. Their fundamental religious interpretation is what drives their actions. The Taliban let loose with their particular flavor of Islam after invaders had left. Ask an Afghani who suffered under the Taliban if his suffering had any religious connotation.The Taliban destroyed the buddist statues for religious reasons:

On 6 March 2001 The Times quoted Mullah Mohammed Omar as stating, "Muslims should be proud of smashing idols. It has given praise to God that we have destroyed them."[41] During a 13 March interview for Japan's Mainichi Shimbun, Afghan Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Mutawakel stated that the destruction was anything but a retaliation against the international community for economic sanctions: "We are destroying the statues in accordance with Islamic law and it is purely a religious issue".
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan

OBL left HIS land- his people, his family...to go fight for somewhere else.

Look at all the "foreign" fighters from Chechnya, Tajikistan, Uzbek etc...even native born US and UK citizens leaving their country, leaving their land to go fight somewhere else...in the name of, for the purpose of their religion. Not for the land. For the religion.

It is the underlying belief system of their specific interpretation of Islam that drives their actions. Their religion is the unifying theme that distinguishes them from any enemy. They do not help the suffering Christians, or Jews or Buddists in "their" lands- they view them as the enemy. The call for Jihad is based on a world view that is predicated on a specific interpretation of their religion and as such is the driving factor in their actions.
 
Originally Posted by Oxymoron
By so doing, you massively over emphasised the religious element whilst ridiculously marginalising the politics to a 'vague minor pot stirrer for Jihad'. One has to ask why you would do that?
Originally Posted by SR1419 Because I believe its the truth.

So let me be clear: you massively over emphasised the religious element whilst ridiculously marginalising the politics because you believe its the truth


Originally Posted by Oxymoron
But let us be clear about this... If these lands belonged to peoples who were not Islamic; do you seriously propose they would be less disposed to fighting back from being dispossessed and murdered.

Originally Posted by SR1419 Consider that an "Islamist" is an orthodox Muslim, I would say that religion is fundamental to ALL Islamists.
This is simply playing with words IMO... is it not equally true to say 'Christianity is fundamental to ALL Christians'? But more to the point, you appear to have deliberately avoided the main question...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-467175/Tony-Blair-talked-God-Iraq.html

The former prime minister's communications chief says that before the Iraq invasion Mr Blair was guided by his faith and regularly spoke to "his maker".

The disclosure is ironic because No10 image-maker Mr Campbell tried to keep his boss's faith out of the media spotlight, telling one interviewer: "We don't do God."
Content from External Source
Originally Posted by SR1419 Islamic militancy as it relates to this discussion is but a small subset of Muslims as whole.
And you know this how... by the ratio of fighters/dissidents/terrorists to non combatants? Do you not think there are a multitude of reasons why many Muslims are non combatants, the same as there were many reasons why not very many French people were in The Resistance?
Originally Posted by SR1419
The factors in Jihad have a long history and relate to a pan-islamic vision that dates back to the earliest days of the Muslim Brotherhood and before.
The same could be said again for Christianity or Judaism but I think that also would be far too simplistic and erroneous. Are you also suggesting the Jews are engaged in their version of a Holy War?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=m...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/68082/so-what-did-muslims-do-jews

Islam saved Jewry. This is an unpopular, discomforting claim in the modern world. But it is a historical truth. The argument for it is double. First, in 570 CE, when the Prophet Mohammad was born, the Jews and Judaism were on the way to oblivion. And second, the coming of Islam saved them, providing a new context in which they not only survived, but flourished, laying foundations for subsequent Jewish cultural prosperity - also in Christendom - through the medieval period into the modern world.

By the fourth century, Christianity had become the dominant religion in the Roman empire. One aspect of this success was opposition to rival faiths, including Judaism, along with massive conversion of members of such faiths, sometimes by force, to Christianity. Much of our testimony about Jewish existence in the Roman empire from this time on consists of accounts of conversions.
Great and permanent reductions in numbers through conversion, between the fourth and the seventh centuries, brought with them a gradual but relentless whittling away of the status, rights, social and economic existence, and religious and cultural life of Jews all over the Roman empire.
Content from External Source
Originally Posted by SR1419 The rise of Islamic militancy is a response to geo-political concerns but shaped and informed by their religion. Suggesting that Islamic militancy is simply a response to perceived (or real) slights from the West is too simplistic. Their fundamental religious interpretation is what drives their actions. The Taliban let loose with their particular flavor of Islam after invaders had left.

The Taliban filled a power vacuum left by the U.S when it abandoned Afghanistan. Everything was destroyed through years of fighting and suppression. All the educated people of the Country had been killed or banished.

The Taliban looked for help and guidance from the U.S but got nothing. IMO, the west should have helped to educate them and bring them onboard, I think it would have been relatively easy had the will been there.

The Taliban destroyed the buddist statues for religious reasons

I agree the destruction of the Buddhist statues was tragic from an historical and artistic viewpoint but is that really justification for an invasion?... I think not.

Do you really think the U.S should act as 'The World Police' and dictate the internal political and religious matters of foreign Countries?

When do you think it would be appropriate time to invade China for destroying Buddhist statues and killing Buddhist priests? Seems a bit late now?
Originally Posted by SR1419
Ask an Afghani who suffered under the Taliban if his suffering had any religious connotation.

Ask the Afghani's and Iraqi's who have suffered and died because of the U.S lead sanctions and invasion if it is any consolation that the U.S are allegedly "not engaged in a religious Crusade". Ask them how they feel when they see their schools and homes blown up by drone strikes and their children blown apart in a 'red mist'
 
So let me be clear: you massively over emphasised the religious element whilst ridiculously marginalising the politics because you believe its the truth

No, not at all. You are entitled to your interpretation but its flawed. The reasons have been spelled out repeatedly.


This is simply playing with words IMO... is it not equally true to say 'Christianity is fundamental to ALL Christians'? But more to the point, you appear to have deliberately avoided the main question...

No, not at all. You are incorrect. Please read for comprehension. I said religion is fundamental to all Islamists I suggest you look up the definition of orthodox. Islamists want to order society based on the Laws of Islam. Most Christians and most? Muslims to do not want to order society based on religion.

The Taliban filled a power vacuum left by the U.S when it abandoned Afghanistan. Everything was destroyed through years of fighting and suppression. All the educated people of the Country had been killed or banished.
The Taliban looked for help and guidance from the U.S but got nothing. IMO, the west should have helped to educate them and bring them onboard, I think it would have been relatively easy had the will been there.


Sorry, your history and assumptions are flawed. The US filled no power vaccum in the first place. The power vacuum was created when the Soviets left, and the Soviet backed government of Najibullah finally collapsed in 1992- several war lords then proceed to fight for control from 92-96. It was in the area around Kandahar where the Talib (students) were studying their orthodox interpretation of Islam and began to revolt against the warlord Hekmatyar. The movement snowballed and by 1996 they had control of the Kabul. They then instilled strict form of Islamic law

Educate them?? really. Educate them to what? How? do you think, considering they were well educated as to their particular flavor is Islamic law that they would have been receptive to "education" from us? wow. The US DID actually backhandedly support them as they - at the outset- appeared to be a stabilizing force but the reality of their religious based rule quickly became apparent.

I agree the destruction of the Buddhist statues was tragic from an historical and artistic viewpoint but is that really justification for an invasion?... I think not.

I never said it was- nor even implied it. It simply shows that RELIGION was guiding their actions.

Do you really think the U.S should act as 'The World Police' and dictate the internal political and religious matters of foreign Countries?

Thats not the point. You are misdirecting. Stay on topic.

Ask the Afghani's and Iraqi's who have suffered and died because of the U.S lead sanctions and invasion if it is any consolation that the U.S are allegedly "not engaged in a religious Crusade". Ask them how they feel when they see their schools and homes blown up by drone strikes and their children blown apart in a 'red mist'

yes, your continued appeal to emotion. Its sad that people die.

But thats not the point is it? The point of this discussion is the role religion plays in the beliefs and actions of Islamic extremists. Islamic extremists are RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS. Let me repeat, yet again, their fundamental religious interpretation is what drives their actions.

Perhaps you could explain how the Islamic militants in northern Mali who are killing other muslims, installing religious law are doing so because religion plays no "substantial" role in their actions? Perhaps you explain why Islamic zealots who blow themselves up in the middle of a funeral service of another type of Muslim do so in response to actions by the US?

Perhaps you could explain why you think there is "nothing to substantiate" the role religion plays in the actions of Islamic religious zealots.
 
Some years ago, a friend of mine, who is an amateur historian (but he is not a hack--he has produced published papers), mentioned the the Islamic world was ripe for a 'Reformation' type movement. I think he was correct.

The Jihad movement is in some ways their Crusades. I believe that most Christians will admit that the Crusades brought out the worst in Christianity.
 
^ I think there may be some truth in that...if you consider that Islam is 600yrs younger than Christianity...where was Christianity in its development 600yrs ago? Christianity was very different than today and just coming off its Crusades.

Obviously, that is very simplistic but I feel the correlation has some relevance.
 
No, not at all. You are incorrect. Please read for comprehension. I said religion is fundamental to all Islamists I suggest you look up the definition of orthodox.

Ok,
The word orthodox, from Greek orthos ("right", "true", "straight") + doxa ("opinion" or "belief", related to dokein, "to think"),[1] is generally used to mean the adherence to accepted norms, more specifically to creeds, especially in religion
Content from External Source
So how does this help exactly?
Islamists want to order society based on the Laws of Islam. Most Christians and most? Muslims to do not want to order society based on religion.
Content from External Source
So what is the problem... does this make them terrorists?

What about all the other Islamic States like Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Libya, Iran... should they be invaded like Afghanistan/Iraq was because they dared to create an Islamic State?

I think most religious people want to order society based on their religion and the only reason they are unable to is because of competing and stronger ideology. Religion is a way of life

I think we are in danger of moving off topic here. The reason I challenged you was because it appeared you were putting forward the classic Neocon rationale that 'the global war on terror' is primarily a war against Islamic Terrorists who 'are terrorists because they are Islamic and therefore a threat to the U.S, U.N. in that they want an Islamic World. Maybe they do want it, (like the Pope wants a Catholic world), but they are not attacking the west to get that. I believe they are only reacting to western interference in the running of their Country/s.

If they are not a threat to the West then leave them alone or help them to evolve. They are only a threat to the West because we are interfering in their Country/s. In short... we are the aggressors, the colonialists/imperialists.

Sorry, your history and assumptions are flawed. The US filled no power vaccum in the first place.

The U.S was heavily involved in Afghanistan prior to and after the defeat of the Russians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Foreign_involvement_and_aid_to_the_mujahideen
The Afghan Mujahideen
Content from External Source
(NB Islamists)
were supported by a number of other countries, with the US and Saudi Arabia offering the greatest financial support.[2][3][4][10][107] United States President Carter insisted that what he termed "Soviet aggression" could not be viewed as an isolated event of limited geographical importance but had to be contested as a potential threat to US influence in the Persian Gulf region. The US was also worried about the USSR gaining access to the Indian Ocean by coming to an arrangement with Pakistan.

National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, known for his hardline policies on the Soviet Union, initiated in 1979 a campaign supporting mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which was run by Pakistani security services with financial support from the Central Intelligence Agency and Britain's MI6.[3] Years later, in a 1997 CNN/National Security Archive interview, Brzezinski detailed the strategy taken by the Carter administration against the Soviets in 1979:

Content from External Source
The power vacuum was created when the Soviets left, and the Soviet backed government of Najibullah finally collapsed in 1992- several war lords then proceed to fight for control from 92-96. It was in the area around Kandahar where the Talib (students) were studying their orthodox interpretation of Islam and began to revolt against the warlord Hekmatyar. The movement snowballed and by 1996 they had control of the Kabul. They then instilled strict form of Islamic law
And what exactly has that got to do with you or anyone else? It is not a reason to invade!!!!

Educate them?? really. Educate them to what? How? do you think, considering they were well educated as to their particular flavor is Islamic law that they would have been receptive to "education" from us? wow. The US DID actually backhandedly support them as they - at the outset- appeared to be a stabilizing force but the reality of their religious based rule quickly became apparent.

Educate them politically... work with them to show them to change and evolve the same as we have. That is the only way to get peace.

Originally Posted by Oxymoron
Do you really think the U.S should act as 'The World Police' and dictate the internal political and religious matters of foreign Countries?


Thats not the point. You are misdirecting. Stay on topic.

No you are misdirecting. This is the core of the topic. PNAC is very much about setting up U.S lead 'Global Police Force' and that is what the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was all about. It is what state destroying sanctions followed by invasions are all about and it looks like there is much more to come but 'the people' do not want it... the people are sick of it.

yes, your continued appeal to emotion. Its sad that people die.
Yes very glib... but it needs to be pointed out as it is downplayed so so much by the advocates of this policy. It is not 'that people die', it is that people are slaughtered unnecessarily by policy decisions made thousands of miles away and by teenagers playing computer games that are real.

But thats not the point is it? The point of this discussion is the role religion plays in the beliefs and actions of Islamic extremists. Islamic extremists are RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS. Let me repeat, yet again, their fundamental religious interpretation is what drives their actions.
That is a lie in terms of threat to the West. It is internal politics and the only reason the West is interested is because of geo politics and natural resources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted by Mick

Photos of the explosives in-situe. Multiple consistent whistleblower testimony. Documentary evidence.

But I think it's more relevant to ask what would make me suspicious that 9/11 was an inside job. It's a much lower standard, and something that you'd need to have as a first step before moving on to convincing.

I would suspect it was an inside job if there was physical evidence of a controlled demolition. Stuff like loud bangs, or times and det cord wrappers found in the debris.

I would suspect an inside job if there was ANYTHING that was inconsistent with the official story. Anything that could not be explained by the events of the day. Basically the kind of things that the truthers claim are all things that would be good evidence to provide suspicion - except they are invariably wrong. Freefall, microspheres, dustification, energetic material, all wrong. But that type of thing would be relevant.

Whistle blowers... What a price they all pay. They have to be seriously outraged in order to risk these consequences... I wonder why we do not have more of them?

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/30/ex_cia_agent_whistleblower_john_kiriakou

A retired CIA agent who blew the whistle on the agency’s Bush-era torture program has been sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison. John Kiriakou becomes the first CIA official to be jailed for any reason relating to the torture program
Content from External Source
John Kiriakou’s supporters say he has been unfairly targeted in the Obama administration’s crackdown on government whistleblowers. In a statement urging President Obama to commute Kiriakou’s sentence, a group of signatories including attorneys and former CIA officers said, quote, "[Kiriakou] is an anti-torture whistleblower who spoke out against torture because he believed it violated his oath to the Constitution. ... Please, Mr. President, do not allow your legacy to be one where only the whistleblower goes to prison." Prosecutor Neil MacBride, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, defended the government’s handling of the case.
NEIL MacBRIDE: As the judge just said in court, today’s sentence should be a reminder to every individual who works for the government, who comes into the possession of closely held sensitive information regarding the national defense or the identity of a covert agent, that it is critical that that information remain secure and not spill out into the public domain or be shared with others who don’t have authorized access to it.​
Content from External Source

JOHN KIRIAKOU:

I’m going to prison, ostensibly, for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I believe, and my supporters believe, that this, however, was not a case about leaking; this was a case about torture. And I believe I’m going to prison because I blew the whistle on torture. I’ve been a thorn in the CIA’s side since that interview in 2007, in which I said that waterboarding was torture and that it was official U.S. government policy. And I think, finally, the Justice Department caught up with me.

Content from External Source
No cover ups allowed here then... why would anyone not believe the OS?



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top