The PNAC Document

[scubadiver]

[TimmyG]

[Graham]

[DeFecToR]

[Mark Gobell]

"Transformation" and the PNAC Document "Rebuilding America's Defenses"

Referencing the 911myths web site to which I have been referred to by Jay Ref as being able to answer certain doubts that I have expressed.

Reading the 911myths interpretation of what it's author presents to the world as the context in which the word "transformation" has been used.

911myths states:

The odd word here seems to be "transformation".

What do they mean?

Let's look back to the beginning of the same chapter.

"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence".

So "transformation" refers to the process of introducing more information technologies into the military.

What does 9/11 have to do with that?

Nothing at all.

In fact, the attacks demonstrated that one of the PNAC's pet schemes, a global missile shield, is entirely useless when planes can become bombs.

Case closed ?

Well let's see.

Checking the PNAC Document - Rebuilding America's Defenses we find that the word "transformation" is used 108 times.

The word "transformation" is used in the following contexts throught the PNAC document:

transformation of / to / as a process to enable:

.. Global Missile Defense System ("the prime directive for transformation")
.. US Military
.. Economies
.. War
.. Technologies
.. Information Technology
.. US Defense Department
.. Preparing for today's theatre wars
.. US Conventional Froces
.. Competetive forces within the US Military
.. Enduring Mission Requirements
.. US force posture in Korea
.. US Army transformation
.. US Army budget increases
.. US Air Force transformation
.. US Air Force budget increases
.. US Navy transformation
.. US Navy budget increases
.. US Marine Corps transformation
.. revolution in military affairs
.. Joint Strike Fighter is a roadblock to transformation
.. new space capabilities
.. will have profound implications for how wars are fought
.. US must lead transformation process
.. new opportunities for US adversaries
.. new challenges for US Military pre-eminence
.. Pentagon R&D budget
.. US National Security Strategy
.. US foward bases
.. domestic politics
.. industrial policy
.. new systems
.. new organisations
.. new operational concepts
.. space wars
.. cyberspace wars
.. Joint Vision 2010 & Joint Vision 2020
.. the bulk of US Armed Forces
.. transformation as an "enduring mission"
.. must be linked to strategic tasks to maintain US military dominance
.. revolutionary new capabilities
.. improved situational awareness and sharing of information
.. range and endurance of platforms and weapons
.. precision and miniaturisation
.. speed and stealth
.. automation and simulation
.. to prepare for changes in war,
.. to prepare for war in space,
.. to prepare for war in cyberspace,
.. to prepare for war using microbes,
.. to prepare for war using pocket robotics
.. to prepare for biological warfare
.. to prepare for biological warfare that may be useful as a political tool
.. these are merely a glimpse at the possibilities of transformation
.. establishment of transformation "laboratory" within the US Army


and finally the Pearl Harbor quotes:

"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".

appears on page 63 in the chapter "Creating Tomorrows Dominant Force"

and again here,

"Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age."

appears on page 79 in the same chapter under the section "The Navy Returns to the Sea"


So, to summarise, the 911myths website present the word "transformation" as an "odd word" relating solely to "information technology".

Whereas the reality is the word "transformation" is used 108 times in the document and is the central tenet of the whole paper.

Information Technology anyone ?

Jay Ref - is your "critical thinking" process going to refer me to this site again ?

Cheers

[TimmyG]

good post.

from the myths website

[DeFecToR]

I find it completely insane that we are even debating this document. It is written there, as plain as can be.

I honestly think that the only reason these guys have tried to debunk it is because they've read the exact same nonsense on those two 911 debunk sites. If they had left it alone i think debunkers would be a lot less likely to offer an arguement.
And they say WE jump on flimsy sources and pass around the same bad info.

[Jay Ref]

[Andrew Johnson]

Bolton Wanderers 2, Charlton Athletic 3
Queens Park Rangers 0, West Ham 2

"And now, Radio 4 will explode."

[DeFecToR]

Hey Jay Ref. I've given up on you pretty much completely. I think you are here to insult people and not to learn or take on board any new info we may present.
That said, i would very much like for you to actually put your money where your wide mouth is ANSWER THIS POST;

[scubadiver]

Do I owe you an apology? I don't know

The seeming use of threatening language in the "Jay Ref" thread gave me the impression that you were on the same side as him but now that you have posted the above I'm not so sure.



Or is it a case of "I disagree with what you are saying but I will defend your right to say it"? But without the evidence to back himself up?

hmmm...

[DeFecToR]

[scubadiver]

[DeFecToR]

No problem man. We're all wafting through so much s**t right now that it can be hard to tell up from down.

Was this forum always like this? I'm pretty new here and its been non stop madness since i arrived. It was only a couple of days after joining that that whole Jon Ronson thing started and this bag of OCTers showed up soon after.

[scubadiver]

Since Jay Ref and Johnny Pixels arrived it has got increasingly tense.

[Johnny Pixels]

[Jay Ref]

[DeFecToR]

Round and round the merry-go-round.

We have posted plenty. You both just have your heads up each others arses and are unable to think with all the peanuts in your ears.

Why dont you post some evidence that BL did it?

We'll all disagree with it and then we can start over again.

Round and round we go.

"You're an idiot"
"No, you're an idiot"
"YOU're an idiot"
"YOU ARE an idiot"

Though to be fair, you are an idiot Jay Ref.

"Ner ner. I'm telling my mummy. You an your ad homs. Ner ner."

[Leiff]

If the 9/11 truth movement is such a hopeless cause who's claims are nothing but rubbish, why do Johnny Pixels and Jay Ref (and their controllers) feel the need to come here and debunk us?

Is this some kind of charitable act - donating their precious time and considerable effort - to save us from our delusions?

You are too kind!

[scubadiver]

[Jay Ref]

[Johnny Pixels]

[scar]

[DeFecToR]