Michael Meacher's foreword to David Ray Griffin's New Pearl Harbour

[jon]

If people haven't seen, Meacher's written the foreword to the paperback edition of Griffin's New Pearl Harbour - see amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1844370674/ref=pe_3421_3935971_pe_snp_674).
Looks like one of our MPs may have gone full wingnut :mad:

[MikeW]

Meacher's been into this for a long time, unfortunately. See Michael Meacher's Crackpot Conspiracy Theories (http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2003/09/22/mpMichaelMeachersCrackpotConspiracyTheories.html)

[jon]

thanks - I knew the guy had been associated with BS like Terrorstorm, but thought he'd been avoiding 'officially' supporting the wingnuts. I hadn't seen that guardian article, though...

Has Meacher gone 'on the record' explicitly supporting 7/7 CTs? Accusing his Labour colleagues of complicity in murder wouldn't be very comradely...

[JanH]

Thanks for linking my article on Meacher's deceptions, MikeW. This was written in my very early days of 9/11-debunking, and I'm sure it could be improved a lot with the new information available.

Right now I am busy trying to fill the gap of good 9/11 debunking articles in Norwegian, which is needed considering that a number of crackpots have been given some prominent platforms to spread their nonsense. All the material provided on this board and various other sites have been a great help.

[MikeW]

Has Meacher gone 'on the record' explicitly supporting 7/7 CTs? Accusing his Labour colleagues of complicity in murder wouldn't be very comradely...
Not on any record that I've seen. Given that he decided not to back a showing of Loose Change in Parliament earlier this year, I think he might be backing away from some of the more dubious claims.

[timmyg]

Meacher rasies some very good questions specifically concerning the motives of PNAC (outlining how 9/11 was a beneficial event to them) and the highly suspicious pakistani ISI connection, which hasn't been properly investigated. I don't think he should be labelled a crackpot for asking these questions.

[Firestone]

Meacher rasies some very good questions specifically concerning the motives of PNAC (outlining how 9/11 was a beneficial event to them) and the highly suspicious pakistani ISI connection, which hasn't been properly investigated. I don't think he should be labelled a crackpot for asking these questions.This is something I can't understand.

We are now five years after the events of 9/11.
But the "big names", the "great investigators", who believe that 9/11 was an inside job are still asking questions and complaining that things haven't been properly investigated.
Why don't they go and look for answers? Why don't they investigate things properly and give us the results of these investigations?
Instead, they keep repeating the same questions, many of which have been answered years ago! :confused:

[uk_dave]

It is my understanding that PNAC is open to interpretation (and does tend to conjure up the image of the evil conspirators taking devlish delight in posting their intentions on the internet before carrying them out) and the ISI link seems to be unsustantiated save one newspaper story originally printed in an Indian newspaper and reprinted elsewhere, but no original investigations.

[jon]

It is my understanding that PNAC is open to interpretation (and does tend to conjure up the image of the evil conspirators taking devlish delight in posting their intentions on the internet before carrying them out) and the ISI link seems to be unsustantiated save one newspaper story originally printed in an Indian newspaper and reprinted elsewhere, but no original investigations.

I'm always interested why the CTs 'pick on' PNAC - cynics might suggest it was mainly cause their documents were available via google :rolleyes: Why do other influential reseach bodies - RAND Corporation, for example - get let off from their obvious part in the conspiracy ;) I mean, RAND even had a book on 'Networks and Netwar: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy' ready and waiting when the 9/11 attacks came - I mean, what more PROOF can you need :D

[uk_dave]

I'm always interested why the CTs 'pick on' PNAC - cynics might suggest it was mainly cause their documents were available via google :rolleyes: Why do other influential reseach bodies - RAND Corporation, for example - get let off from their obvious part in the conspiracy ;) I mean, RAND even had a book on 'Networks and Netwar: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy' ready and waiting when the 9/11 attacks came - I mean, what more PROOF can you need :D

Well, there you go. PNAC could have made a fortune if they'd published in book form only.
:D

[uk_dave]

And anyway, Dan Quayle is a signatory for god's sake.

Would you want that man to be part of a secret conspiracy?

puhlease!

[jon]

This is something I can't understand.

We are now five years after the events of 9/11.
But the "big names", the "great investigators", who believe that 9/11 was an inside job are still asking questions and complaining that things haven't been properly investigated.
Why don't they go and look for answers? Why don't they investigate things properly and give us the results of these investigations?
Instead, they keep repeating the same questions, many of which have been answered years ago! :confused:

Of course, there have been quite a few interesting investigations - and some interesting publications about the events of 9/11. The really embarassing thing is that - despite having 5 years to get investigating - CTs have near enough to 0 involvement in this; instead, they're still just asking lots of (really bad) questions.

[JanH]

I would certainly encourage people to read PNAC's documents, in particular the often-quoted, little read "Rebuilding America's Defenses", before drawing any conclusions. Troofers have been very selective about quoting the "Pearl Harbour" statement as if 9/11 brought about PNAC's desired policies. It didn't. It certainly does not appear, in hindsight, as a very prophetic vision.

PNAC desired America's military to be modernised, emphasising new cutting edge information technology and in particular ballistic missile defense. The low-tech "box cutter" attacks on 9/11-01 certainly served as a very strong argument against such high-tech weaponry. PNAC also seemed to have advocated indefinite containment of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and had less concern for terrorism than nation-states. Like most everybody else, the people involved with PNAC quickly adapted after 9-11.

True, missile defense is going forward and defense funding was increased. I am pretty convinced the Bush administration would have done that also without 9/11; and any administration would have increased defense spending with it! Other important PNAC talking points, like abandoning aircraft carriers and many other "old fashioned" Pentagon projects, have not been implemented. Soldiers with rifles have certainly become much more important in military affairs than technological magicks in the post 9/11 world, pretty much the opposite of PNAC's vision.

[jon]

Well, there you go. PNAC could have made a fortune if they'd published in book form only.
:D

Hm, I don't think RAND got the CT attention to build the sales, though (shame - it's a much better document that Rebuilding America's Defenses imo). I mean, you can't expect people to actually use dodgy research sources like libraries, can you?

That said, I'm not convinced that many CTs quoting Rebuilding... have read the whole thing either, rather than just the odd cut-and-pasted quote :rolleyes: