| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:28 am Post subject: The PNAC Document |
 |
|
Perhaps one of you 'critics' could explain the extrordinary comments published in september 2000 in the PNAC document Rebuilding Americas Defences.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."
I find this to be an unbelievable coincidence given the terror attacks one year later.
I would very much like to hear what kind of explanation a critic of 911 truth could offer.
By the way, in concidering your response, please be aware that i am expecting something of much higher regard than the absolute shillery offered at 911myths.com
http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html
The pathetic attempt at explaining away this document offered at this site are clearly the words of a government apologist and i feel are utterly deplorable given the tragedy of 911.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject: Re: The PNAC Document |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | Perhaps one of you 'critics' could explain the extrordinary comments published in september 2000 in the PNAC document Rebuilding Americas Defences.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."
I find this to be an unbelievable coincidence given the terror attacks one year later.
I would very much like to hear what kind of explanation a critic of 911 truth could offer.
By the way, in concidering your response, please be aware that i am expecting something of much higher regard than the absolute shillery offered at 911myths.com
http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html
The pathetic attempt at explaining away this document offered at this site are clearly the words of a government apologist and i feel are utterly deplorable given the tragedy of 911. |
Have you really examined the quote in context?
It really is in reference to "new [military] technologies and operational concepts". It's not saying that a "new Pearl Harbor" is desirable. Seriously. Read it in its full context.
Also, consider: If the leaders of PNAC were planning this thing, why would they include it in their public agenda? Only movie villians announce their evil plans in advance.
The PNAC agenda is a military-focused, hardline, neocon agenda that I have a lot of problems with, but it's not a planned foreshadowing of 9/11.
The 911myths analysis is quite accurate and quite good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have read the entire document and to twist what is written in it to mean that it is describing new technologies and concepts is an utterly pathetic attempt at excusing what these butchers have done.
I was pretty much expecting you to agree with that 911myths nonsense, and since you have i can only say what i believe to be true. You are a disgusting apologist to mass murderers and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I will no longer reply to any posts you make. Frankly i'd rather eat s**t than listen to your nonsense anymore.
Shame on you.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | I have read the entire document and to twist what is written in it to mean that it is describing new technologies and concepts is an utterly pathetic attempt at excusing what these butchers have done.
I was pretty much expecting you to agree with that 911myths nonsense, and since you have i can only say what i believe to be true. You are a disgusting apologist to mass murderers and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I will no longer reply to any posts you make. Frankly i'd rather eat s**t than listen to your nonsense anymore.
Shame on you. |
May I ask you, before you write me off completely, how you interpreted that sentence, and how your interpretation fits in with the context of the document as a whole?
Specifically, what did they mean by "transformation", "revolutionary change", and "new Pearl Harbor"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not having this conversation with you. It is childish and moronic and is a waste of time.
I will discuss other issues with you but not this one. Though i'm not sure what the point would be given your astonishing lack of judgement on this issue. You really have disappointed me on this. I thought you were better than to excuse these criminals.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | I'm not having this conversation with you. It is childish and moronic and is a waste of time.
I will discuss other issues with you but not this one. Though i'm not sure what the point would be given your astonishing lack of judgement on this issue. You really have disappointed me on this. I thought you were better than to excuse these criminals. |
All right. This is my last post on the issue, then. Not to debate--just to clarify my position regarding PNAC.
I find it deeply troubling that PNAC's agenda has been pushed through so quickly and thoroughly. I believe the PNAC members in positions of leadership were able to exploit 9/11 to do so. I believe that their agenda is reckless and is a danger to the world.
What I don't believe is that this means they caused or allowed 9/11 to happen. It provides motive (one that I find rather weak, weighed against the risks and consequences) should any of these people ever be implicated as having a hand in the attacks. But it doesn't in itself implicate them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: |
What I don't believe is that this means they caused or allowed 9/11 to happen. It provides motive (one that I find rather weak, weighed against the risks and consequences) should any of these people ever be implicated as having a hand in the attacks. But it doesn't in itself implicate them. |
HOW ON EARTH can it provide a motive while at the same time not implicating the people to which the motive applies?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: |
What I don't believe is that this means they caused or allowed 9/11 to happen. It provides motive (one that I find rather weak, weighed against the risks and consequences) should any of these people ever be implicated as having a hand in the attacks. But it doesn't in itself implicate them. |
HOW ON EARTH can it provide a motive while at the same time not implicating the people to which the motive applies? |
Motive never implicates on its own. If it did, we'd all be in prison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WHAT!!??!
What planet are you living on man???
This is a perfect example of the twisting of logic and reason needed to support the official CT.
The FIRST thing an investigator of any crime looks for is the person WITH THE MOTIVE.
[quote] Motive never implicates on its own. If it did, we'd all be in prison.
[quote]
Motive ALWAYS implicates for crying out loud. It just doesnt PROVE.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | WHAT!!??!
What planet are you living on man???
This is a perfect example of the twisting of logic and reason needed to support the official CT.
The FIRST thing an investigator of any crime looks for is the person WITH THE MOTIVE.
| Quote: | Motive never implicates on its own. If it did, we'd all be in prison.
|
Motive ALWAYS implicates for crying out loud. It just doesnt PROVE. |
You keep leaving off the "on its own" part.
The first thing investigators do is look for the PEOPLE with the motive. Then they compare these people against the initial evidence and come up with a suspect list.
If there's no corroborating evidence, then motive ON ITS OWN, does not implicate a suspect.
Can you think of anyone else who may have had a motive for the 9/11 attacks? And not only that, but means and opportunity as well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: |
The first thing investigators do is look for the PEOPLE with the motive. Then they compare these people against the initial evidence and come up with a suspect list.
If there's no corroborating evidence, then motive ON ITS OWN, does not implicate a suspect.
|
For god sake. If your neighbour wrote to you in a letter that he was going to kill his wife by shooting her, claim lots of insurance money, and move to the Caribbean, then one year later his wife is fatally shot, he claims lots of insurance money and then moves to the Caribbean, he would be a likely suspect. His letter to you would IMPLICATE him as the killer regardless of any other evidence. Though the letter BY ITSELF would not be enough to convict him.
JESUS CHRIST this a pointless conversation.
| chipmunk stew wrote: |
Can you think of anyone else who may have had a motive for the 9/11 attacks? And not only that, but means and opportunity as well? |
Motive, no. Certainly not BL. He now has the entire wrath of the American armed forces ready to send the middle east back in to the dark ages. Bit of a miss calculation if he thought blowing up the WTC would be benificial to his muslim brothers and sisters.
Means, not a chance. Take the Pentagon for example. One of the most heavily defended air spaces on the planet. Any unchallenged attack from the air by either terrorists or foreign countries would be impossible.
Opportunity, no again. This required the knowlegde of US officials.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: |
The first thing investigators do is look for the PEOPLE with the motive. Then they compare these people against the initial evidence and come up with a suspect list.
If there's no corroborating evidence, then motive ON ITS OWN, does not implicate a suspect.
|
For god sake. If your neighbour wrote to you in a letter that he was going to kill his wife by shooting her, claim lots of insurance money, and move to the Caribbean, then one year later his wife is fatally shot, he claims lots of insurance money and then moves to the Caribbean, he would be a likely suspect. His letter to you would IMPLICATE him as the killer regardless of any other evidence. Though the letter BY ITSELF would not be enough to convict him.
JESUS CHRIST this a pointless conversation.
|
The letter to you is physical evidence of intent. Motive, on the other hand, is slightly different. Assume that you never received said letter. A year goes by, the guy's wife is shot, he collects insurance money and moves to the Caribbean. He had motive to commit the crime (the insurance money), but if the evidence does not point to that being the case, he is not implicated simply because he had motive.
| Quote: |
| chipmunk stew wrote: |
Can you think of anyone else who may have had a motive for the 9/11 attacks? And not only that, but means and opportunity as well? |
Motive, no. Certainly not BL. He now has the entire wrath of the American armed forces ready to send the middle east back in to the dark ages. Bit of a miss calculation if he thought blowing up the WTC would be benificial to his muslim brothers and sisters.
|
Do you then dismiss OBL's militant, anti-Western rhetoric?
| Quote: |
Means, not a chance. Take the Pentagon for example. One of the most heavily defended air spaces on the planet. Any unchallenged attack from the air by either terrorists or foreign countries would be impossible.
Opportunity, no again. This required the knowlegde of US officials. |
As of Friday, July 22, 2005 the US did not have a unified response to airspace incursions over DC: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005 072101930.html
As you can see here http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=washington+dc&ll=38.863905,-77 .050037&spn=0.024828,0.053558&t=k&om=1 the cross river approach to Washington Reagan National Airport comes w/in 3000' of the Pentagons airspace (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tunne l-in-the-sky.tudelft.nl%2FSVatDelftUofT%2Fpublications%2FDASC2003-9c3. pdf&ei=kEbGRPPLKZf8oQKUj_isDQ&sig2=v0-6T5XjgfqizU1xeoqvcQ)
This Pilot's Guide discussion post-9/11 changes to DC airspace restrictions (see page 4) http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=6 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arkan_Wolfshade wrote: |
The letter to you is physical evidence of intent. Motive, on the other hand, is slightly different. Assume that you never received said letter. A year goes by, the guy's wife is shot, he collects insurance money and moves to the Caribbean. He had motive to commit the crime (the insurance money), but if the evidence does not point to that being the case, he is not implicated simply because he had motive.
|
Look. They wanted war. War required a 911. A 911 happened.
A child could figure this one out.
| Arkan_Wolfshade wrote: |
Do you then dismiss OBL's militant, anti-Western rhetoric?
|
He never said he was going to attack America. Though even if he had, it wouldnt have made any difference. He was a CIA tool from the start. Christ, they used him in Bosnia for god sake.
Sorry. Not buying it.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: |
The first thing investigators do is look for the PEOPLE with the motive. Then they compare these people against the initial evidence and come up with a suspect list.
If there's no corroborating evidence, then motive ON ITS OWN, does not implicate a suspect.
|
For god sake. If your neighbour wrote to you in a letter that he was going to kill his wife by shooting her, claim lots of insurance money, and move to the Caribbean, then one year later his wife is fatally shot, he claims lots of insurance money and then moves to the Caribbean, he would be a likely suspect. His letter to you would IMPLICATE him as the killer regardless of any other evidence. Though the letter BY ITSELF would not be enough to convict him.
JESUS CHRIST this a pointless conversation. |
The PNAC document doesn't say that they're going to execute a false flag op by flying planes into buildings and use it to start a war in the Middle East.
If the letter in your example said that the guy was hard up for money and his marriage was on the rocks, and unless a miracle occurred he had a long road ahead, then your analogy would fit. And the guy would certainly be a suspect. The letter could certainly be used in a court of law IF you could connect him with the crime.
Maybe we're using different definitions of the word "implicate". Let's check the dictionary:
| Quote: | 1. To involve or connect intimately or incriminatingly
2. To have as a consequence or necessary circumstance |
| DeFecToR wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: |
Can you think of anyone else who may have had a motive for the 9/11 attacks? And not only that, but means and opportunity as well? |
Motive, no. Certainly not BL. He now has the entire wrath of the American armed forces ready to send the middle east back in to the dark ages. Bit of a miss calculation if he thought blowing up the WTC would be benificial to his muslim brothers and sisters. |
He stated explicitly and publicly more than once that he wanted to attack the US within her own borders. His goal is justice, holy war, honor and pleasing his god, not a comfy life for his bretheren. Among Islamic fundamentalists, there is no higher honor than to die as a martyr fighting the infidels. These are not entirely earthly aims (even the border conflicts are usually colored by claims of religious-cultural god-given privilege.)
| Quote: | | Means, not a chance. Take the Pentagon for example. One of the most heavily defended air spaces on the planet. Any unchallenged attack from the air by either terrorists or foreign countries would be impossible. |
First, the attack was not unchallenged. There was a fighter in pursuit.
Second, the idea that the Pentagon was as well-defended as Inside Jobbers say it was is a myth based on who-knows-what, but not reality.
Third, assymetrical surprise attacks are very difficult to prepare for, especially for a country that had never before experienced it and a military that is geared towards repelling conventional attacks.
| Quote: | | Opportunity, no again. This required the knowlegde of US officials. |
Why they had opportunity is something that needs to be worked out, and there is every reason to suspect that we don't know the whole story pre-9/11. That these 19 men had opportunity is clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let me see if I understand where you are coming from, and please, correct me if I am mistaken; I don't want to inadvertantly start setting up a strawman argument.
You are grounding your arguments/claims on the base idea that Islamic/Muslim militants are an outgrowth, or at least backed by, US intelligence services. Therefore, any actions taken by said militants is at least condoned by, and at most orchastrated by, the US intelligence services. Is this an accurate summation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | Look. They wanted war. War required a 911. A 911 happened.
A child could figure this one out. |
It's something of a comfort to me to know that there's little chance that you'll ever serve on a jury in a criminal trial in which I'm accused yet innocent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arkan_Wolfshade wrote: | Let me see if I understand where you are coming from, and please, correct me if I am mistaken; I don't want to inadvertantly start setting up a strawman argument.
You are grounding your arguments/claims on the base idea that Islamic/Muslim militants are an outgrowth, or at least backed by, US intelligence services. Therefore, any actions taken by said militants is at least condoned by, and at most orchastrated by, the US intelligence services. Is this an accurate summation? |
Western intelligence. And Israeli. Either they are backing said terrorists or they carry out attacks themselves that are then blamed on said terrorists.
Take for example the two British SAS * who were caught in Basra dressed up as arabs with a car bomb waiting to go off.
There have also been numerous reports of US soldiers setting up false flag attacks across Iraq.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | Look. They wanted war. War required a 911. A 911 happened.
A child could figure this one out. |
It's something of a comfort to me to know that there's little chance that you'll ever serve on a jury in a criminal trial in which I'm accused yet innocent. |
If you were accused of something i would expect you to hold nothing back in proving your innocence.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For some wacky reason the word (S*O*L*D*I*E*R) is a no no.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | Arkan_Wolfshade wrote: | Let me see if I understand where you are coming from, and please, correct me if I am mistaken; I don't want to inadvertantly start setting up a strawman argument.
You are grounding your arguments/claims on the base idea that Islamic/Muslim militants are an outgrowth, or at least backed by, US intelligence services. Therefore, any actions taken by said militants is at least condoned by, and at most orchastrated by, the US intelligence services. Is this an accurate summation? |
Western intelligence. And Israeli. Either they are backing said terrorists or they carry out attacks themselves that are then blamed on said terrorists.
Take for example the two British SAS * who were caught in Basra dressed up as arabs with a car bomb waiting to go off.
There have also been numerous reports of US soldiers setting up false flag attacks across Iraq. |
Thank you for the clarification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HA HA 
Just remembered. It wasnt the word 'soldier', it was (A*S*S*H*O*L*E)
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In context, admittedly it isn't an inspiring smoking gun.
'Any serious effort and transformation [to create a dominant military force] must occur within the larger framework of US national security strategy, military missions and defence budgets ... Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbour'
But for me it has to be the following quote by Brzezinski in his book "The Grand chessboard":
"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally, i see PNAC's as worse. It is saying right there in plain as day language;
"We want to project our military power in various places around the planet but it will take ages unless we are horribly attacked frst."
Simple.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stav
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 103
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject: spies i think.... |
|
|
arkan and chipmonk welcome to this forum, firstly i would just like to say how impressed i am with your knowledge of law, i was just woundering where you studied law as you both have a good grasp of it. are you still in law in anyway, police, lawers, solicitor, judge etc etc. if not what proffession do you hold.
just woundering as the way you argue about law sound like the lectures i have attended.
stav
_________________
open you eyes and see the truth for yourself!
Why the lies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the RBADs document implicates PNAC as a suspect . they had the motive.
i'm glad we can agree on that.
but, chipmunk, you are admitting that pnac had a motive to organise the attacks (well done. i agree), yet you say pnac would not find the occurance of such an event, desirable.
how is it that one can be motivated to acheive something, but not desire the outcome? please explain
pnac had the motive. they are a suspect. other evidence suggests that people with a great deal of power in the american government were the only ones capable of carrying out such attacks. i would say that the amount of evidence pointing in this direction makes them a most likely culprit.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | Personally, i see PNAC's as worse. It is saying right there in plain as day language;
"We want to project our military power in various places around the planet but it will take ages unless we are horribly attacked frst."
Simple. |
Well, the reason why I think Brzezinski is closer is because he was the main proponent of using Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.
In terms of cultural and pursuasive psychology (if I can use that term) he is spot on because most people know that the average American is far to passive and isolationist to care about the world's troubles. If the American military want to dominate then there needs to be some event that will change the cultural thinking of an entire country before the military can think about justifying its actions.
My opinion of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: | the RBADs document implicates PNAC as a suspect . they had the motive.
i'm glad we can agree on that.
but, chipmunk, you are admitting that pnac had a motive to organise the attacks (well done. i agree), yet you say pnac would not find the occurance of such an event, desirable.
how is it that one can be motivated to acheive something, but not desire the outcome? please explain
pnac had the motive. they are a suspect. other evidence suggests that people with a great deal of power in the american government were the only ones capable of carrying out such attacks. i would say that the amount of evidence pointing in this direction makes them a most likely culprit. |
I said the motive was rather weak considering the risks and consequences (side effects). I also said it might provide motive IF they could be linked to the attacks. It's not a link in itself.
Reformulation of the military and PNAC's other agenda items are desirable to them, to be sure. You'll have a harder time making a convincing argument that the deaths of thousands of citizens, the drastic slowing of the US economy, a destabilized global stage, and unpredictable and costly wars are a desirable means to fulfill that agenda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Graham
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 350
Location: bucks
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The PNAC simply knew about it. Didn't plan it themselves, just knew it was going to happen. Their plan is for AFTER "a new Pearl Harbor", not to create it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ofcourse the document is not proof pnac organised the attacks.
like it has been said several times now.. pnac are a think tank. they have a report which clearly says that their goals are likely to take a long time, unless they have a 'new pearl harbor'.
it is clear that americas foriegn policy (specifically control over oil) could advance quicker with an attack like this. it is quite clear i think. democracy is an inconvenience to these people.
i think the organisation of the attacks was quite beuracratic.
pnac suggest being attacked would be desireable in acheiving their goals.
some person or persons within the group go about sending that information to someone in the cia or other intelligence/special ops group. they set up terror drills with the targets in question. able danger organises the patsies to take the blame. the attack happens.
i'm not saying this is exactly what happened. it is just a theory. i believe that a variation on this theory is probably the truth. further investigation is required. i don't have the authority to do it myself . so i am pushing for the mainstream media and our government to adress the situation.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Graham wrote: | | The PNAC simply knew about it. Didn't plan it themselves, just knew it was going to happen. Their plan is for AFTER "a new Pearl Harbor", not to create it. |
Yup,
The evil reclusive Jewish cabal of neocon criminal masterminds put together a perfectly choreographed conspiracy...only to be undone by publishing their evil plan on a public website.
Makes about as much sense as anything else you guys have said...
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
