A Question For Current or Former members of the US Defense Force

[gumboot]

There has been a wide range of CT's about 9/11, but one thing sticks in my mind. Every theory and version I have ever heard has to involve a fairly serious contribution from the US DoD.

I have my own reservations about the liklihood of that. But I am a foreigner so don't know what I'm talking about... :p

For those that have or are serving the DoD...

Consider a scenario in which, for whatever reason, the US gubmit decides it needs to kill a whole bunch of civilians to further its aims.

In your own opinions, would members of the Armed Forces (as a generalisation) willingly carry out such an operation, or not?

-Andrew

[Gravy]

I've never served, but according to Korey Rowe, who was in the U.S. Army, the military can make anyone do anything, because once you sign on the line, they "own you."

And according to him and the other head Loosers, anyone who was tricked into participating in the deaths of thousands of their fellow citizens would be too ashamed to come forward with their story.

[Loss Leader]

I'm not saying this helps the CTers, but we do know that soldiers can be convinced to attack US citizens. Four died at Kent State when woefully unprepared, untrained and unsupervised Guardsmen were sent out to provide security at a ... campus peace rally.

I'm not saying the circumstances match in any way. In fact, I'll go ahead and say the circumstances are entirely dissimilar. But, there is some vague precedent.

[Cylinder]

From my experience in mission planning cells in the USAF, I know that the military justification for targets on the list is often debated at many levels and is briefed at every level per the LOAC requirement.

I will admit moral questions whenever the strategic planning cycles came around, but - by warfare's insane logic - I was able to resolve the moral question for myself. To claim that an attack like 9-11 would come down on a regular target list without comment is ignorant to an extreme.

[Cylinder]

I'm not saying this helps the CTers, but we do know that soldiers can be convinced to attack US citizens. Four died at Kent State when woefully unprepared, untrained and unsupervised Guardsmen were sent out to provide security at a ... campus peace rally.

Kent State was a breakdown of ROEs, poor training, poor equipment selection and fog of war - it was not a deliberate attack. Only four students were killed though around 1000 guard soldiers were patrolling the campus. Of course, four deaths is an outrage, but certainly shows that the incident was isolated.



You just have to love Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings):

The delicate situation was made all the worse by the fact that most of the victims were Democrats while most of the shooters were Republicans.



You should also remember that the peace activists were rioting, burning buildings and attacking police. That's what prompted the initial deployment.

[Darth Rotor]

There has been a wide range of CT's about 9/11, but one thing sticks in my mind. Every theory and version I have ever heard has to involve a fairly serious contribution from the US DoD.

I have my own reservations about the liklihood of that. But I am a foreigner so don't know what I'm talking about... :p

For those that have or are serving the DoD...

Consider a scenario in which, for whatever reason, the US gubmit decides it needs to kill a whole bunch of civilians to further its aims.

In your own opinions, would members of the Armed Forces (as a generalisation) willingly carry out such an operation, or not?

-Andrew
First things first, Kiwi. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/04autumn/felicett.pdf#search=%22posse%20comitatus%20act%201 877%22). Read and ponder.

Secondly, the way your replies are phrased is profoundly offensive.

Thirdly, under certain conditions, martial law can be declared by governors of the various states, and they can mobilize the National Guard units of their state. National Guard troops at Kent State. National Guard mobilized in Los Angeles for the Rodney King riots.

Fourthly: Why do you dignify the bullslop Rowe puts out with such attention? You do your skepticism no credit, man.

DR

PS: Loss Leader, how old are you? "Peace Rally?" That's a fascinating way to portray the campus violence of the late Viet Nam era.

[gumboot]

First things first, Kiwi. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/04autumn/felicett.pdf#search=%22posse%20comitatus%20act%201 877%22). Read and ponder.


Thanks. I'm not sure entirely how it relates. I think we would all agree that carrying out such an operation is wrong. That's not the question.



Secondly, the way your replies are phrased is profoundly offensive.

My apologies. I sincerely do not mean any offense. Those that have been reading my posts since I joined JREF will likely confirm that I have a very profound and unshakeable respect for the armed forces, and hopefully in the near future will receive my commission from Her Majesty as a 2LT in the NZTF (3 AKL (Countess of Ranfurly's Own) Battalion Group). Fingers crossed.

It is my conviction that the great majority of members of the Armed Forces of western nations believe strongly in the traditions of upholding freedom and protecting their fellow citizens from danger.

Infact, when the 2iC of the NZ Army asked me why I wanted to join at my OSB that's the answer I gave, to which he looked at me a bit taken aback and said "That's a bit passe for this day and age isn't it?"

To which I responded "If our freedoms don't need protecting anymore why do we still have a Defense Force?"

I like to think that answer earned me some points towards being accepted... :D

However, like yourself, DR, I have a sense of humour that people can find offensive. My options all have double-meaning - a serious one and a sarcastic/humouress one.

If it was about the NZDF I'd choose Number 4, without question. But it isn't. So I won't vote. I'm interested in hearing from people like yourself.

Way I see it is, the CT can't exist without DoD support. If I've got evidence that DoD support wouldn't be forthcoming, their entire argument stops dead before it even starts.

Why am I bothering to ask? A number of times when I've made assertations CTers have rubbished them because I'm a foreigner so what would I know.

So I'm doing a spot of research. Of course I know very well what the outcome will be, but the same is true of many things we investigate for the sake of debunking CTers.



Thirdly, under certain conditions, martial law can be declared by governors of the various states, and they can mobilize the National Guard units of their state. National Guard troops at Kent State. National Guard mobilized in Los Angeles for the Rodney King riots.

Are you responding to something I said?



Fourthly: Why do you dignify the bullslop Rowe puts out with such attention? You do your skepticism no credit, man.

The same could be said of most debunking. Why do any of us bother giving any attention to any of their bullslop?

Sometimes the most ridiculous claims needs some attention too, because otherwise silence is read as assent.

Consider this. Every single person who accepts any form of US government orchestrated 9/11 attack must by default accept either 1 or 2 in the poll above.

I know were I a member of the US Armed Forces I would be very alarmed by that, and would consider it worthy of attention.

-Andrew

[Cylinder]

To illustrate Gumboot's point, let's look at the stand-down order claimed by conspiracy proponents. It would be easy, right? The national leadership would just fail to issue certain orders and everything goes as planned.

That's treating air defense like magical pixie dust - something out of nothing. What about the lowly maintenance chief who knew that there were a dozen more aircraft ready to fly that morning? What about the controller who knew that they should have been able to get wheels up at least 10 minutes faster? What about the command post staffers who watched while their commander did nothing? What about the mission planner who knew that the OPPLAN called for a couple of CAPs that never actually flew?

Did they just eat the 9-11 attack or is this just another paranoid fantasy from the fever swamp and hustlers pimping DVDs?

[Bob Klase]

I've never served, but according to Korey Rowe, who was in the U.S. Army, the military can make anyone do anything, because once you sign on the line, they "own you."

And according to him and the other head Loosers, anyone who was tricked into participating in the deaths of thousands of their fellow citizens would be too ashamed to come forward with their story.

I spent 25 years in the army. Rowe is wrong- the military can not "make anyone do anything" and they don't "own you". They certainly have a lot more control than most civilian jobs.

The military has all kinds of people. If you wanted to recruit 2 dozen people to help pull off something like 9-11 you could probably find 2 dozen. The problem would be keeping the ones (hundreds or thousands) who refused when you tried to recruit them quiet about it when they learned what you'd been planning.

I can't pick any of the 4 poll answers:

They secretly dream of it
"They" is much too vague. Who would "they" refer to? More than one serial killer has had military service. I'm sure they might secretly dream of it.

Orders are orders- Legal orders are orders.
Illegal orders are no valid and military members have an obligation to disregard orders they know are illegal.

Well no one in MY service, but as for the
As I said- all branches of the military have all kinds of people. If it's true for any one service then it's likely true for all of them.

It would be a sacrelige to our proud and honorable history
I'd agree with that, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Therefore it's not really an answer.

As a generalization, "members of the Armed Forces (as a generalisation)" would not willingly carry out such an operation. They could probably be tricked into it, but I'd say claiming that they'd all be too ashamed to come forward after being tricked into participating is more a reflection of Rowe's own shortcomings than it is his knowledge of how most of us would react.

[gumboot]

The military has all kinds of people. If you wanted to recruit 2 dozen people to help pull off something like 9-11 you could probably find 2 dozen. The problem would be keeping the ones (hundreds or thousands) who refused when you tried to recruit them quiet about it when they learned what you'd been planning.


Agreed. But you couldn't do it with just two dozen people, could you? I mean, if we take the most basic version - it happens exactly as the official story, but with military aircraft instead of civil, at the absolute minimum you're talking about pilots, ground crew to fuel each aircraft and get it on its way, and a crew to repaint them as commercial airliners. And all of these people involved are going to have friends and family and work mates.

As you move up the ladder of more complicated theories the number of people involved grows exponentially.



"They" is much too vague. Who would "they" refer to? More than one serial killer has had military service. I'm sure they might secretly dream of it.

"They" = the military. It's intended to be rather sarcastic. Someone who wouldn't choose option 1 would think the notion ridiculous, a CT nut who would choose option 1 would think it totally serious.



Illegal orders are no valid and military members have an obligation to disregard orders they know are illegal.

I know. :) But it is a common CT argument for how they can get the military to carry out such a plot.




As I said- all branches of the military have all kinds of people. If it's true for any one service then it's likely true for all of them.

Sorry, that one was more of a joke. I am assuming the US has inter-service rivalry like most defense forces?



I'd agree with that, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Therefore it's not really an answer.

I'm only after your opinion on the most likely. :) I'm not expecting anyone to speak for the entire DoD.




As a generalization, "members of the Armed Forces (as a generalisation)" would not willingly carry out such an operation. They could probably be tricked into it, but I'd say claiming that they'd all be too ashamed to come forward after being tricked into participating is more a reflection of Rowe's own shortcomings than it is his knowledge of how most of us would react.


I agree totally. In fact I think if anyone were tricked into it (I find this pretty unlikely, but you never know) they'd soon work it out, and would be well beyond pissed.

Consider that supposedly the military is all buddy-buddy, yet every major military "massacre" type scenario or other warcrime is uncovered by the military. If nothing else, something like My Lai indicates a lack of discipline, and that isn't acceptable.

-Andrew

[Gravy]

As a generalization, "members of the Armed Forces (as a generalisation)" would not willingly carry out such an operation. They could probably be tricked into it, but I'd say claiming that they'd all be too ashamed to come forward after being tricked into participating is more a reflection of Rowe's own shortcomings than it is his knowledge of how most of us would react.
I agree entirely. I only posted Mr. Rowe's comments to point out how dishonorable and thougtless the 9/11 CTs can be. Thank you for your service, Bob.

[Hellbound]

I'd have to say the vast majority of the military would not carry out such orders. You won't find too many groups more skeptical of military orders and operations than those in the military. We rarely believed what our commanders told us about any operation.

Also, they might find as many as a couple hundred people in the Army, say, that would go along with something like this (for money, or power, or wwhatever). THe problem, though, is they can't just get ANY hundred. It has to be the right people, in the right positions, in the right places...and in groups. One person at One location who doesn't agree is enough to bring the whole thing down.

The entire idea is a fantasy from the get go. It just doesn't happen.

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader, how old are you? "Peace Rally?" That's a fascinating way to portray the campus violence of the late Viet Nam era.

While there had been violence on campus and in downtown Kent in the days before May 4, 1970, there is no indication that the May 4 peace rally was in any way disorderly. The guardsmen themselves invited confrontation by advancing on the students with bayonettes fixed and by illegally ordering the crowd to disperse. To this day there is absolutely no indication that any hostile act against the guardsmen prompted the shooting. When they did cease fire, they had killed four students, the closest of whom was 265 feet away. Two of the dead were not even part of the rally - in fact one of them was in the ROTC.

Whatever campus violence there was in the late 60s and early 70s, every other college in America managed to withstand it without actually killing any of the students.

My age, by the way, is 35.

[Bob Klase]

Agreed. But you couldn't do it with just two dozen people, could you? I mean, if we take the most basic version - it happens exactly as the official story, but with military aircraft instead of civil, at the absolute minimum you're talking about pilots, ground crew to fuel each aircraft and get it on its way, and a crew to repaint them as commercial airliners. And all of these people involved are going to have friends and family and work mates.

As you move up the ladder of more complicated theories the number of people involved grows exponentially.

Exactly. I looked at it as just getting 2 dozen people to actually fake the hijacks and fly the planes. Even with that minimal number there are dozens to hundreds of others aware of at least parts of what happened.

[Yoink]

Gumboot, as a fellow-kiwi (living in the States) thanks for your willingness to serve. I doubt you'll ever actually have to protect New Zealand's freedoms from any direct assault, but I'm sure you'll be called on to do some hard and largely thankless work in places like the Solomon Islands or East Timor.

That said, I'm guessing your question is put the wrong way around. That is, any organization as large as the USDoD is bound to have a share of nutjobs who'd be willing to engage in some kind of "false flag" operation against US citizens (greater good etc. etc.). The point is, though, could they mount such an operation as an official project without generating whistleblowers?

Look at some much smaller projects--like the decision to use torture against suspected Al Qaida operatives. For all sorts of obvious reasons it would obviously be much easier to get US military personnel to agree to such an act after 9/11 (there are many, indeed, who continue to see no moral problem with that course of action) and to keep the whole thing secret. In fact, however, whistleblowers appeared almost from the start.

A similar point could be made by pointing to the recent series of articles in the LA Times on recently FOIAed documents relating to Vietnam war era atrocities. It turns out that there was a massive operation by the DoD to cover up these acts and to wage disinformation and discrediting operations against those who did blow the whistle (My Lai, alas, turns out to have been far less exceptional than one would have wished to believe)

Now, the troothers would like to seize upon such a thing, no doubt, and say "see, the Govt. kept this hidden for over thirty years!" But what they overlook (well, one of the many things they overlook) is that no one ever actually silenced the whistleblowers. Whistles were blown left, right, and center; and this about actions against foreigners. The problem for the troothers is not "would the government cover this up" but why can't they find a single credible witness to suggest that there was something to cover up?

[Darth Rotor]

My age, by the way, is 35.
Thank you. "Peace Rally" was a misnomer far too often, though the Army has some excellent "lessons learned" for their OOTW manuals and civil unrest (see also Katrina recently and Hurricane Andrew) based on the problems of disciplined use of force drawn from Kent State.

Another poster pointed out the leadership failure, which the Army IIRC acknowledged.

I have always empathized with the officers and NCO's put on the spot. They are pretty sure they have to do something, "peaceful rallies" had been turning ugly fast for some years, and they weren't a large force. A lot more of the jerks who spit at Guardsmen should have been shot, IMO, in those days.

The Kent State 4 died for the sins of thousands of long haired miscreants whose violent acting out set the stage for that bloody encounter.

"Custer died for your sins" eh?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Those that have been reading my posts since I joined JREF will likely confirm that I have a very profound and unshakeable respect for the armed forces, and hopefully in the near future will receive my commission from Her Majesty as a 2LT in the NZTF (3 AKL (Countess of Ranfurly's Own) Battalion Group). Fingers crossed.

Consider this. Every single person who accepts any form of US government orchestrated 9/11 attack must by default accept either 1 or 2 in the poll above.

I know were I a member of the US Armed Forces I would be very alarmed by that, and would consider it worthy of attention.
-Andrew
1. Congrats, and best of luck on your comission!

2. No group of people is free of corruption, so doubtless some folks in uniform might be corruptible. As Cylinder pointed out, there are so many regular folks involved in the 9-11 bit that it would be near impossible to keep quiet, particularly with the internet! ;)

3. It appears that I over reacted a bit. Sorry.

DR

[Brainster]

There has been a wide range of CT's about 9/11, but one thing sticks in my mind. Every theory and version I have ever heard has to involve a fairly serious contribution from the US DoD.

I have my own reservations about the liklihood of that. But I am a foreigner so don't know what I'm talking about... :p

For those that have or are serving the DoD...

Consider a scenario in which, for whatever reason, the US gubmit decides it needs to kill a whole bunch of civilians to further its aims.

In your own opinions, would members of the Armed Forces (as a generalisation) willingly carry out such an operation, or not?

-Andrew

I've never served, but I'll throw my two cents in:

War crimes certainly occur, but remember, the vast majority are enemy against enemy/civilian population of the enemy. And they are almost never ordered by the chain of command, but the result of rogue units/officers.

My Lai ended when a US army helicopter pilot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson%2C_Jr.), who was outranked by some of the officers on the ground, threatened to open fire on the American troops if they didn't stop killing civilians.

So to me, the odds are remote to vanishing that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld could get the military to agree to this, when anybody involved would know that if it was ever found out, they would indeed (as Uncle Fetzer once rhapsodized) be dragged from their houses and torn to pieces by the mob.

[Loss Leader]

I have always empathized with the officers and NCO's put on the spot. They are pretty sure they have to do something, "peaceful rallies" had been turning ugly fast for some years, and they weren't a large force. A lot more of the jerks who spit at Guardsmen should have been shot, IMO, in those days.

The Kent State 4 died for the sins of thousands of long haired miscreants whose violent acting out set the stage for that bloody encounter.


Well, I disagree with you but only mildly. The government utterly failed to listen to its own citizens. When the government ignores the will of the people, it is our duty to make governance so unreasonably difficult that those in power simply give up. Doing so is one of the most patriotic acts I can think of.

That being said, the boys in the Guard and Army who bore the brunt of this were performing another of the most patriotic of duties. They should never have been made to oppose American citizens and they did so, in general, as well as they knew how.

There were also some people on either side who saw the whole thing as a great chance to create as much michief as possible and they made the entire situation more difficult for everyone.

But long-haired miscreants? I'm not exactly enough of an Eisenhower Republican to go with you on that.

[Darth Rotor]

But long-haired miscreants? I'm not exactly enough of an Eisenhower Republican to go with you on that.
I guess you had to be there, but thanks for your comments in any case. :)

DR

[gumboot]

Gumboot, as a fellow-kiwi (living in the States) thanks for your willingness to serve. I doubt you'll ever actually have to protect New Zealand's freedoms from any direct assault, but I'm sure you'll be called on to do some hard and largely thankless work in places like the Solomon Islands or East Timor.


Well met! I should have guessed that such a brilliant mind had to come from kiwiland. :D

Yes I think it's unlikely that our little country will come under direct threat any time soon, but after 2 years of TF service I will be elligible for overseas deployment (I have to quit the TF and join the regulars for the deployment because TF are not allowed to be deployed overseas, but it's all just a paper game...).

I'm rather keen to go to Afghanistan, but we will see if we are still there at that time - I'm looking at 4 years before I can be deployed overseas. No doubt there will be new problems for us to solve by then (maybe I'll be deployed to liberate you all from the Haliburton Death Camps...;) )

-Andrew

[Obviousman]

As a serving Officer in the Royal Australian Navy, I can tell you you do not have to obey an illegal order. In circumstances where the order is clearly illegal (such as simply being handed a pistol and ordered to shoot a co-worker), it is your duty not to obey it.

There are some idiots out there who seem to think everyone in the military is a mindless killbot.

[Gravy]

Yes I think it's unlikely that our little country will come under direct threat any time soon...
You seem to be taking Peter Jackson's plans for world domination rather lightly.

[gumboot]

As a serving Officer in the Royal Australian Navy, I can tell you you do not have to obey an illegal order. In circumstances where the order is clearly illegal (such as simply being handed a pistol and ordered to shoot a co-worker), it is your duty not to obey it.

There are some idiots out there who seem to think everyone in the military is a mindless killbot.

:D Well met fellow ANZAC. You're absolutely right, of course. It is a pity so few people understand the nature of the military.

Civilians do a great disservice to their armed forces when they form such illinformed and ultimately false assumptions.

One thing I understand is part of the problem with stuff like the prisoner abuses in Iraq was the US ended up having to deploy national guard forces that hadn't undergone laws of armed conflict training. With the NZDF you can't actually be deployed overseas unless you are qualified to class 1 minimum, and 2 for officers.

I believe the staff that establish the ROE are required to be class 4 or 5 minimum.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

You seem to be taking Peter Jackson's plans for world domination rather lightly.

;) He's rather content to stay here for now. He doesn't actually like going overseas - last I heard he said he wasn't ever going to the Oscars again after Return of the King.

But after he does "Lovely Bones" (the JREF folks will love it, the story is narrated by a dead 16 yr old girl...:rolleyes: ) the rumour mill is he's doing a film of the New Zealand action at the First Battle of the Somme.

Gives me goosebumps thinking about it. And better yet it leaves the Battle of Bapaume free for me to do :D

-Andrew

[Loss Leader]

As a serving Officer in the Royal Australian Navy, I can tell you you do not have to obey an illegal order. In circumstances where the order is clearly illegal (such as simply being handed a pistol and ordered to shoot a co-worker), it is your duty not to obey it.

Can you cite even one modern example of a soldier refusing to obey an order and then later being vindicated for it when the order was found to be illegal/immoral? I don't think I've ever heard of such a case in the US.

[Hellbound]

Can you cite even one modern example of a soldier refusing to obey an order and then later being vindicated for it when the order was found to be illegal/immoral? I don't think I've ever heard of such a case in the US.

I can.

In fact, in my three years of regualr active-duty service (not counting mobilizations), I witnessed one. And most peopel who are in for very long will see it.

In my particular case, it involved a sexual harrassment issue, and an NCO had ordered certain people to remain quiet about it. These people, of course, violated that order, and were vindicated. I was called as a witness in this incident.

Actually, I saw two...although the second only tangentially. A similar situation with an officer (one of the company commanders) who had been stopped for a DWI. He attempted to order the unit clerk to cook his records and hide the incident (remove it from his file). The clerk refused, and was not punished for disobeying the order.

[Loss Leader]

I can.

In fact, in my three years of regualr active-duty service (not counting mobilizations), I witnessed one. And most peopel who are in for very long will see it.

In my particular case, it involved a sexual harrassment issue, and an NCO had ordered certain people to remain quiet about it. These people, of course, violated that order, and were vindicated. I was called as a witness in this incident.

Actually, I saw two...although the second only tangentially. A similar situation with an officer (one of the company commanders) who had been stopped for a DWI. He attempted to order the unit clerk to cook his records and hide the incident (remove it from his file). The clerk refused, and was not punished for disobeying the order.


Thank you. I assumed these types of things were handled quietly and left little trace in any official records.

[gumboot]

Thank you. I assumed these types of things were handled quietly and left little trace in any official records.

It probably doesn't happen that often because the people giving the orders usually know what they can order, and what they can't.

Number 11 on the NZDF code of conduct:

As a member of the Armed Forces of New Zealand I WILL uphold the law of armed conflict by preventing and reporting violations.

Very few warcrimes are stopped/uncovered by reporters. As someone mentioned, My Lai was stopped by a US chopper pilot who threatened to shoot the US troops.

Likewise the scandals in Iraq are being uncovered by other soldiers who refuse to stay silent.

I know with NZ officers, a lot of effort is put into making sure you know what orders are legal and which ones aren't. Discipline is important, and if you start giving illegal orders that your troops refuse to obey, you're in big trouble.

There have also been some high profile cases such as the RAF officer who refused to go to Iraq as he claimed it was an illegal war and therefore an illegal order.

-Andrew