The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts [Archive] - Page 2

beachnut

12th June 2007, 05:43 PM

I would want nothing more than a civil debate of the facts.
Okay, bring on the facts, so far there have been zero facts and evidence that support any of your conclusions which are hard to figure out in the first place.

Waiting for the flood of facts, hope you have more than Charlie Sheen. Facts?

It has been a long time since someone has wanted to debate the facts, but as usual, there are no facts brought to the debate, just talk and false information that do not support the conclusions that are veiled behind empty rhetoric of mushy ideas on PNAC? I was looking for the army that PNAC had to start this new PH stuff (BTW, PH was a surprise attack, yes we already knew that Japan was out and about and going to go nuts, but we had our pants down on Sunday the 7th, too bad people like you were not there to save us) still looking, all I found was Dick's shotgun, but his wife took it away from him when he tried to kill his friend who looks a lot like a dove when you drop your glasses and turn to shoot something. If you could hook me up with some facts about this vast NWO PNAC army of black ops who wired the WTC, flew planes into buildings and faked DNA stuff all over the USA I would be eternally thankful.

Are you a Branch Davidian, or just some tax evading young kids who did not listen in class. Who makes up this tripe and does your mom know you will not be graduating with honors? I found if you take geometry, algebra, calculus, and differential equations you will not fall for a lot of BS like that from the 9/11 truth movement. It helps if you pass those classes too. But there are many who know how to think and use facts and evidence to come to conclusions which resemble reality unlike any attempts by the really challenge 9/11 truth movement. Many are posting here, some much smarter than all the PhDs and experts of the entire truth movement combined on 9/11 topics. Lay people who write better, think better, are better than the entire 9/11 truth movement on 9/11. That excludes me, I can barely keep up with those who debunk you with one finger.

As I was typing, it came to mind, I have no idea what your conclusion are on 9/11 and after reading the entire thread I still am baffled to figure what the heck you stand for except poor research and the inability to provide support for what ever you say your conclusions are.

Anyone have a clue what you are up to? I did see PNAC, but as I said with out an small army of thousands, PNAC only had Dick's shotgun as a weapon and that has been remedied. What do you have and what supports it?

T.A.M.

12th June 2007, 05:47 PM

If you are referring to all of us, as a group, as "chimps", while derogatory, it is not against the rules here. My point, was that if I see you calling an individual here a "Chimp" than I will report it as a rule violation.

As for my pleasant nature, the lack of it is solely for you right now, so you can feel honored. In general, most here will attest to my often benign nature, and my usual call for peace and civility on these boards.

I will leave it here, however, as we are severely derailing this thread with our unrelated conversation.

TAM:)

ConspiRaider

12th June 2007, 05:50 PM

...

Just to frame where we are at.

To deal with a couple of other issues 1st that I dont wanna leave lying- there seem to be a couple of people here who post constantly, telling people not to post, e.g. Conspiraider and TAM. Why are you doing this? If you dont want to debate me, then don't. There are plenty of other threads. Go on them...
It's been a very dry year here in Los Angeles - driest on record - and I was being overly cautious, I'll admit. Last thing we need is raging wildfires out here.

I predicted (correctly, once again) that if mighty JREF forumiters persisted in their relentlessly logical activities, you would be flamed to a degree that no one could have possibly imagined. And as you see, it's happened. You're now toast.

So I was looking out for you, buddy, and the surrounding topography. You should be thanking me.

P.S. Once the L.A. County fire officials assured me that there was plenty of water and flame retardant on hand to deal with any emergency, I must confess to rather enjoying being a witness to the destruction of your "arguments". Although sometimes it was so brutal that even I had to look away. I mean after all we are not complete barbarians.

sleahead

12th June 2007, 05:58 PM

[QUOTE=Belz...;2684055]Actually, it says that, short of such an event, it could take longer for those changes to occur.

Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand.

But let's look closer at the doc. For we are told that not only are such policies crucial, but we are warned repeatedly of the importance the the 2001QDR to the implementation of such policies:

The need for the necessity of such changes to be impressed on the new government before October 2001, is thus drastic. This is underline even further later on:

So we can already see that the doc is stating quite clearly the need, urgent, for the necessity for the changes proposed in the doc to be crystalised in POTUS's mind, by October 2001. And concomitantly, the need for whatever other decision making bodies, Congress, Senate, the people, to be on board, by October 2001. Further fuel to the flame.

And even if it DID say what you say it says, it still wouldn't be related to 9/11. I'm still waiting on that.
[quote]

Errr... other than PH was a terror attack on US soil by foreigners killing thousands of US, burned on the public;s mind, that catalysed the US into drastic military action. Remind you of something?

I think everything else is dealt with.

Reminder that the aim of my points re PNAC is to show that there was clearly stated intent for a new PH to happen on the part of the neo cons, with the implication that such should happen before October 2001.

Once we establish this, not too hard to understand fact, we can proceed with a useful framework.

You keep repeating this stuff, even though the same paragraph that contains the Pearl Harbour quote in the PNAC document ends with this:

Thus,this report advocates a two-stage process of
change – transition and transformation –
over the coming decades.

It is quite clear the authors are content with a long process of change. The only question is when will this long process will get under way, hence the desirabilty of meeting the 2001 QDR deadline.

You then go on to say that they needed to crystalise the changes in the mind of the POTUS before the presentation of the QDR in October 2001 and that the need for these changes to be impressed on the new government. Do you not think that the gentlemen of PNAC had access to to GW Bush before he was elected? What makes you so sure Bush wasn't on board with this from the get go? I'm sure you also know a number of signatories to the PNAC document were members of the new government, right? The preparation of the QDR began almost immediately President Bush took office. What makes you think that the Bush administration would have a problem getting the QDR approved by Congress? On June 28th 2001, Rumsfeld appeared before the House Armed Services Commitee seeking a very large budget increase for the fiscal year 2002. He appears to have been well received. (http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=386) Added to this is the fact that the Republicans had a majority in Congress. Can you provide any evidence that QDR spending plans would not have been approved but for the events of 9/11?

DGM

12th June 2007, 06:24 PM

This has been dealt with, but I'll do it again. She has no capacity to cause the crash covertly. Whereas the gov does. Ive illustarted how twice now.

Remember Mrs. Smith the brake mechanic. She has covert capacity. But you already knew that so you ignored it.

mjd1982

12th June 2007, 06:25 PM

Okay, bring on the facts, so far there have been zero facts and evidence that support any of your conclusions which are hard to figure out in the first place.

Waiting for the flood of facts, hope you have more than Charlie Sheen. Facts?

It has been a long time since someone has wanted to debate the facts, but as usual, there are no facts brought to the debate, just talk and false information that do not support the conclusions that are veiled behind empty rhetoric of mushy ideas on PNAC? I was looking for the army that PNAC had to start this new PH stuff (BTW, PH was a surprise attack, yes we already knew that Japan was out and about and going to go nuts, but we had our pants down on Sunday the 7th, too bad people like you were not there to save us) still looking, all I found was Dick's shotgun, but his wife took it away from him when he tried to kill his friend who looks a lot like a dove when you drop your glasses and turn to shoot something. If you could hook me up with some facts about this vast NWO PNAC army of black ops who wired the WTC, flew planes into buildings and faked DNA stuff all over the USA I would be eternally thankful.

Are you a Branch Davidian, or just some tax evading young kids who did not listen in class. Who makes up this tripe and does your mom know you will not be graduating with honors? I found if you take geometry, algebra, calculus, and differential equations you will not fall for a lot of BS like that from the 9/11 truth movement. It helps if you pass those classes too. But there are many who know how to think and use facts and evidence to come to conclusions which resemble reality unlike any attempts by the really challenge 9/11 truth movement. Many are posting here, some much smarter than all the PhDs and experts of the entire truth movement combined on 9/11 topics. Lay people who write better, think better, are better than the entire 9/11 truth movement on 9/11. That excludes me, I can barely keep up with those who debunk you with one finger.

As I was typing, it came to mind, I have no idea what your conclusion are on 9/11 and after reading the entire thread I still am baffled to figure what the heck you stand for except poor research and the inability to provide support for what ever you say your conclusions are.

Anyone have a clue what you are up to? I did see PNAC, but as I said with out an small army of thousands, PNAC only had Dick's shotgun as a weapon and that has been remedied. What do you have and what supports it?
Ok, sorry, but I have little idea of what on earth you are talking about. Err... my advice to you would be to read some of my lengthier posts, including the response to the loose change guide section, and see how it establishes that pnac state a new PH would be propitious to policy.

Oh, and as for being debunked by someone's little finger... You have apparently been hallucinating for a little while, but this hasnt happened, and though I am open to such, I dont think it will.

mjd1982

12th June 2007, 06:26 PM

It's been a very dry year here in Los Angeles - driest on record - and I was being overly cautious, I'll admit. Last thing we need is raging wildfires out here.

I predicted (correctly, once again) that if mighty JREF forumiters persisted in their relentlessly logical activities, you would be flamed to a degree that no one could have possibly imagined. And as you see, it's happened. You're now toast.

So I was looking out for you, buddy, and the surrounding topography. You should be thanking me.

P.S. Once the L.A. County fire officials assured me that there was plenty of water and flame retardant on hand to deal with any emergency, I must confess to rather enjoying being a witness to the destruction of your "arguments". Although sometimes it was so brutal that even I had to look away. I mean after all we are not complete barbarians.
Another really odd post.

What the hell are you talking about?

mjd1982

12th June 2007, 06:27 PM

Remember Mrs. Smith the brake mechanic. She has covert capacity. But you already knew that so you ignored it.
Right, so Mrs Smith now has the ability to cut the brakes of a random car that she knows will be driving past that intersection, without the driver knowing.

I think its best to stick to the facts, this is a tad hopeless.

WildCat

12th June 2007, 06:30 PM

I think its best to stick to the facts, this is a tad hopeless.
Good idea... so, you got any?

Gravy

12th June 2007, 06:34 PM

Good idea... so, you got any?Anyway, facts are irrelevant....

SpitfireIX

12th June 2007, 06:39 PM

. . . Was their ever any official change in naming procedures? From what I recall, in the years before and including WWII, naming ships was fairly straightforward: battleships were named after states, aircraft carriers named after battles, cruisers named after cities, and destroyers named after persons.

I'm not certain that the conventions have ever been officially codified. Congress has the power to name any ship for which funds are appropriated (by specifying the name in the appropriations bill), but this prerogative is practically never exercised. Since the US Navy began assigning ships hull numbers near the end of the 19th century, there have been numerous exceptions to and anomalies in the naming conventions, and occasional major revisions.

For example, every battleship ever laid down has been named for a US state--with one exception. During the American Civil War, the screw sloop USS Kearsarge became famous for sinking the notorious Confederate raider Alabama. In 1894 Kearsarge was wrecked on a reef, and attempts to salvage her proved unsuccessful. Congress therefore directed that Battleship 5 (later BB-5) should be named for her.

Cruisers were always named for American cities, except that one war-construction cruiser was renamed Canberra in honor of HMAS Canberra, which was sunk along with four US Navy cruisers at the Battle of Savo Island. (I've seen a joke that says she should have been named USS Oops! Sorry! because Canberra was sunk by US torpedoes, but this allegation is unproven.)

Aircraft carrier names have always been a mixed bag. CV-1, a converted collier, was named Langley in honor of an American aviation pioneer. CV-2 and CV-3 were originally laid down as battlecruisers, and after conversion they retained their names Lexington and Saratoga, respectively. (Oddly enough, the four scrapped battlecruisers were not to have been named for battles; rather for famous American warships from the age of fighting sail). For some reason, the decision was taken to continue the sailing-ship name tradition, resulting in Ranger, Enterprise, Wasp, and Hornet. Yorktown for some reason followed the American Revolutionary war battle convention.

During World War II, in addition to those named for previously lost carriers, both the battle (Bunker Hill, Antietam, Cowpens, and pre-steam (Essex, Bonhomme Richard, Intrepid) conventions were used, plus the Founding Father (Franklin, Hancock) convention was added. And one CVL was named the Wright (presumably to make up for the slight delivered in the naming of CV-1 :D ) Finally, one carrier was named Shangri-La, after the fictional Asian mountain paradise in the novel Lost Horizon, after FDR joked that Doolittle's Tokyo raid had been launched from there. :D

Upon the death of FDR, one of the new Midway class supercarriers was named in his honor. The next class of carriers was named for Secretary of the Navy (later Secretary of Defense) James Forrestal, who committed suicide while in office (presumably due to the stress of political infighting and of unifying the armed forces). Other postwar carriers included Ranger, Saratoga, and Enterprise (honoring their WWII namesakes), America, Kittyhawk (really making it up to the Wright Brothers :D), and Constellation (fighting sail). The last pre-Nimitz class carrier, a modified Kittyhawk class, was named in honor of John F. Kennedy.

The first major convention change was naming ballistic-missile submarines for famous Americans (and honorary Americans). After all battleships were retired from active service, first nuclear-powered guided-missile cruisers, and then ballistic-missile submarines, began to be named for states. The Los Angeles class attack submarine broke the longstanding convention of naming submarines after marine life. Admiral Hyman Rickover is alleged to have given the reason for this as "Fish don't vote." Finally, cruisers are now being named for battles, rather than cities or states.

Myriad

12th June 2007, 06:48 PM

No, that's not quite right. That 66% is so large, principally because there is such a large contingent within it that does believe in gov complicity, which relates to my point.

Well, there are certainly some that believe in gov complicity, so without them, the 66% would be smaller. But you haven't shown any evidence for any particular percentage believing in gov complicity, let alone a majority of the 66%. Which makes representing the 66% as indicative of the popularity of the "complicity" viewpoint dishonest.

Compare:

"92% of Americans believe in some form of supreme god. The 92% is so large principally because there is such a large contingent of Flying Spaghetti Monster believers in it. Therefore the 92% figure shows the enormous popularity of Flying Spaghetti Monster belief in the U.S."

But this is true precisely the other way around. Danny Bonaduce, Fox News, Troy Sexton and others have been guilty of precisely the same inflammatory garbage as the CTers. Very little difference. Even I have been told "I hope you burn in hell" and other such comments by members of this forum, some of whom are on this thread. And in terms of rational discussion, well, as you can see from the corresponding thread on the SLC, the OTers I have run into, have zero regard for facts, and zero regard for logic and common sense, and zero regard for evident conclusions when they get reached. So my patience is pretty thin too with the OTers, don't forget the principal of universality here my friend.

I'm familiar with the concent of Universality in Computing Theory, but I don't thing that's the "principal [sic] of universality" you're referring to. Care to explain this principal?

Also, don't confuse respect and cordiality with friendship.

Ok, well, we're debating PNAC now to illustrate that a mass terror attack on US soil was deemed useful to policy, in order, parenthetically, to catalyse a series of military radicalisations now known as the WOT, known back then as RAD.

Okay. Let's start with, what does the "C" in "PNAC" stand for?

Respectfully,
Myriad

DGM

12th June 2007, 06:51 PM

Right, so Mrs Smith now has the ability to cut the brakes of a random car that she knows will be driving past that intersection, without the driver knowing.

I think its best to stick to the facts, this is a tad hopeless.

For your argument maybe. Just as likely as PNAC

Wow, that is a fantastic argument! What a bright soul you are. A credit to your movement, that much is true.

What movement? We do this for fun remember. A hobby.

SpitfireIX

12th June 2007, 06:54 PM

You call yourself a debunker? You failed to show a 33% increase in any of those years.

Oh, no--the great Gravy has cast aspersions on my debunking skills--oh, the shame of it all! :o I feel like Tom Cruise when Stan says he's just an "okay" actor. :cry1 I'm going to stay in this closet, and I'm not coming out--not ever. :boxedin:

:p

mjd1982

12th June 2007, 06:56 PM

Alright! We finally have someone who addresses the pointt I have made. Not bad after ~270 posts. Ok

[QUOTE=mjd1982;2684581]
And even if it DID say what you say it says, it still wouldn't be related to 9/11. I'm still waiting on that.

This has been dealt with, look above

You keep repeating this stuff, even though the same paragraph that contains the Pearl Harbour quote in the PNAC document ends with this:

It is quite clear the authors are content with a long process of change. The only question is when will this long process will get under way, hence the desirabilty of meeting the 2001 QDR deadline.

No, there is a difference here. They are stating as to how a change will occur over a long period of time; this does not mean that they do not want it achieved over a shorter one. Think- what is the alternative to what you are saying, that they state "This will be long absent a new PH... so we better start planning one!" No. They are not that dumb. So to say that they are content with it happening over a long period of time, due to the fact that they talk about how it would happen over such a period, overlooks the fact that practically speaking, they have no alternative, as well as paying zero attention to the fact that they may be more content with it happening over a shorter period.

Incidentally, you have forgotten the important point of what is the raison d'etre of PNAC? You can hazard a guess from their name; thus the idea that they would want such a hegemonic transformation to occur early in the century is 100% congruous with their raison d'etre; the opposite is 100% incongruous.

So, to reframe your point, the question is when will the process get underway. Ideally, it will happen after a new PH, since this will catalyse the policies set out in the doc. Absent 911, it would have been pretty tough to get some of the changes that have come about

You then go on to say that they needed to crystalise the changes in the mind of the POTUS before the presentation of the QDR in October 2001 and that the need for these changes to be impressed on the new government. Do you not think that the gentlemen of PNAC had access to to GW Bush before he was elected? What makes you so sure Bush wasn't on board with this from the get go? I'm sure you also know a number of signatories to the PNAC document were members of the new government, right? The preparation of the QDR began almost immediately President Bush took office. What makes you think that the Bush administration would have a problem getting the QDR approved by Congress? On June 28th 2001, Rumsfeld appeared before the House Armed Services Commitee seeking a very large budget increase for the fiscal year 2002. He appears to have been well received. (http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=386) Added to this is the fact that the Republicans had a majority in Congress. Can you provide any evidence that QDR spending plans would not have been approved but for the events of 9/11?

It is not strictly a case of crystalising it in the mind of Bush, but, as i said, of crystallising it in the minds of the decision makers. This is what will allow the radicalisation outlined best to occur. This is what happened. Let's have a look.

It would be instructive, in determining the tone of the QDR, to read the foreword. This will show us what elements are key to it (I would love to post it all, please read it here http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/qdr_2001.pdf , just the 1st few paras for now):

On September 11, 2001, the United States came under vicious,
bloody attack. Americans died in their places of work. They died
on American soil. They died not as combatants, but as innocent
victims. They died not from traditional armies waging traditional
campaigns, but from the brutal, faceless weapons of terror. They died as
the victims of war - a war that many had feared but whose sheer horror
took America by surprise.
The war the nation fights today is not a war of America's choosing. It is a
war that was brought violently and brutally to America's shores by the evil
forces of terror. It is a war against America and America's way of life. It is
a war against all that America holds dear. It is a war against freedom itself.
The attack on the United States and the war that has been visited upon us
highlights a fundamental condition of our circumstances: we cannot and
will not know precisely where and when America's interests will be
threatened, when America will come under attack, or when Americans
might die as the result of aggression. We can be clear about trends, but
uncertain about events. We can identify threats, but cannot know when
or where America or its friends will be attacked. We should try mightily to
avoid surprise, but we must also learn to expect it. We must constantly
strive to get better intelligence, but we must also remember that there will
always be gaps in our intelligence. Adapting to surprise - adapting quickly
and decisively - must therefore be a condition of planning.

So we can see very clearly, that what happened was precisely what PNAC designed. Yes there were plans for budget increases, but, the fact is that defense posture was coloured inexorably by the new PH, just as PNAC had stated.

If you want to find out more, please read my rebuttal of the loosechange guide, there is more detail there.

In short, we are left where we started with- a new PH would be propitious to policy, since it would catalyse a chain of radicalisations, as outlined by PNAC, starting with the 2001 QDR, and allow them to happen in years rather than decades.

mjd1982

12th June 2007, 07:08 PM

Well, there are certainly some that believe in gov complicity, so without them, the 66% would be smaller. But you haven't shown any evidence for any particular percentage believing in gov complicity, let alone a majority of the 66%. Which makes representing the 66% as indicative of the popularity of the "complicity" viewpoint dishonest.

Compare:

"92% of Americans believe in some form of supreme god. The 92% is so large principally because there is such a large contingent of Flying Spaghetti Monster believers in it. Therefore the 92% figure shows the enormous popularity of Flying Spaghetti Monster belief in the U.S."

The old flying spaghettie monster. But no- the poll i posted was a tad erroneous, since it only deals with NYers, but in any case illustrates my point. I am not sure whether "66% of New Yorkers" refers to citizens or residents, but of the citizens it is 41%, and of the res, 49%, believeing "some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,". So this illustrates what I am saying quite well.
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

I'm familiar with the concent of Universality in Computing Theory, but I don't thing that's the "principal [sic] of universality" you're referring to. Care to explain this principal?

It means applying the same values to others as you do to yourself.

Also, don't confuse respect and cordiality with friendship.

Err... it's a figure of speech, don't get nervous now...

Okay. Let's start with, what does the "C" in "PNAC" stand for?

Respectfully,
Myriad

This has been dealt with numerous times here, and it could not prove the CT point much better. Their aim is to create, militarily, a platform from which US hegemony can thrive, thus making the 21st the American Century. Hence it is all the more crucial for the transformations which will create this platform, to be executed quickly. It will be not good, or less for their stated aims, for them to be ready by 2050.

This should be pretty clear.

DGM

12th June 2007, 07:10 PM

In short, we are left where we started with- a new PH would be propitious to policy, since it would catalyse a chain of radicalisations, as outlined by PNAC, starting with the 2001 QDR, and allow them to happen in years rather than decades........

........And has absolutely nothing to do with an inside job

I fixed that for you. Your welcome

ConspiRaider

12th June 2007, 07:16 PM

Right, so Mrs Smith now has the ability to cut the brakes of a random car that she knows will be driving past that intersection, without the driver knowing.

I think its best to stick to the facts, this is a tad hopeless.
Speaking of facts:

It's obvious you're not an American and yet you feel so eminently qualified to post your vast foolishness on what ensued over here in the States on 9/11, and before.

Didja ever bring your butt over here to conduct any onsite investigations or interviews or hands-on studies in your quest to overturn the generally-accepted conclusions on the run of events for that day? Or do you just sit in your British Commonwealth comfy chair and "innernet" your way into these absurd claims of yours?

Facts! Get 'em while they're hot! They're over here in the United States of America! If you can't bring the facts to where you are at, then bring yourself to the facts!

rwguinn

12th June 2007, 07:19 PM

Speaking of facts:

It's obvious you're not an American and yet you feel so eminently qualified to post your vast foolishness on what ensued over here in the States on 9/11, and before.

Didja ever bring your butt over here to conduct any onsite investigations or interviews or hands-on studies in your quest to overturn the generally-accepted conclusions on the run of events for that day? Or do you just sit in your British Commonwealth comfy chair and "innernet" your way into these absurd claims of yours?

Facts! Get 'em while they're hot! They're over here in the United States of America!
Actually, methinks P'duh is back again...

WildCat

12th June 2007, 07:25 PM

Actually, methinks P'duh is back again...
He's not pdoh.

Corsair 115

12th June 2007, 07:39 PM

Errr... other than PH was a terror attack on US soil by foreigners killing thousands of US, burned on the public;s mind, that catalysed the US into drastic military action. Remind you of something?Hmmm, Pearl Harbor plunged the U.S. into WWII which resulted in the converting of the entire American economy into a war footing, with rationing, car assembly lines turned over into producing war material, wage and price controls, a draft, transportation restricted mostly to that needed for the war effort, just to name a few of the repercussions. The general populace was asked to sacrifice in the name of the war effort; it was a truly national endeavour.

Now, have there been any repercussions in the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11 that even remotely approach any of those? Is there a draft? No. Has the economy been converted over to war production? No. Is there rationing of food and fuel and other resources? No. Are there wage and price controls? No. Is transportation restricted mostly to only that necessary for the war effort? No.

Indeed, outside of those serving in military units in Iraq and their families back home, the average American isn't being asked to sacrifice anything for the war in Iraq. The average citizen wouldn't know there's a war on at all if they didn't turn on the news or read the newspaper.

Seems to me the situations are nowhere near as analogous are you made them out to be.

Gravy

12th June 2007, 07:45 PM

Alright! We finally have someone who addresses the pointt I have made. Not bad after ~270 posts. OkWait: I addressed your point. You said the neocons published a plan to murder thousands of Americans, and I treated that statement as the 100% batpoo-insane, howler monkeyism that it is.

Give credit where credit is due, please.

ConspiRaider

12th June 2007, 07:48 PM

Hmmm, Pearl Harbor plunged the U.S. into WWII which resulted in the converting of the entire American economy into a war footing, with rationing, car assembly lines turned over into producing war material, wage and price controls, a draft, transportation restricted mostly to that needed for the war effort, just to name a few of the repercussions. The general populace was asked to sacrifice in the name of the war effort; it was a truly national endeavour.

Now, have there been any repercussions in the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11 that even remotely approach any of those? Is there a draft? No. Has the economy been converted over to war production? No. Is there rationing of food and fuel and other resources? No. Are there wage and price controls? No. Is transportation restricted mostly to only that necessary for the war effort? No.

Indeed, outside of those serving in military units in Iraq and their families back home, the average American isn't being asked to sacrifice anything for the war in Iraq. The average citizen wouldn't know there's a war on at all if they didn't turn on the news or read the newspaper.

Seems to me the situations are nowhere near as analogous are you made them out to be.
Good stuff.

To be fair, I think he sees Pearl Harbor and 9/11 as analogous because they each had planes and explosions. What more does one need? :boggled:

Hokulele

12th June 2007, 08:02 PM

No, there is a difference here. They are stating as to how a change will occur over a long period of time; this does not mean that they do not want it achieved over a shorter one.

Nowhere does it say they do want it achieved over a shorter one. Your point is simply assumption without evidence, your opinion, nothing more.

Redtail

12th June 2007, 08:04 PM

Oh, no--the great Gravy has cast aspersions on my debunking skills--oh, the shame of it all! :o I feel like Tom Cruise when Stan says he's just an "okay" actor. :cry1 I'm going to stay in this closet, and I'm not coming out--not ever. :boxedin:

:p

Spitfire's in the closet...
And he won't come out...
Why is he in the closet...
SO I PULL OUT MY GUN!

Mobyseven

12th June 2007, 08:11 PM

This would get round the problem of having the government choose who would be investigating the government.

Ugh, see this is another one of the things that bugs me.

You say that we need to get around the issue of the government investigating the government.

To get to this point, you have used circular reasoning - you are basing all your assumptions on the notion that the government is guilty, and therefore they cannot be involved in the investigation because they will be investigating themselves. And not only that but you assume that every branch of the government is guilty, CIA, FBI, NSA, and so on.

And you are basing these accusations on what evidence?

Arkan_Wolfshade

12th June 2007, 08:18 PM

beachnut

12th June 2007, 08:26 PM

Ok, sorry, but I have little idea of what on earth you are talking about. Err... my advice to you would be to read some of my lengthier posts, including the response to the loose change guide section, and see how it establishes that pnac state a new PH would be propitious to policy.

Oh, and as for being debunked by someone's little finger... You have apparently been hallucinating for a little while, but this hasnt happened, and though I am open to such, I dont think it will.
PNAC does not have anyone to execute a plot. So who done it? One finger typing is beating you. Of course you have made it easier by not having a single fact to support your elusive point.

You have posted zero facts to back up anything. I have seen ever single post and not a thing you said makes sense. I think you have messed up and you are posting in the wrong sub forum. This sub forum requires facts to prove a point. I found it impossible to figure out what the point of your posts are.

Like I said, do you have a point? What is it? And do you have a list of facts to support your point?

As I said if you fail to answer the three question above you have failed again, since your previous post have failed to support anything you said. Do you understand this?

Your OP is so bad, and I am an engineer who can not read or write worth a darn, but your opening post is an F. I teach school part time and I have never seen a paper worse than the OP by 3, 4, or 5 graders. Even the 3, 4 and 5th graders can make a point, and if asked as I am doing they can explain in one sentence. Your OP made no sense and had no recognizable point(s), as in theme, topic, conclusion. You have left the point in your head some where. Your evidence is not sources or viable to support much of anything. Since you failed to connect anything in your OP to any rational conclusion I assume you have no point and no real point to make. Your PNAC stuff is funny, and you have messed that up; and you have done a right fine job of it.

SpitfireIX

12th June 2007, 08:31 PM

Excuse me, that was an error on my part; careless. Not very relevant, but well done in any case!

ETA- My quote related to "the amount", not the proportion, which, according to your figures, has only been beaten once, though I'm sure there are more examples.

You seem to have neglected, for whatever reason, to have adjusted for inflation. Further, direct comparisons of defense budgets from one era to another are highly problematic. With the all-volunteer army, personnel are individually much more expensive, and weapon system costs have skyrocketed far above the overall rate of inflation. So an argument can be made that the US gets less defense today, dollar-for-(adjusted) dollar, than in earlier times. Further, the United States, and the world at large, have much greater populations than during World War II. Finally, because the US economy has grown so much, even since the Vietnam War, the country simply has much more money to spend for everything, including defense. In other words, if your income triples, you may suddenly start driving a much nicer car, which might have seemed extravagant at your old income level, but is not a major financial drain for you and your new money.

US military spending, 1943 $526 (37.0%)
US military spending, 1944 $684 (37.8%)
US military spending, 1945 $775 (37.5%)
US military spending, 1946 $406 (19.2%)

US military spending, 1952 $397 (13.2%)
US military spending, 1953 $416 (14.2%)

US military spending, 1967 $383 (8.8%)
US military spending, 1968 $420 (9.4%)
US military spending, 1969 $400 (8.7%)

US military spending, 1989 $399 (5.6%)

US military spending, 2003 $405 (3.7%)

Billions of 2000 dollars (percent of Gross Domestic Product)

Source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf): Office of Management and Budget

Based on the above, your contention that the FY 2003 defense budget was somehow "unprecedented," or at least excessive, is rejected.

Mobyseven

12th June 2007, 08:34 PM

You might wanna learn about the use of the conditional tense, since you clearly missed out in 4th grade.

It also seems like I missed out on learning about the use of this mysterious 'conditional tense', which I find strange considering I studied linguistics for my VCE, a level considerably higher than 4th Grade.

How, may I ask, does one use the 'conditional tense'?

Gravy

12th June 2007, 08:34 PM

The old flying spaghettie monster. But no- the poll i posted was a tad erroneous, since it only deals with NYers, but in any case illustrates my point. I am not sure whether "66% of New Yorkers" refers to citizens or residents, but of the citizens it is 41%, and of the res, 49%, believeing "some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,". So this illustrates what I am saying quite well.
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

That poll was taken in heavily-Democratic NYC on the eve of the Republican National Convention, which was held...in NYC. You have no idea of the animosity that people like me held for Bush at that time.

At that time more than half of New Yorkers would have answered "Strongly agree" to the statement, "President Bush should be stripped naked, hung from a light pole, and beaten like a piñata." More than half of New Yorkers would have answered "Strongly agree" to the statement, "President Bush drinks the blood of the children he molests."

The only New Yorkers that I've ever met who spoke of 9/11 being an inside job are a few kooks who I've sought out. And not one tourist I've been with has ever brought up the idea of U.S. government complicity in 9/11, at Ground Zero or elsewhere. Not one.

The masses don't agree with your nuttery. That's why your movement is moving backwards.

Stellafane

12th June 2007, 08:34 PM

Thank you Stella.

You're welcome

I should say first, please don't impute any characteristic of a standard CTer, i.e. saying I will not be satisfied, that I want Jones investigating etc etc. If i havent said so, then no. Or you can always ask first.

With all due respect, I'll express my opinion of a standard CTer whenever I choose. I didn't call you a standard CTer, so unless you presume to speak for all of them, I really don't feel I need to check with you first.

Now, regarding the issue of the 9/11 Commission, to state that it did a good job, is a valid opinion, unless you are paying attention to the facts.

I have been paying attention to the facts. I didn't insult you, so please don't insult me.

There is a simple way to assess their work, in terms of completeness and efficacy- let's see what the Commission themself had to say.

Let's look at Lee Hamilton, vice chair (interviewed by Evan Solomon on CBC):

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

And there's more in that interview too.

Now, let's look at another Commissioner, Max Cleland. He, as you perhaps know, resigned from the Comm in protest at the way it was conducted, stating he could not look any american in the eye:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

And more

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/112303A.shtml

I think this testimony gives us good reason to believe that the 911 Comm Report was ineffectual, incomprehensive, and insufficient.

Really? Where in anything you just cited does it even remotely imply that the commision missed things like, say, the WTC being demolished by space beams and mini nukes and thermite? Where does it say WTC 7 may have been pulled by a demolition crew, with full knowledge of the FDNY? Where does it say planes didn't really hit the Pentagon? Where does it say the onboard phone calls were faked and nothing really crashed in Shanksville? And so on. There's a vast difference between "it could have been done better" (which almost always is the case in large undertakings involving human beings) and "the conclusions are so invalid that everything we think we know about 9/11 may be utterly wrong." And frankly, I'm getting real tired of this utterly specious argument being trotted out from time to time -- I really don't think it does your cause anything but harm, and makes it look ridiculous at best and duplicitous at worst.

But we can do more. We can also look at the opinions of those who were instrumental in having it set up- the Jersey Widows and the Family Steering Committee. As you know, they put 167 questions to the Commission , of which only 27 were answered. This further reinforces the point about gross incompleteness. Let's see what they have to say:

The Jersey Girls? Oh, come on...

In short, whatever your/my opinion, we have from a great deal of reliable and authoratative sources, including the commission itself, admission that the Commission was, in effect not good enough. This should be good enough to settle this point.

No, it's not good enough to settle the point, not by a light year. "There could have been room for improvement" is not the same as "it was so insufficient, we missed blindingly obvious things -- we may have even pinned it on the wrong people!" Sorry, I'm sticking with my cards -- in fact, if I were a betting man, I'd raise the stakes to the house limit.

Gravy

12th June 2007, 08:39 PM

How, may I ask, does one use the 'conditional tense'?It's a 9/11 denier thing that you can't be expected to have studied. When told that they should back their claims with evidence or retract them, they become tense.

Gravy

12th June 2007, 08:46 PM

But we can do more. We can also look at the opinions of those who were instrumental in having it set up- the Jersey Widows and the Family Steering Committee. As you know, they put 167 questions to the Commission , of which only 27 were answered.

That's William Rodriguez's claim, and it's false.

“We created the family steering committee. We put a hundred and sixty-seven questions out to the commission. From those, twenty-seven were answered. What happened to the others?” Source (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294)

The Commissioners did not promise to answer all questions posed by family members. That would be impossible. They did say they would use family questions as a roadmap. Keep in mind that not every question posed by a family member is automatically relevant, is based on accurate information, or is even answerable.

The Family Steering Committee posed many questions that are based on pure, unfounded speculation, not on fact. Many of the questions were directed not to the Commission but to people who would be interviewed by the Commission. In addition, many of their questions were addressed by the Commission and by other investigations.

Rodriguez says only 27 questions were answered. According to Mindy Von Aiken and Lori Kleinberg, two members of the Steering Committee, the Commission answered 28 of their questions to their satisfaction and addressed another 68 questions, but not to the satisfaction of the Steering Committee. The 9/11 Commission didn’t promise that any group or individual would be happy with every answer. Source (http://justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php)

I am not aware of any member of the Family Steering Committee who agrees with Rodriguez’s claims of U.S. government complicity in the attacks or the idea that there were preplanted explosives in the WTC.

MIKILLINI

12th June 2007, 08:50 PM

But I dont think that that has much import mate. Forget about wiring buildings , forget about war games, just concentrate on the minimum for the moment- did they let it happen. If probably, then you realise there shoud be a new investigation, and you are a CTer. Forget about the rest for the moment.

Initially i did believe they let it happen, but after checking the "evidence" it was clear to Me that govt., through it's politics, agencies more concerned with budget constraints, Robert Mueller not sworn in as director of the FBI until 1 week before 9/11. Many things can be argued here and arranged in such a way to show a case on either side. But unless you can bridge that gap between the Project For A New American Century and connect it with those Neocons in the govt. and prove they made it or allowed it to happen with evidence to substantiate your claim, then it's all just circumstantial.

The 9/11 commission was concentrated into one very specific aspect of the attacks - an investigation into the Government's performance leading up to it. The body of work that constitutes the 9/11 Investigation was carried out by the FBI, FAA, NTSB, FEMA, NIST, and so forth. The 9/11 Commission Report was not underfunded. The criminal investigation into the September 11 Attacks is the largest ever undertaken by the FBI, maybe even the largest criminal investigation in history.

What about some of those Neocons who signed their name to PNAC?

Paul Wolfowitz, appointed head of the World Bank,was forced to step down after facing an outcry over a pay and promotion deals given to his partner - who also works for the World Bank.

Donald Rumsfeld is now gone

Scooter Libby -convicted

Dan Quayle -Come on..how do you spell potatoe? oook!

Bush and Cheney...The American process of election. Voted In...twice

Unsecured Coins

12th June 2007, 08:54 PM

That's William Rodriguez's claim, and it's false.

This fact has now become irrelevant. Thanks for playing, Gravy, here's a copy of our home game!

(we still playing golf next tuesday?)

Furcifer

12th June 2007, 08:56 PM

proved my point ;)

Gravy

12th June 2007, 09:14 PM

Deleted. Gravy tired.

Corsair 115

12th June 2007, 09:15 PM

US military spending, 1943 $526 (37.0%)
US military spending, 1944 $684 (37.8%)
US military spending, 1945 $775 (37.5%)Wow, those WWII years are amazing. More than 37% of GDP in war spending, that's pretty darned impressive.

I wonder how the other Allied nations stack up in comparison, and Axis nations for that matter...

beachnut

12th June 2007, 09:23 PM

Excuse me, that was an error on my part; careless. Not very relevant, but well done in any case!

ETA- My quote related to "the amount", not the proportion, which, according to your figures, has only been beaten once, though I'm sure there are more examples.
Every point, every piece of evidence you invoke has a similar end. Grossly inaccurate and wrong. SpitfireIX shows you the 3.7 percent of GDP is ten times less that WWII and less than Vietnam's 9.4 percent. He even post sources and it is easy to check his numbers. He is right, you were wrong in that it means nothing with respect to 9/11. Relax, your ideas on 9/11 are unsupportable. At least you are consistent.

And then you argue your point is still good, but your evidence and point do not mean anything. If you paid attention human-resource spending continues to climb, averaging 65 percent of outlays and 13 percent of GDP during the 4 years after 9/11. While defense spending has only increased to 19 percent of outlays and 3.8 percent of GDP. Did you even try to compare this to 1968? Did you? You know from 1966 to 1969 military spending was 45 percent of the budget and 9 percent of GDP, and human resource spending was 34 percent of the budget and 7 percent of GDP. What does it mean? It means you do shoddy research and try to tie things to other things that have no meaning. While you listen to the political rant of the day, someone is increasing spending where you are not even looking. And you do not even get it. Wake up and go back to school, you need to redo many grades and classes. While you try to make up stuff about 9/11, you missed it was solved back in 2001.

Mobyseven

12th June 2007, 09:44 PM

It's something that a person learning English as a second language might have to study, but what mjd was trying to snottily correct had nothing to do with the conditional tense.

If we're going to be super-correct about everything here...

"A. If you call me I come."

While it is not incorrect to express a sentence in this way, it is more correct (i.e. it better reflects the semantics of the sentence) to say, "When you call me I come."

"B. If you call me I will come."

Is an example of a conditional sentence, employing the conditional mood. The website linked to describes this as the conditional tense, either as a typo or for purposes of simplification, I cannot say.

The sentence "If you call me I will come," is a conditional sentence (a first conditional) that employs the conjunction 'if' and a simple present tense verb ('call') in the predicate to form the protasis, and the modal verb 'will' with another simple present tense verb ('come') to create the apodosis.

The verb tense in the subordinate clause and the main clause is simple present tense. The sentence is a conditional sentence employing the conditional mood.

nicepants

12th June 2007, 09:58 PM

This has been dealt with, but I'll do it again. She has no capacity to cause the crash covertly. Whereas the gov does. Ive illustarted how twice now.

So, citizens can't do things covertly....only the government can? Please explain why this is the case...

Cutting someone's brake lines would seem pretty covert, but perhaps in your view it is not?

SpitfireIX

12th June 2007, 10:05 PM

Wow, those WWII years are amazing. More than 37% of GDP in war spending, that's pretty darned impressive.

Pffft. We weren't even breathing hard. My dad (who was 10 years old when the war ended) feels that we didn't even really need food rationing--it was primarily put in to make the people on the home front feel like they were contributing to the war effort. That may be an exaggeration, but not by much.

I wonder how the other Allied nations stack up in comparison, and Axis nations for that matter...

I found these figures in an article (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/eloranta.military) on EconomicHistory.net. These are averages for the entire war.

Germany: 50%

Soviet Union: 44%

Britain: 45%

US : 32%

Presumably the percentages for the later years of the war will be higher. I know Germany's are; Hitler didn't get serious about putting the economy on a war footing until around 1942. I recall seeing somewhere that by 1944 Germany's military spending was about 80% of GDP, and the civilians were really feeling the pinch. I somewhat expected the Soviets to be higher, but it occurs to me that their economic mobilization may have taken longer because of the inefficiencies of a command economy.

Myriad

12th June 2007, 10:10 PM

Okay. Let's start with, what does the "C" in "PNAC" stand for?

This has been dealt with numerous times here, and it could not prove the CT point much better. Their aim is to create, militarily, a platform from which US hegemony can thrive, thus making the 21st the American Century. Hence it is all the more crucial for the transformations which will create this platform, to be executed quickly. It will be not good, or less for their stated aims, for them to be ready by 2050.

Very good. You didn't want to answer directly, but you did manage to mention the answer in passing: Century.

Century. As in, about 3.16 billion seconds.

You're confusing this document with the PNANCY, the Plan for a New American Next Couple'a Years. That's the one that says gosh, we better have a new Pearl Harbor within the next year or two or our whole five-year plan will be off-schedule. But the PNANCY is highly classified NWO material, how did you get hold of a copy? The PNAC is the decoy, that one's all about long-range forward thinking, building up America's credibility internationally, planning for the future, properly equipping our military -- you know, all those things that George W. Bush and the party that's been in power since the turn of this century have proven themselves utterly incapable of doing.

The plan they're actually following appears to be:
Step 1: New Pearl Harbor
Step 2: Declare war on an undesired emotion
Step 3: Start quagmire war in Persion Gulf unrelated to said undesired emotion
Step 4: Under-equip U.S. Military to fight quagmire war, while alienating international allies
Step 5: Lose control of Congress
Step 6: 34% approval rating

If you want me to think that they're following this PNAC document as a plan, show me where it lays out steps 2 through 6.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Foolmewunz

12th June 2007, 10:19 PM

Prior to clicking that link, the only time I'd ever heard of a "conditional tense" was when studying Spanish. I'd imagine it might also apply in some fashion in other Romance languages (just a guess because of similarity in structures). I have, however, seen numerous lessons back when I was getting my TESOL certification, to help you explain use of the conditional mood, and I can see how the fact that it is reliant on a change of verb form that might confuse some folks. (Considering that that site is for teaching English to non-English speakers, that might explain where they picked it up. But it's clearly not a "tense".)

Maybe when comink from old country MJD learn only some part English?

Perhaps that's why he seems to have confused a parodywith irony.

Gravy

12th June 2007, 10:27 PM

If we're going to be super-correct about everything here...
I deleted my comment because I realized that mjd was referring to his own conditional statements, not to aggle-rithm's.

SpitfireIX

12th June 2007, 10:28 PM

. . . Wake up and go back to school, you need to redo many grades and classes. While you try to make up stuff about 9/11, you missed it was solved back in 2001.

What he said.

Redtail

12th June 2007, 10:39 PM

So, citizens can't do things covertly....only the government can? Please explain why this is the case...

I found that funny also. If that were the case, Fraternities would have been banned since the 20's. (Heck I belong to Alpha Psi Omega, Theatre Frat/Honors Society, and we ran many covert ops on the NCA&TSU campus.):D

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 03:54 AM

........And has absolutely nothing to do with an inside job

I fixed that for you. Your welcome
All that is aiming to be illustrated for now is that the neo-cons stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy. This is based on the fact of what is in black and white in their document. If you want to argue this point, then please address the document.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 03:56 AM

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 04:00 AM

Hmmm, Pearl Harbor plunged the U.S. into WWII which resulted in the converting of the entire American economy into a war footing, with rationing, car assembly lines turned over into producing war material, wage and price controls, a draft, transportation restricted mostly to that needed for the war effort, just to name a few of the repercussions. The general populace was asked to sacrifice in the name of the war effort; it was a truly national endeavour.

Now, have there been any repercussions in the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11 that even remotely approach any of those? Is there a draft? No. Has the economy been converted over to war production? No. Is there rationing of food and fuel and other resources? No. Are there wage and price controls? No. Is transportation restricted mostly to only that necessary for the war effort? No.

Indeed, outside of those serving in military units in Iraq and their families back home, the average American isn't being asked to sacrifice anything for the war in Iraq. The average citizen wouldn't know there's a war on at all if they didn't turn on the news or read the newspaper.

Seems to me the situations are nowhere near as analogous are you made them out to be.
I'm sorry, but this has been addressed.The 2 are similar since they were mass terror attacks against the US that galvanised the public consciousness into approving drastic military action. Those are the facets of PH that are germane to the document, nothing about public rationing.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 04:01 AM

Wait: I addressed your point. You said the neocons published a plan to murder thousands of Americans, and I treated that statement as the 100% batpoo-insane, howler monkeyism that it is.

Give credit where credit is due, please.
Wow... you guys are good!

gumboot

13th June 2007, 04:08 AM

I'm sorry, but this has been addressed.The 2 are similar since they were mass terror attacks against the US that galvanised the public consciousness into approving drastic military action. Those are the facets of PH that are germane to the document, nothing about public rationing.

Pearl Harbor was not a terror attack. It was a legitimate military action against US military forces located in the self-governing US territory of Hawaii.

-Gumboot

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 04:09 AM

Nowhere does it say they do want it achieved over a shorter one. Your point is simply assumption without evidence, your opinion, nothing more.
Well, at least you get to the heart of the matter. Incidentally, like many of the things i reply to, this has been addressed by me here already.

I have stated that with the qualification that a vital transformation happening over mths/yrs is preferable to it happening over decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. With that qualification; I think this is something that we here can all settle on, and sensible people can come to their own conclusions.

However, we can examine this in closer detail.

1stly, what is the aim of PNAC? It is pretty clear just from their name- create a platform (militarily) for US hegemony, that serves to allow US interests to dominate throughout the 21st century. As such, it is logical that that platform, which is the subject of RAD, should be created as early as possible in that century. Hence we cn conclude that such a transformation is preferable to happen earlier rather than later.

2ndly, look at what is stated about the 2001 QDR. Such a transformation is going to have to have been crystalised in the mind of decision makers by that time, in order to dictate subsequent US military posture from that stance.

This has been covered a few times now.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 04:11 AM

PNAC does not have anyone to execute a plot. So who done it? One finger typing is beating you. Of course you have made it easier by not having a single fact to support your elusive point.

You have posted zero facts to back up anything. I have seen ever single post and not a thing you said makes sense. I think you have messed up and you are posting in the wrong sub forum. This sub forum requires facts to prove a point. I found it impossible to figure out what the point of your posts are.

Like I said, do you have a point? What is it? And do you have a list of facts to support your point?

As I said if you fail to answer the three question above you have failed again, since your previous post have failed to support anything you said. Do you understand this?

Your OP is so bad, and I am an engineer who can not read or write worth a darn, but your opening post is an F. I teach school part time and I have never seen a paper worse than the OP by 3, 4, or 5 graders. Even the 3, 4 and 5th graders can make a point, and if asked as I am doing they can explain in one sentence. Your OP made no sense and had no recognizable point(s), as in theme, topic, conclusion. You have left the point in your head some where. Your evidence is not sources or viable to support much of anything. Since you failed to connect anything in your OP to any rational conclusion I assume you have no point and no real point to make. Your PNAC stuff is funny, and you have messed that up; and you have done a right fine job of it.
Oh boy... more hot air.

Listen, while stating "Your post is soooooo bad", may seem to you a pretty effective technique, trust me when I tell you it's not.

Now listen. The point here is quite simple. Did PNAC deem a new PH propitious to policy? Nothing else for the moment, calm your little head.

gumboot

13th June 2007, 04:13 AM

Two comments...

1) I wish people wouldn't continually misuse the word "hegemony"
2) I've never come across a 9/11 Debunker who didn't believe that the 9/11 attacks was a convenient event for the Bush administration, allowing them to push what would otherwise have been an unpopular agenda

The only thing PNAC does (assuming your interpretation of it is accurate) is confirm that 9/11 was exploited by the Bush administration. It does not, in any way whatsoever, provide evidence that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks.

-Gumboot

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 04:13 AM

You seem to have neglected, for whatever reason, to have adjusted for inflation. Further, direct comparisons of defense budgets from one era to another are highly problematic. With the all-volunteer army, personnel are individually much more expensive, and weapon system costs have skyrocketed far above the overall rate of inflation. So an argument can be made that the US gets less defense today, dollar-for-(adjusted) dollar, than in earlier times. Further, the United States, and the world at large, have much greater populations than during World War II. Finally, because the US economy has grown so much, even since the Vietnam War, the country simply has much more money to spend for everything, including defense. In other words, if your income triples, you may suddenly start driving a much nicer car, which might have seemed extravagant at your old income level, but is not a major financial drain for you and your new money.

US military spending, 1943 $526 (37.0%)
US military spending, 1944 $684 (37.8%)
US military spending, 1945 $775 (37.5%)
US military spending, 1946 $406 (19.2%)

US military spending, 1952 $397 (13.2%)
US military spending, 1953 $416 (14.2%)

US military spending, 1967 $383 (8.8%)
US military spending, 1968 $420 (9.4%)
US military spending, 1969 $400 (8.7%)

US military spending, 1989 $399 (5.6%)

US military spending, 2003 $405 (3.7%)

Billions of 2000 dollars (percent of Gross Domestic Product)

Source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf): Office of Management and Budget

Based on the above, your contention that the FY 2003 defense budget was somehow "unprecedented," or at least excessive, is rejected.
Yes, I rejected it myself, subsequently, and said well done to the person who had pointed it out.

Incidentally, though you are getting caught up in the excitement, the point is not whether the rise was unprecedented, rather whether it was what PNAC wanted. They state that spending had to increase to 3.5%-3.8% of GDP, which you have illustrated quite nicely. So well done to you too!

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 04:15 AM

That poll was taken in heavily-Democratic NYC on the eve of the Republican National Convention, which was held...in NYC. You have no idea of the animosity that people like me held for Bush at that time.

At that time more than half of New Yorkers would have answered "Strongly agree" to the statement, "President Bush should be stripped naked, hung from a light pole, and beaten like a piñata." More than half of New Yorkers would have answered "Strongly agree" to the statement, "President Bush drinks the blood of the children he molests."

The only New Yorkers that I've ever met who spoke of 9/11 being an inside job are a few kooks who I've sought out. And not one tourist I've been with has ever brought up the idea of U.S. government complicity in 9/11, at Ground Zero or elsewhere. Not one.

The masses don't agree with your nuttery. That's why your movement is moving backwards.
It would appear not

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Although I suppose this poll was also done at a bad PR moment for Bush?

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 04:17 AM

Really? Where in anything you just cited does it even remotely imply that the commision missed things like, say, the WTC being demolished by space beams and mini nukes and thermite? Where does it say WTC 7 may have been pulled by a demolition crew, with full knowledge of the FDNY? Where does it say planes didn't really hit the Pentagon? Where does it say the onboard phone calls were faked and nothing really crashed in Shanksville? And so on. There's a vast difference between "it could have been done better" (which almost always is the case in large undertakings involving human beings) and "the conclusions are so invalid that everything we think we know about 9/11 may be utterly wrong." And frankly, I'm getting real tired of this utterly specious argument being trotted out from time to time -- I really don't think it does your cause anything but harm, and makes it look ridiculous at best and duplicitous at worst.
The Jersey Girls? Oh, come on...
No, it's not good enough to settle the point, not by a light year. "There could have been room for improvement" is not the same as "it was so insufficient, we missed blindingly obvious things -- we may have even pinned it on the wrong people!" Sorry, I'm sticking with my cards -- in fact, if I were a betting man, I'd raise the stakes to the house limit.

No Stella, you're confused. Your point was that the 911 commission had done a good job. My point was that it hadnt. It lacked completeness and efficacy, to a serious degree. This is illustrated by the points. Nothng more.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 04:20 AM

That's William Rodriguez's claim, and it's false.
Right, so 27 were answered, as William said.

Please show me how, as you state, many questions were are on unfounded speculation.

Gravy

13th June 2007, 04:21 AM

Now listen. The point here is quite simple. Did PNAC deem a new PH propitious to policy?.Now listen. The answer here is quite simple: no. Fantasizing that Rebuilding America's Defenses is a plan for an attack upon America will never further your argument and will only bring mocking from rational adults.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 04:23 AM

Initially i did believe they let it happen, but after checking the "evidence" it was clear to Me that govt., through it's politics, agencies more concerned with budget constraints, Robert Mueller not sworn in as director of the FBI until 1 week before 9/11. Many things can be argued here and arranged in such a way to show a case on either side. But unless you can bridge that gap between the Project For A New American Century and connect it with those Neocons in the govt. and prove they made it or allowed it to happen with evidence to substantiate your claim, then it's all just circumstantial.

The 9/11 commission was concentrated into one very specific aspect of the attacks - an investigation into the Government's performance leading up to it. The body of work that constitutes the 9/11 Investigation was carried out by the FBI, FAA, NTSB, FEMA, NIST, and so forth. The 9/11 Commission Report was not underfunded. The criminal investigation into the September 11 Attacks is the largest ever undertaken by the FBI, maybe even the largest criminal investigation in history.

What about some of those Neocons who signed their name to PNAC?

Paul Wolfowitz, appointed head of the World Bank,was forced to step down after facing an outcry over a pay and promotion deals given to his partner - who also works for the World Bank.

Donald Rumsfeld is now gone

Scooter Libby -convicted

Dan Quayle -Come on..how do you spell potatoe? oook!

Bush and Cheney...The American process of election. Voted In...twice
Sorry, but I have addrssed this in my OP. I am not looking to prove that they were complicit, i am showing sufficient evidence pointing to their compliity to warrant a new independent investigation.

It starts with PNAC, where the propitiousness of a new PH for policy is stated.

Gravy

13th June 2007, 04:23 AM

Right, so 27 were answered, as William said. Reading troubles again? The Jersey Girls say the Commission addressed 95 of their questions. I gave you the source. Please try to pay attention.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 04:25 AM

Now listen. The answer here is quite simple: no. Fantasizing that Rebuilding America's Defenses is a plan for an attack upon America will never further your argument and will only bring mocking from rational adults.
Mocking from rational people adults? I dont want that!

Once again, another lucid, cogent point. How well you address the facts! You must realise that stating "it didn't happen" again and again, though clearly a preferred MO for you, isn't gonna carry much weight here...

The points have been laid out, i have addressed your "critique" at length, you are free to address them should you choose.

Of course I will understand i you dont.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 04:26 AM

Reading troubles again? The Jersey Girls say the Commission addressed 95 of their questions. I gave you the source. Please try to pay attention.
Errr... no, it would appear to be you who had the reading difficulties. I said how many questions were answered

This should not have been hard to understand.

Hokulele

13th June 2007, 04:29 AM

Well, at least you get to the heart of the matter. Incidentally, like many of the things i reply to, this has been addressed by me here already.

Addressed, but not refuted.

I have stated that with the qualification that a vital transformation happening over mths/yrs is preferable to it happening over decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. With that qualification; I think this is something that we here can all settle on, and sensible people can come to their own conclusions.

Again, the qualification is simply your opinion, not supported by the rest of the document.

However, we can examine this in closer detail.

1stly, what is the aim of PNAC? It is pretty clear just from their name- create a platform (militarily) for US hegemony, that serves to allow US interests to dominate throughout the 21st century. As such, it is logical that that platform, which is the subject of RAD, should be created as early as possible in that century. Hence we cn conclude that such a transformation is preferable to happen earlier rather than later.

No, once again you are imposing your opinion regarding timeline onto the document. Since the document primarily addressed technological issues, one could equally argue that September 11 happened too soon, before enough time had passed to purchase, train personnel, and implement the technology.

2ndly, look at what is stated about the 2001 QDR. Such a transformation is going to have to have been crystalised in the mind of decision makers by that time, in order to dictate subsequent US military posture from that stance.

This has been covered a few times now.

Again, this can also be used as an argument to conclude that events happened too quickly. Assertion without foundation.

Gravy

13th June 2007, 04:29 AM

It would appear not

Although I suppose this poll was also done at a bad PR moment for Bush?Er, hello? You once again failed to read or understand your own source:

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

Gravy

13th June 2007, 04:36 AM

Errr... no, it would appear to be you who had the reading difficulties. I said how many questions were answered

This should not have been hard to understand.And I gave you the source where the Jersey Girls say 95.

If you ask me what I think of your 9/11 claims and I tell you, and you don't like my reply, that means I haven't answered you? Really?

David Wong

13th June 2007, 04:51 AM

And I gave you the source where the Jersey Girls say 95.

If you ask me what I think of your 9/11 claims and I tell you, and you don't like my reply, that means I haven't answered you? Really?

Don't you get it? HE HAS ALREADY ADDRESSED THOSE POINTS.

Though... now that I think about it, it seems like all of his points have also been addressed. Over and over and...

David Wong

13th June 2007, 04:53 AM

It works like this:

Him: Blind assertion
You: Debunk point or request clarification
Him: Repeat blind assertion.

"I think reptillian nanolasers brought down the towers. We need a new investigation."

"What evidence do you have for the reptillian nanolaser theory?"

"Addressed above."

WildCat

13th June 2007, 05:54 AM

mjd1982, it is obvious to all here that you actually have no facts whatsoever to tie anyone other than than al Qaeda and their 19 suicide terrorists to the events of 9/11. You could even prove (though you haven't by a long shot) that 9/11 was everything the PNAC wanted, and it would still not implicate them in 9/11. You have no evidence whatsoever of foreknowledge, of bombs, of a controlled demolition, of a "NORAD stand down", of a LIHOP or MIHOP in any way, shape, or form. All you have brought to the table so far is unsupported speculation, aggravated by your own ignorance.

So, about those "9/11 Conspiracy Facts": Got any?

DGM

13th June 2007, 06:18 AM

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 07:00 AM

Addressed, but not refuted.
Again, the qualification is simply your opinion, not supported by the rest of the document.

Please understand the meaning of "qualification", and you will understand better.

No, once again you are imposing your opinion regarding timeline onto the document. Since the document primarily addressed technological issues, one could equally argue that September 11 happened too soon, before enough time had passed to purchase, train personnel, and implement the technology.

I'm sorry, but that betrays a horrendous understanding of the document. Please read my response to Gravy's looschange guide to find out what the true import of the document is.

Or, read the document.

Again, this can also be used as an argument to conclude that events happened too quickly. Assertion without foundation.

Hmmm... Look, I know that some of my posts are long, but please try and read them before you reply to me, it will save all of us a lot of time.

The events of 9/11 were of great influence in the QDR. You can read it for yourself and find out- I have posted the link before. So it didnt happen too quickly. Moreover, nearly all the changes called for in the doc have been carried out under the aegis of 911/wot. So it didnt happen too quickly. The assertion is based in the reality of what we have seen, you just need to look.

gumboot

13th June 2007, 07:23 AM

I have a question about the PNAC.

Richard Cheney was, by all accounts, a Signatory to the Statement of Principles.

One of the specific things mentioned in the September 2000 "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was the V-22 Osprey project.

Yet in 1988 Richard Cheney (then Secretary of Defense) zeroed the budget for the project, but was overridden by Congress.

In addition, a cornerstone of the PNAC was regime change in Iraq, yet when Cheney was Secretary of Defense during the Gulf War he was strongly opposed to entering Iraq.

-Gumboot

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 07:24 AM

Er, hello? You once again failed to read or understand your own source:

Er, hello? I'm pretty pissed off with them as well... does this mean that my analysis of them re: 911 is flawed because of it? Or them re: Iraq? WOT? etc

Learn to differentiate between cause and effect please, you'll have fewer problems.

Myriad

13th June 2007, 07:25 AM

The plan they [the neocons] are actually following appears to be:
Step 1: New Pearl Harbor
Step 2: Declare war on an undesired emotion
Step 3: Start quagmire war in Persion Gulf unrelated to said undesired emotion
Step 4: Under-equip U.S. Military to fight quagmire war, while alienating international allies
Step 5: Lose control of Congress
Step 6: 34% approval rating

If you want me to think that they're following this PNAC document as a plan, show me where it lays out steps 2 through 6.

Respectfully,
Myriad

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 07:32 AM

And I gave you the source where the Jersey Girls say 95.

If you ask me what I think of your 9/11 claims and I tell you, and you don't like my reply, that means I haven't answered you? Really?

Oh boy...ok, well firstly 28 + 68=95, so it would appear that your skill in maths is little better than that in basic comprehension.

Secondly, 95 addressed or answered. only 28 answered. The difference between this is something that a child would understand, and it's pretty worrying, but unsurprising that you, as on of the OT flag bearers, cannot understand the difference. But I'll explain it to you.

If I state "Do you like football", and you say" I might do, I might not", then my question has been addressed, but it hasnt been answered. If you say "Yes i do", then it has been answered. If you say nothing, then it has been "ignored/omitted", to quote from your own source, which you should maybe read.

This is pretty basic stuff; if you cannot understand it then ... we might have some problems here.

T.A.M.

13th June 2007, 07:36 AM

decided to keep of the derogatory/insulting tone have we?

You are the one behaving like a child.

TAM

aggle-rithm

13th June 2007, 07:37 AM

Wow, that is a fantastic argument! What a bright soul you are. A credit to your movement, that much is true.

Reality isn't a "movement". It's just the way things are.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 07:37 AM

Pearl Harbor was not a terror attack. It was a legitimate military action against US military forces located in the self-governing US territory of Hawaii.

-Gumboot
Sorry, this is not too relevant, but why was it legitimate?

T.A.M.

13th June 2007, 07:40 AM

mjd:

you know you are right, us simpletons are not smart enough to understand the points you are trying to make. I think you should take your theories and your "facts" and go over to the "Scholars for 9/11 truth" and show them. I can guarantee you they will understand your points, and agree with them.

Seeya

TAM:)

JimBenArm

13th June 2007, 07:42 AM

Sorry, this is not too relevant, but why was it legitimate?
Obvious things military are beyond you.

aggle-rithm

13th June 2007, 07:52 AM

Once again, another lucid, cogent point. How well you address the facts! You must realise that stating "it didn't happen" again and again, though clearly a preferred MO for you, isn't gonna carry much weight here...

He's not saying "it didn't happen". He's saying, "You claim it happened, prove it."

Do you have any proof, other than the circumstantial evidence you've provided so far?

And by the way, since you continue to say we need a new investigation, how do you propose dealing with all the problems of getting the type of investigation you want, totally independent of the government yet with powers that only the government can provide?

(And remember, if you're planning to say "the people can vote for it", members of the government were selected in exactly the same way; the ones with the most money got the vote. Do the people with the most money fit your profile of the ideal investigator?)

aggle-rithm

13th June 2007, 07:55 AM

Sorry, this is not too relevant, but why was it legitimate?

Militarily, the PH attacks had a specific and rational purpose: To disable the US fleet and allow Japan to go ahead with their expansion plans in SE Asia. In fact, Japan intended to declare war BEFORE the attacks, it was only poor execution by their diplomats that prevented this from happening.

The 9/11 attacks were less rational. The purpose was to piss people off and make heroes of the terrorists back home.

Cuddles

13th June 2007, 08:00 AM

Oh boy...ok, well firstly 28 + 68=95, so it would appear that your skill in maths is little better than that in basic

Ironic that you complain about this while at the same time apparently claiming that 27=28, since you claimed that Gravy's link, stating 28, supported William's claim of 27.

In addition, you do appear to be seriously confused. Gravy's link states very clearly that they answered 96 of the questions. The people who asked them didn't like a lot of the answers, but that does not mean that they were not answered.

Yes, I rejected it myself, subsequently, and said well done to the person who had pointed it out.

Incidentally, though you are getting caught up in the excitement, the point is not whether the rise was unprecedented, rather whether it was what PNAC wanted. They state that spending had to increase to 3.5%-3.8% of GDP, which you have illustrated quite nicely. So well done to you too!

You alos appear to have a problem here. According to this source spending is currently estimated at about 3.4% of GDP. In 1997 when the statement was published spending was at 3.3% of GDP. Is this really what you consider a massive increase in spending that could only be brought about by a major attack on the US? To contrast this with previous spending, until 1995 the defence budget had not dropped below 4% since 1948. So apparently PNAC orchestrated 11/9 in order to maintain military spending at the lowest level since the end of WWII.

Seriously, please give up with this argument now. You have not just been proven wrong, this entire line of attack involving the PNAC proves your whole argument utterly nonsensical. PNAC did not say they want a new Pearl Harbour, they did not get a new Pearl Harbour and they did even get what they said would happen if a new Pearl Harbour had actually happened. No motive, no opportunity and no result. Possibly the most ineffective conspiracy ever. In fact, it's almost as though the conspiracy didn't actually exist.

rwguinn

13th June 2007, 08:01 AM

Obvious things military are beyond you.

Fixed it for you

nicepants

13th June 2007, 08:01 AM

I have stated that with the qualification that a vital transformation happening over mths/yrs is preferable to it happening over decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. With that qualification; I think this is something that we here can all settle on, and sensible people can come to their own conclusions.

And my car blowing its transmission would be "propitious" to my plan to eventually buy a new car. That doesn't mean that I will purposely cause a transmission problem in order to bring about that situation sooner.

1stly, what is the aim of PNAC? It is pretty clear just from their name- create a platform (militarily) for US hegemony, that serves to allow US interests to dominate throughout the 21st century. As such, it is logical that that platform, which is the subject of RAD, should be created as early as possible in that century. Hence we cn conclude that such a transformation is preferable to happen earlier rather than later.

You're ASSUMING that they would rather these changes happen immediately. The plan is for the 21st century, not for 2001. If I make a plan for my next 50 years, say, saving for retirement, I'm not planning to complete everything on my checklist by the end of the year. It's a LONG TERM plan.

Belz...

13th June 2007, 08:04 AM

Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

No, that's not the question. The question is, did they do it ?

You can't simply presume this things about what goes on in people's heads. You have a report that states that, without such an event, it might take a while for stuff to happen. It doesn't mean anything more.

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand. It's just not true.

So we can already see that the doc is stating quite clearly the need, urgent, for the necessity for the changes proposed in the doc to be crystalised in POTUS's mind, by October 2001. And concomitantly, the need for whatever other decision making bodies, Congress, Senate, the people, to be on board, by October 2001. Further fuel to the flame.

Hyperbole will not help you.

Errr... other than PH was a terror attack on US soil by foreigners killing thousands of US, burned on the public;s mind, that catalysed the US into drastic military action. Remind you of something?

Yes. Both were carried out by enemies of the USA.

JimBenArm

13th June 2007, 08:10 AM

Fixed it for you
Ah, yeah. Thanks. Just a typo!

Belz...

13th June 2007, 08:14 AM

gumboot

13th June 2007, 08:18 AM

Sorry, this is not too relevant, but why was it legitimate?

Because it was a military action carried out by the military forces of Japan, in accordance with the laws of armed conflict, exclusively against legitimate military targets, with a legitimate military objective.

In contrast the 9/11 attacks were carried out by an illegal organisation, in violation of the laws of armed conflict, against civilians and private property, with the intention of terrorising the American populace.

Note that while The Pentagon was a legitimate target for the attacks, the methodology makes it a violation of the laws of armed conflict.

-Gumboot

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 08:23 AM

Very good. You didn't want to answer directly, but you did manage to mention the answer in passing: Century.

Century. As in, about 3.16 billion seconds.

You're confusing this document with the PNANCY, the Plan for a New American Next Couple'a Years. That's the one that says gosh, we better have a new Pearl Harbor within the next year or two or our whole five-year plan will be off-schedule. But the PNANCY is highly classified NWO material, how did you get hold of a copy?

Excuse for missing this.

Major problem here- what makes you think that this is a 5 year plan?

As I said before, it is a plan for transformation that needs to be speeded through if PNAC want to achieve their aim of an American Century. The transformations will create a platform for such to happen, and this platform needs to be created quickly.

The PNAC is the decoy, that one's all about long-range forward thinking, building up America's credibility internationally, planning for the future, properly equipping our military -- you know, all those things that George W. Bush and the party that's been in power since the turn of this century have proven themselves utterly incapable of doing.

No, but this is completely wrong. Please read my riposte to Gravy's LC critique re: PNAC, which was posted quite early in the thread. A huge majority of what was laid out there has come to pass, specifically under the 911/wot aegis.

Note that this is not strictly relevant, since it relates more to execution than conception, which is the point, but it is stil instructive to see how things went,.Please read the post.

The plan they're actually following appears to be:
Step 1: New Pearl Harbor
Step 2: Declare war on an undesired emotion
Step 3: Start quagmire war in Persion Gulf unrelated to said undesired emotion
Step 4: Under-equip U.S. Military to fight quagmire war, while alienating international allies
Step 5: Lose control of Congress
Step 6: 34% approval rating

If you want me to think that they're following this PNAC document as a plan, show me where it lays out steps 2 through 6.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Ok.

Step 2: Declare war on an undesired emotion

The WOT is an incredibly clever device for ensuring never ending wars, lots of fear, and thus a perfect pretext to do everything that the doc asks. Terrorists! Let's invade that oil rich country. Terrorists! We need to have space based weapons strategy! Terror! We need to use the web as a defense tool, etc.

Of course, there are evident disconnects that rationla people can see, but this does not matter when it is working effectively, and people are buying it. Moreover, even if the dems win in 08, what will happen? Obama declares an end to the war on terror? No! This can never happen, and the US is so sucked into the consciousness of this phoney, maintaining its effects will almost be a matter of course. You only need to see the policy statements of the leading contenders to see why/how.

Step 3: Start quagmire war in Persion Gulf unrelated to said undesired emotion

The war is of course a disaster, but it matters little. The US has secured permanent military bases there,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm)
has a client regime in place, and has control of the oil supply:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#fn56

This is all that matters.

What is essential, and the point that is missed by many on both sides of the fence, is that the war in Iraq is just a fraction of the spectrum of what is being pursued as part of the wot. Again read my riposte for details of what else.

Step 4: Under-equip U.S. Military to fight quagmire war, while alienating international allies

Again, the underequipment is not the main issue. Those have been outlned.

As far as alienation goes... well, on the US side we have, effectively, UK, France, Germany, Oz, Canada (?), India, Pakistan, Japan, Brazil, S Korea, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Poland, Czech Rep, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan, and many others (incl Albania of course!). So theyre not doing too bad.

Step 5: Lose control of Congress

which has led to what? lots of non binding resolutions? As I said before, just like PH, everyone has been so sucked into the consciousness of the WOT, that its like a bull to a red rag - they cannot pull themselves away from it.

Step 6: 34% approval rating

But its irrelevant. The wot is so well conceived, because it will never end; the majority of the plans have been putin place, and a president would be loath to go soft on terror in the current environment. It's just not conceivable.

Moreover, if the GOP wins, as they may well do, then nothing will change. Note that in the CT scenario, Giuliani would have been very much involved. Yet he is the GOP frontrunner. Under him, it would be full steam ahead.

So in short, I think you need to be more careful in your understanding of PNAC's aims, and how they are being achieved. This is a long term strategy, and the effects of 9/11 will easily be felt many years into the future.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 08:26 AM

Because it was a military action carried out by the military forces of Japan, in accordance with the laws of armed conflict, exclusively against legitimate military targets, with a legitimate military objective.

In contrast the 9/11 attacks were carried out by an illegal organisation, in violation of the laws of armed conflict, against civilians and private property, with the intention of terrorising the American populace.

Note that while The Pentagon was a legitimate target for the attacks, the methodology makes it a violation of the laws of armed conflict.

-Gumboot
Yes, but it was an unprovoked act of aggression in a state of peace between 2 nations.

I dont think that terrorism is defined by who carries it out, or even who are the targets. It's a side issue to the point at hand, i hope you realise, but it may be worth debating.

rwguinn

13th June 2007, 08:34 AM

Arkan_Wolfshade

13th June 2007, 08:37 AM

Yes, but it was an unprovoked act of aggression in a state of peace between 2 nations.

I dont think that terrorism is defined by who carries it out, or even who are the targets. It's a side issue to the point at hand, i hope you realise, but it may be worth debating.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that 9/11 was carried out in the manner portrayed by the MSM (I know you don't agree with this, but this if for the sake of argument). Who was the nation that made the unprovoked act of aggression against the US on that day?

gumboot

13th June 2007, 08:40 AM

I dont think that terrorism is defined by who carries it out, or even who are the targets.

Actually that's precisely how it is most commonly defined.

The best way to establish whether an act is terrorism is firstly, was it against civilians, or the military/government?

The second is to ask "What was the objective of the attacks?"

The objective of the Pear Harbor attack was to cripple the US fleet so that they could not project any force across the Pacific, leaving the region open to Japanese expansion.

In contrast the objective of 9/11 was to terrorise the American public, in order that they put pressure on their government to follow a policy that is more to Al Qaeda's liking (i.e. withdraw from the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia).

Yes I am aware that this is a side issue, but it is important to make precise distinctions. The similarity between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is merely that both involved significant unexpected attacks against US interests that killed thousands of people.

Other than this, they are quite different, and the US's response to each attack was likewise quite different.

For what it's worth, I fell the USA's response to the 9/11 attacks was absolutely correct and appropriate, and that the later decision to invade Iraq was neither correct nor appropriate.

-Gumboot

The Almond

13th June 2007, 08:43 AM

No, you're getting ahead of yourself. Calm down. If you read my OP, which you should have had the time to do, you would know that the relevant question for the moment, is was a new PH propitiou to policy.

I did read your OP, and I realize that you'd much rather discuss other topics. That is to say, you'd much rather discuss topics other than the ones for which your deficiencies in logic have been exposed. I've also noticed that you failed to address my point, instead opting for condescension.

To be clear, you are arguing in the affirmative that the nefarious elements in power in the US caused 9/11 to happen. Belz and I have both addressed this on numerous occasions, and you have thus far failed to produce any counter arguments or evidence in support of your position.

Errr... sorry, how does advocating ones goals aid the choosing of the most expedient option?

As Myriad pointed out, your argument is based on the idea that the PNAC (that is, the Project for a New American Century) has chosen to expedite their goals by causing 9/11 to happen, rather than waiting for it. You argue that, given the choice of waiting or acting immediately, they chose to act immediately, and you do so without evidence.

Again you are getting ahead of yourself- it is irrelevant whether they were maliciously advocating death and destruction- concentrate on the detail.

Thanks, but I'd rather focus on what you actually wrote. It is relevant what they were advocating, and it is central to your argument.

Did they state that a new PH was propitious to policy. It's a very simple point, it has a yes or no answer, and the argument I have made is very clear.
Yes, you have made a very clear argument. Clear, but logically vapid, and if you would take a bit more time providing evidence and rational arguments, and a bit less time belittling the posters here, you might convince a few people.

Excuse me. I thought it was evident that what was meant was overtly causing the crash. Sure she has the means to overtly cause the crash, but then if she did that, say by the means you state, she would most likely be hauled in within 48 hours.

Who says she didn't have the ability to covertly cause the crash? While we're imagining impossibly vast conspiracies here, why can't we assume that this woman is connected to the Yakuza, the CIA, the NSA and the union of mechanics and technicians in the greater Seattle area? Yes, the impossibly vast, invisible, completely secret conspiracy is quite central to LIHOP and MIHOP.

The point, which you miss, is about covertly causing, it to happen, which is the thrust of all the points I have made on this forum. This is not something that Mrs Smith could do.

Which government do the Yakuza work for again?

The gov however could- all it has to do, remember, is get a few heads of foodchains in line, get a load of warnings, and do nothing. This cannot be applied to your ana;ogy. Hence y it is horrific.
Sorry, I'm going to require a pretty significant amount of evidence that this is possible, and a lot of evidence to prove that it did happen.

Yes, but if she had said that "this road is so dangerous that a black 2001 Ford Taurus with Wyoming license plate ABC-123 is going to crash into a pink 2005 VW Bug with Wyoming license plate CBA-321 at exactly 22.21 miles per hour.", then your analogy would be more accurate, though still way off for the reasons mentioned, as well as others.

So, if I get your point, the PNAC said, "19 Arab hijackers will crash one plane into each WTC tower, one in rural PA and one into the Pentagon, and that would be really great for us if it happened on or about September 11th, 2001."

Oh wait! They didn't?

volatile

13th June 2007, 08:48 AM

Oh boy...ok, well firstly 28 + 68=95, so it would appear that your skill in maths is little better than that in basic comprehension.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Bwah",and, indeed, "Haha!".

Didn't someone post a quote of yours from SLC saying you didn't like numbers? Maybe you should heed your own advice...

Unsecured Coins

13th June 2007, 08:49 AM

I see a pattern here.

mjd makes post making certain claim. claim in post is addressed and refuted by someone
mjd makes another post, calls reply "irrelevant" and includes outdated website with aged information.
said site is pointed out to be outdated, updated information is presented and explained in great detail with accompanying 3 part harmony and subtitles for the hearing impared.
mjd, sensing defeat, now decries that his original post chock full of information, is now irrelevant.
repeat steps 1-4 ad nauseum.

gumboot

13th June 2007, 08:57 AM

If I state "Do you like football", and you say" I might do, I might not", then my question has been addressed, but it hasn't been answered. If you say "Yes i do", then it has been answered.

No not at all. If you ask "Do you like football?" and I reply "I might do, I might not", I have answered the question, however possibly not to your satisfaction. If I say "Yes I do" I have also answered the question, and likewise I may not have answered it to your satisfaction. For example you may already have decided for yourself that I do not like football, and may only be satisfied if I answer "No I do not", regardless of what the truth is. Indeed, I may present photographs of myself playing football, watching football, and generally enjoying football, and depending on how set you are in your preconceived notions, you still may not find my answer satisfactory.

This should give you a clue about the problems with the Family Steering Committee's dissatisfaction with the 9/11 Commission Report.

-Gumboot

sleahead

13th June 2007, 09:02 AM

It is not strictly a case of crystalising it in the mind of Bush, but, as i said, of crystallising it in the minds of the decision makers.

You have yet to demonstrate that the decision makers were not on board with this already.

So to say that they are content with it happening over a long period of time, due to the fact that they talk about how it would happen over such a period, overlooks the fact that practically speaking, they have no alternative, as well as paying zero attention to the fact that they may be more content with it happening over a shorter period.

I'm sure you are more content when your plans come to fruition sooner than you expected, but I bet you didn't construct and carry out a bizarre plot to achieve this end. Further the PNAC document calls for an

INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.

No rush to impose US hegemony there.

Incidentally, you have forgotten the important point of what is the raison d'etre of PNAC? You can hazard a guess from their name; thus the idea that they would want such a hegemonic transformation to occur early in the century is 100% congruous with their raison d'etre; the opposite is 100% incongruous.

The name ' Project for the New American Century' tells us nothing about when the project should begin. I'm sure they would have wanted to start the transformation early, but as I've said, they are content with a project lasting decades.

So, to reframe your point, the question is when will the process get underway. Ideally, it will happen after a new PH, since this will catalyse the policies set out in the doc. Absent 911, it would have been pretty tough to get some of the changes that have come about

Please provide some evidence that it would have been pretty tough to get the QDR approved, absent 9/11.

So we can see very clearly, that what happened was precisely what PNAC designed. Yes there were plans for budget increases, but, the fact is that defense posture was coloured inexorably by the new PH, just as PNAC had stated

I don't see it at all. These things were being discussed before 9/11. You cut your extract from the QDR just a little short. It continues :

The Quadrennial Defense Review was undertaken during a crucial time of transition to a new era. Even before the attack of September 11, 2001, the senior leaders of the Defense Department set out to establish a new strategy for America's defense that would embrace uncertainty and
contend with surprise, a strategy premised on the idea that to be effective
abroad, America must be safe at home. It sought to set the conditions to
extend America's influence and preserve America's security. The strategy
that results is built around four key goals that will guide the development
of U.S. forces and capabilities, their deployment and use:

Rumsfeld, a PNAC signatory, was responsible for producing the QDR. He provided the terms of reference under which the review took place. Why are you surprised that the QDR might reflect views similar to PNAC/Rumsfeld?
Lets take a look at some testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee (http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=377)on June 21, 2001. First, a word from the chair of the committee, Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat:

I'm also concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the USS Cole, on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center, including possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction and cyberthreats to our national security establishment and even to our economic infrastructure

Two years ago, Senator Warner established a new subcommittee called the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, to focus our attention on these new asymmetric threats and the ways to counter them. Senator Roberts, as then-chairman, and Senator Landrieu, as then-ranking member, have done an outstanding job with this subcommittee for the past two years, and I know that they will continue their good work with their roles reversed, as the new chair and the new ranking members of this important subcommittee.

I'd say Senator Levin was on board with some of Rumsfeld's ideas. Now some snippets from Rumsfeld:

But while it's difficult to know precisely who will threaten us or where or when in the coming decades, it is less difficult to anticipate how we might be threatened. We know, for example, that our open borders and open societies make it very easy and inviting for terrorists to strike at our people where they live and work, as you suggested in your opening remarks. Our dependence on computer-based information networks today makes those networks attractive targets for new forms of cyberattack.

Do you see the resemblance to the last part of your QDR extract?

Third, we have under-invested in dealing with future risks. We have failed to invest adequately in the advanced military technologies we will need to meet the emerging threats of the new century. Given the long lead times in development and deployment of new capabilities, waiting further into the 21st century to invest in those capabilities poses a risk.

Again, Rumsfeld makes reference to the long process of change, at least in the tecnological aspect of it.

Under such an approach, we would work to select, develop, and sustain a portfolio of U.S. military capabilities, capabilities that could not only help us prevail against current threats, but because we possess them, hopefully dissuade potential adversaries from developing dangerous new capabilities themselves. Some of the investment options we've discussed include, obviously, an investment in people; experimentation; intelligence; space, missile defense; information operations, pre-conflict management tools, which are not what they ought to be today, in my view; precision strike capability; rapidly deployable standing joint forces; unmanned systems; command control communications and information management; strategic mobility; research and development base; and infrastructure and logistics.

See the resemblance to PNAC document and the QDR produced a few months later?

Preparing for the 21st century will not require immediately transforming the United States military; just a portion, a fraction of the force. As has been said, the blitzkrieg was an enormous success, but it was accomplished by only a 10 or 15 percent transformed German army. Change is difficult, but the greatest threat to our position today, I would summit, is complacency.

Again,contradiction of your assertion that they wished change to happen quickly.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 09:03 AM

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 09:06 AM

Ironic that you complain about this while at the same time apparently claiming that 27=28, since you claimed that Gravy's link, stating 28, supported William's claim of 27.

In addition, you do appear to be seriously confused. Gravy's link states very clearly that they answered 96 of the questions. The people who asked them didn't like a lot of the answers, but that does not mean that they were not answered.

You alos appear to have a problem here. According to this source spending is currently estimated at about 3.4% of GDP. In 1997 when the statement was published spending was at 3.3% of GDP. Is this really what you consider a massive increase in spending that could only be brought about by a major attack on the US? To contrast this with previous spending, until 1995 the defence budget had not dropped below 4% since 1948. So apparently PNAC orchestrated 11/9 in order to maintain military spending at the lowest level since the end of WWII.

Seriously, please give up with this argument now. You have not just been proven wrong, this entire line of attack involving the PNAC proves your whole argument utterly nonsensical. PNAC did not say they want a new Pearl Harbour, they did not get a new Pearl Harbour and they did even get what they said would happen if a new Pearl Harbour had actually happened. No motive, no opportunity and no result. Possibly the most ineffective conspiracy ever. In fact, it's almost as though the conspiracy didn't actually exist.
Just a quickie- I do accuse the OTers of behaving like NASA chimps, but seriously, to state that there was no new PH... I havent heard that one before. I'm guessing you have been floating in a tub in outer space for the last 6 years, eating bananas maybe?

mjd1982 - stick to the topic; attack the argument, not the person.

gumboot

13th June 2007, 09:07 AM

so whats your question?

Did Cheney just wake up one day between 1991 and 1997 and decide to be evil? Or was it a gradual change?

-Gumboot

volatile

13th June 2007, 09:09 AM

Just a quickie- I do accuse the OTers of behaving like NASA chimps, but seriously, to state that there was no new PH... I havent heard that one before. I'm guessing you have been floating in a tub in outer space for the last 6 years, eating bananas maybe?

I sense you don't know much about PH, or 911. The two are not the same, any way you want to slice it. This has been explained to you already in this thread, and numerous times.

Seeing as we're now going round in circles, I'd like to propose that you advance your thoughts a little. Say that the PNAC did want 911 to happen. They had a meeting, and decided that a "false flag" attack was the best way to achieve their objectives.

What happened next?

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 09:09 AM

Actually that's precisely how it is most commonly defined.

The best way to establish whether an act is terrorism is firstly, was it against civilians, or the military/government?

The second is to ask "What was the objective of the attacks?"

The objective of the Pear Harbor attack was to cripple the US fleet so that they could not project any force across the Pacific, leaving the region open to Japanese expansion.

In contrast the objective of 9/11 was to terrorise the American public, in order that they put pressure on their government to follow a policy that is more to Al Qaeda's liking (i.e. withdraw from the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia).

Yes I am aware that this is a side issue, but it is important to make precise distinctions. The similarity between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is merely that both involved significant unexpected attacks against US interests that killed thousands of people.

Other than this, they are quite different, and the US's response to each attack was likewise quite different.

For what it's worth, I fell the USA's response to the 9/11 attacks was absolutely correct and appropriate, and that the later decision to invade Iraq was neither correct nor appropriate.

-Gumboot
Not strictly correct actually. The UN consensus is:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought

Maybe the semi-clandestine could be problematic re: PH, but its not too important.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 09:11 AM

Did Cheney just wake up one day between 1991 and 1997 and decide to be evil? Or was it a gradual change?

-Gumboot
Well no, he decided that that overthrow of Saddam would be good. I dont think there is too much controversial about this?

You could always email him and ask him?

volatile

13th June 2007, 09:12 AM

Maybe the semi-clandestine could be problematic re: PH, but its not too important.

Why do you keep dismissing all the gaping holes in your "argument" as "irrelevant" and "not important".

Did they let you get away with that at Oxford?

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 09:14 AM

I sense you don't know much about PH, or 911. The two are not the same, any way you want to slice it. This has been explained to you already in this thread, and numerous times.

Seeing as we're now going round in circles, I'd like to propose that you advance your thoughts a little. Say that the PNAC did want 911 to happen. They had a meeting, and decided that a "false flag" attack was the best way to achieve their objectives.

What happened next?
No, the reason why we may be going round in circles is because you are missing the oft stated point.

Was a new PH propitiosu to policy for PNAC.

Simple.

Now, there is actually a very simple way of ascertaining what characteristics of PH were meant to be mirrored in the new PH- look at the doc. The characteristic imputed to the new PH are 2. "catastrophic", and "catalysing".
Very simple.

So, given that 911 was both catastrophic and catalysing, it was a new PH in the sense that PNAC meant.

volatile

13th June 2007, 09:19 AM

No, the reason why we may be going round in circles is because you are missing the oft stated point.

Was a new PH propitiosu to policy for PNAC.

Meaning - "If I explain what I thought happened next, I'd be in even more trouble than I am now".

It wasn't a "new PH" and it wasn't propitious to PNACs gains, as explained at http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html, and that's before you consider the 34% approval rating and the Republicans losing Congress, and, no doubt, the next election. This isn't the "NAC" envisioned, is it?

But, let's play some. Come on, say I believe you about PNAC. What happened next? I hate cliffhangers...

gumboot

13th June 2007, 09:19 AM

Well no, he decided that that overthrow of Saddam would be good. I dont think there is too much controversial about this?

I'm more interested in the transition point at which he decided murdering 3,000 fellow citizens would be a great idea. I think you might find most people would find that somewhat controversial.

-Gumboot

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 09:24 AM

No not at all. If you ask "Do you like football?" and I reply "I might do, I might not", I have answered the question, however possibly not to your satisfaction. If I say "Yes I do" I have also answered the question, and likewise I may not have answered it to your satisfaction. For example you may already have decided for yourself that I do not like football, and may only be satisfied if I answer "No I do not", regardless of what the truth is. Indeed, I may present photographs of myself playing football, watching football, and generally enjoying football, and depending on how set you are in your preconceived notions, you still may not find my answer satisfactory.

This should give you a clue about the problems with the Family Steering Committee's dissatisfaction with the 9/11 Commission Report.

-Gumboot
No, I dont agree with that at all.

If I say "I might or I might not", I could conceivably, and congruously add the phrase, "...but I don't feel like telling you". This would clearly be an evasion of the question, rather than an answer, but still an address. It is perfectly congruous with and reflective of, the latter phrase.

With regard to preconceived notions, if you want to make the assertion that the Jersy Girls reacted irrationally to the coherent responses that were given to them, you should provide some proof of such.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 09:33 AM

I'm more interested in the transition point at which he decided murdering 3,000 fellow citizens would be a great idea. I think you might find most people would find that somewhat controversial.

-Gumboot
Well, though he seems to have little problem with causing the deaths of 10s/100s thousands of Iraqis, I dont know him, and neither do you, so let's just leave our character judgements on him and others to the side I suggest.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 09:34 AM

Meaning - "If I explain what I thought happened next, I'd be in even more trouble than I am now".

It wasn't a "new PH" and it wasn't propitious to PNACs gains, as explained at http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html, and that's before you consider the 34% approval rating and the Republicans losing Congress, and, no doubt, the next election. This isn't the "NAC" envisioned, is it?

But, let's play some. Come on, say I believe you about PNAC. What happened next? I hate cliffhangers...
Excuse me , I have given you an explanation of how 911 was a new PH. Either accept it, or refute it, please dont just send me to some nonsense webpage.

gumboot

13th June 2007, 09:37 AM

Not strictly correct actually. The UN consensus is:

That's the UN's Academic Consensus Definition, written by Alex P Schmid.

Alex P Schmid also proposed a shorthand definition:

"peacetime equivalent of a war crime."

Another definition of "terrorism" is any act:

"intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

In Larger Freedom: Towards Security, Development And Human Rights For All
Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations
March 21, 2005

Or perhaps:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

General Assembly resolution 49/60, December 9, 1994

The key phrase in virtually all state legislation is "unlawful"; in other words for an act to be considered terrorism, as well as the aspects of trying to intimidate the population, it must also be an illegal act.

It is not illegal for one state's armed forces to attack another state's armed forces. It is, however, illegal for anyone in any situation whatsoever to attack a state's civilian population.

-Gumboot

T.A.M.

13th June 2007, 09:40 AM

Just a quickie- I do accuse the OTers of behaving like NASA chimps, but seriously, to state that there was no new PH... I havent heard that one before. I'm guessing you have been floating in a tub in outer space for the last 6 years, eating bananas maybe?

Do you think this is a personal insult to cuddles? Are you calling he/she a "chimp" here? Are you inferring it, not to cleverly?

Is this not a breech of your membership agreement? Should I report it?

TAM:)

gumboot

13th June 2007, 09:41 AM

No, I dont agree with that at all.

If I say "I might or I might not", I could conceivably, and congruously add the phrase, "...but I don't feel like telling you". This would clearly be an evasion of the question, rather than an answer, but still an address. It is perfectly congruous with and reflective of, the latter phrase.

With regard to preconceived notions, if you want to make the assertion that the Jersy Girls reacted irrationally to the coherent responses that were given to them, you should provide some proof of such.

You've moved the goal posts. You changed the response from an unsatisfactory answer to a blatant refusal to provide an answer.

I do not recall the Family Steering Committee at any point claiming the 9/11 Commission Report explicitly refused to answer any of their questions.

As for the Jersey Girls... at least one of them thinks there was a NORAD stand down on 9/11. Their unfounded accusations spit in the face of the thousands and thousands of people who tried to stop the attacks and then worked tirelessly to investigate them. Losing a loved one in such a horrific way makes acting irrational understandable, but it does not make acting irrational right.

-Gumboot

gumboot

13th June 2007, 09:43 AM

Well, though he seems to have little problem with causing the deaths of 10s/100s thousands of Iraqis, I dont know him, and neither do you, so let's just leave our character judgements on him and others to the side I suggest.

You believe that the death of thousands of Iraqis was a fundamental element of the PNAC's plans for regime change in Iraq? Did they have a target range, or was there just a minimum goal, and anything above that was just gravy?

-Gumboot

Arkan_Wolfshade

13th June 2007, 09:44 AM

Assume, for the sake of argument, that 9/11 was carried out in the manner portrayed by the MSM (I know you don't agree with this, but this if for the sake of argument). Who was the nation that made the unprovoked act of aggression against the US on that day?
This has relevance, please answer.

volatile

13th June 2007, 09:45 AM

Excuse me , I have given you an explanation of how 911 was a new PH. Either accept it, or refute it, please dont just send me to some nonsense webpage.

It's been refuted, on that website and elsewhere. A terrorist attack is not the same as a military attack, despite the semantic twisting you're trying. But as I said, we're going round in circles. So, please, let's move this on a step.

Please humour me. After the PNAC was published, and the members agreed to precipitate the 9/11 events as a means to fulfil their goals, what happened next?

CurtC

13th June 2007, 09:49 AM

Not strictly correct actually. The UN consensus is:
Interesting that the UN definition you provided completely supported gumboot's description, and invalidated yours. A terrorist attack is against random civilians, and its purpose is to cause terror (anxiety) in other people.

On the other hand, Pearl Harbor was a military attack, for the purpose of sinking ships and killing the soldiers who would be in a position to fight against Japan. There was no anxiety intended - in fact, Yamamoto even fretted that the attack, while militarily smart, would eventually be a bad thing because of the emotional response to it.

The 9/11 attacks can in no way be compared to Pearl Harbor.

rwguinn

13th June 2007, 09:51 AM

No, I dont agree with that at all.

If I say "I might or I might not", I could conceivably, and congruously add the phrase, "...but I don't feel like telling you". This would clearly be an evasion of the question, rather than an answer, but still an address. It is perfectly congruous with and reflective of, the latter phrase.

With regard to preconceived notions, if you want to make the assertion that the Jersy Girls reacted irrationally to the coherent responses that were given to them, you should provide some proof of such.

so, in the little closed world you have created for yourself, the answer "None of your business" is not an answer at all, "I don't know" is an evasion, and "That cannot be determined with the data we have" is a lie.

So, have you quit beating your wife and girlfriend yet? please do not evade the issue. Yes or no, and why or why not is all that is acceptable.

Hokulele

13th June 2007, 09:52 AM

Please understand the meaning of "qualification", and you will understand better.

Please review the definition of "assumption" and "assertion", then provide proof to elevate the ones you have presented to the level of "evidence".

So it didnt happen too quickly. Moreover, nearly all the changes called for in the doc have been carried out under the aegis of 911/wot. So it didnt happen too quickly. The assertion is based in the reality of what we have seen, you just need to look.

I never said it did. I said the argument can be made that it did, just as you are attempting to argue it did not.

BTW, in your response to Myriad, you attributed several of those quotes to me. Although I certainly respect Myriad and the quality and content of those quotes, I would suggest you be a little more careful in their attribution so as to avoid confusion on the part of the reader.

Belz...

13th June 2007, 10:09 AM

Okay. Let's start with, what does the "C" in "PNAC" stand for?

This has been dealt with numerous times here, and it could not prove the CT point much better. Their aim is to create, militarily, a platform from which US hegemony can thrive, thus making the 21st the American Century. Hence it is all the more crucial for the transformations which will create this platform, to be executed quickly. It will be not good, or less for their stated aims, for them to be ready by 2050.

So what does the "C" in "PNAC" stand for?

All that is aiming to be illustrated for now is that the neo-cons stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy.

In a retarded, emotionless, objective kind of way, yeah it would help that policy. They still didn't say they were going to cause it.

The 2 are similar since they were mass terror attacks against the US that galvanised the public consciousness into approving drastic military action.

Pearl Harbor was NOT a terror attack, it was a military operation.

Damn. Gumboot beat me to that.

It is pretty clear just from their name- create a platform (militarily) for US hegemony, that serves to allow US interests to dominate throughout the 21st century.

There's that hyperbole, again.

Sorry, but I have addrssed this in my OP. I am not looking to prove that they were complicit, i am showing sufficient evidence pointing to their compliity to warrant a new independent investigation.

:boggled:

David Wong

13th June 2007, 10:23 AM

And he's missing the elephant in the room:

Even if the PNAC statement said, "WE NEED TERRORISTS TO FLY BUILDINGS INTO PLANES IN THE FALL OF 2001" the subsequent investigation after 9/11 turned up ZERO evidence of PNAC involvement and 100% evidence of 19 terrorists.

So it literally doesn't matter what that document says because the evidence is in. 19 terrorists did it.

Case closed.

Belz...

13th June 2007, 10:42 AM

As I said before, it is a plan for transformation that needs to be speeded through if PNAC want to achieve their aim of an American Century. The transformations will create a platform for such to happen, and this platform needs to be created quickly.

Why do you think it "needs" to be created quickly ? This seems to be an assumption on your part.

The WOT is an incredibly clever device for ensuring never ending wars, lots of fear, and thus a perfect pretext to do everything that the doc asks. Terrorists! Let's invade that oil rich country.

Yeah, Afghanistan's got lots of oil.

Of course, there are evident disconnects that rationla people can see, but this does not matter when it is working effectively, and people are buying it.

This is an argument from Gallileo. Basically, you can see it but others can't. History will prove you right, etc. etc.

What is essential, and the point that is missed by many on both sides of the fence, is that the war in Iraq is just a fraction of the spectrum of what is being pursued as part of the wot. Again read my riposte for details of what else.

What the hell is WOT, anyway ? What's this obsession with acronyms ?

But its irrelevant. The wot is so well conceived, because it will never end;

This reads more like paranoia than fact.

So in short, I think you need to be more careful in your understanding of PNAC's aims, and how they are being achieved.

In this case, being "more careful" means "adding meaning to words"...

I dont think that terrorism is defined by who carries it out, or even who are the targets. It's a side issue to the point at hand, i hope you realise, but it may be worth debating.

... or changing their definition.

Myriad

13th June 2007, 10:49 AM

But its irrelevant. The wot is so well conceived, because it will never end; the majority of the plans have been putin place, and a president would be loath to go soft on terror in the current environment. It's just not conceivable.

Moreover, if the GOP wins, as they may well do, then nothing will change. Note that in the CT scenario, Giuliani would have been very much involved. Yet he is the GOP frontrunner. Under him, it would be full steam ahead.

So in short, I think you need to be more careful in your understanding of PNAC's aims, and how they are being achieved. This is a long term strategy, and the effects of 9/11 will easily be felt many years into the future.

Here's why I'm not impressed by the argument based on PNAC aims outlined in "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

Because, in the end, it's typical think tank pap. Not because it's false, but because most of it (with a few exceptions, such as thumbs-up thumbs-down on specific weapons development programs) is bleeding obvious. Of course forces should be based closer to where they're most likely to be needed. Of course the U.S. needs to act to avoid being outflanked technologically, what use are tanks if the country's economy can be crippled by a computer virus or an antisatellite weapon? Of course having to swap working parts or available crewmen between weapon systems, in order to get one of them up and running, is a bad thing and should be corrected. Of course a bigger army can take on more simultanous missions at once. Of course the miliary should not be the only human enterprise on the planet not seeking to exploit new information technology to improve its effectiveness. Duh!

All the unjustified accusations about PNAC and 9/11 are rooted in the erroneous idea that these ideas, instead of being patently obvious, constitute some kind of radical agenda that would never be accepted without a major galvanizing event causing fundamental political change. (I can see the protest signs now: "Don't give our troops computers!" "No more spare parts!") It's a pro-military agenda, to be sure, which is traditionally part of the Republican party platform. But otherwise, it's common sense stuff that an administration subscribing to a generally pro-miliary philosophy, such as the that had just taken office, would support, that a large segment of the American population would be expected to agree with, and it's on a modest scale. It's about as controversial, and as specific, as recommending that getting tougher on crime would require more police officers and more prisons.

So, the observation that various objectives outlined in PNAC have in fact been pursued and in some cases achieved means only that the current administration is pro-military (no surprise) and that the generals are not total idiots when it comes to perceiving what changes were needed. ("Let's see, if we're going to be expected to send troops in to avert genocide every time some unstable country goes pear-shaped, do we need more troops or fewer troops? That's a toughie, let's convene some more think tanks.")

Did they exploit 9/11 to make those objectives easier politically? Probably. Politicians exploit events whenever and however they can. They're rather good at it. They don't need to cause the events in order to exploit them, any more than umbrella sellers have to cause the rain.

You can't make a LIHOP or MIHIP case on motive alone, based on ex post facto run-of-the-mill opportunistic political behavior. (Though that behavior might certainly justify wanting to vote people out of office, which the American public did.) You need actual evidence that someone actually did something illegal.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Belz...

13th June 2007, 10:51 AM

No, the reason why we may be going round in circles is because you are missing the oft stated point.

Was a new PH propitiosu to policy for PNAC.

No one's missing this point. They are arguing about it.

So, given that 911 was both catastrophic and catalysing, it was a new PH in the sense that PNAC meant.

Except that the US dollar has dropped significantly since 2001. I wonder why. I'd think these NWO neocon child-molesters would know what they are doing.

If I say "I might or I might not", I could conceivably, and congruously add the phrase, "...but I don't feel like telling you". This would clearly be an evasion of the question, rather than an answer, but still an address.

I think you're a little fuzzy on the definition of "answer".

Well, though he seems to have little problem with causing the deaths of 10s/100s thousands of Iraqis

So the fact that a country can go to war and cause death abroad means that they wouldn't have a problem killing their own citizens ?

Stellafane

13th June 2007, 11:01 AM

No Stella, you're confused. Your point was that the 911 commission had done a good job. My point was that it hadnt. It lacked completeness and efficacy, to a serious degree. This is illustrated by the points. Nothng more.

Actually, I don't think I'm confused at all. In fact, I believe I see things quite clearly. What it all boils down to is, you're stating your opinions as fact. Then you're challenging anyone who doesn't agree with you, calling them "confused" or otherwise intellectually muddled. This is typical CTer behavior.

I once refrained from doing this earlier, but I will do so now: from what I've seen in this thread, you appear to be a typical 9/11 CTer. Your arguments are typical, and so are your methods. And in my opinion, they've all been typically demolished.

ETA: Is it "ook ook ook!" time yet?

JimBenArm

13th June 2007, 11:08 AM

Actually, I don't think I'm confused at all. In fact, I believe I see things quite clearly. What it all boils down to is, you're stating your opinions as fact. Then you're challenging anyone who doesn't agree with you, calling them "confused" or otherwise intellectually muddled. This is typical CTer behavior.

I once refrained from doing this earlier, but I will do so now: from what I've seen in this thread, you appear to be a typical 9/11 CTer. Your arguments are typical, and so are your methods. And in my opinion, they've all been typically demolished.

ETA: Is it "ook ook ook!" time yet?
Ook! I mean, Yes!:monkey:

pgwenthold

13th June 2007, 11:19 AM

Excuse me, that was an error on my part; careless. Not very relevant, but well done in any case!

Actually, it was just another case of you using hyperbole to try to make your argument look stronger than it is. Kind of like your statement in the initial post that "Top generals were warned not to fly on the morning of Sept 11," which, as I've found to be at best a complete distortion of the truth.

For someone who starts a thread called, "The 9/11 Conspiracy _FACTS," you do play fast and loose with them.

aggle-rithm

13th June 2007, 11:24 AM

aggle-rithm

13th June 2007, 11:30 AM

BAD THINGS THAT HAPPENED AND THE PEOPLE WHO BENEFITED:

Bad thing: The Great Depression
People who benefited: Employment Agencies
How they benefited: More unemployed means more clients.
Conclusion: Employment Agencies caused the Great Depression

Bad thing: World War II
People who benefited: The Catholic Church
How they benefited: The Church has long been in favor of large families. After the war, people settled down and procreated like never before. (there were nine kids in my Catholic baby-boom family.)
Conclusion: The Catholic Church caused World War II.

Bad thing: The Holocaust
People who benefited: Swiss bankers
How they benefited: Displaced Jews put their wealth into Swiss banks, then disappeared into concentration camps. Swiss banks kept the money.
Conclusion: Swiss bankers caused the Holocaust

Bad thing: Super Bowl XIII
People who benefited: Those who bet on the Steelers
How they benefited: Steelers won
Conclusion: People who bet on the Steelers caused them to win.

And so on, and so on...

lapman

13th June 2007, 11:36 AM

Actually, it was just another case of you using hyperbole to try to make your argument look stronger than it is. Kind of like your statement in the initial post that "Top generals were warned not to fly on the morning of Sept 11," which, as I've found to be at best a complete distortion of the truth.

For someone who starts a thread called, "The 9/11 Conspiracy _FACTS," you do play fast and loose with them.

But that's what mj does. He distorts the facts in order to make himself look more intelligent. He only cares about the "facts" that support his case. Everything else is just part of the cover-up. Just try discussing with him why there isn't a single audio recording of the so-called explosives that supposedly brought down WTC 7.

SpitfireIX

13th June 2007, 12:42 PM

Yes, I rejected it myself, subsequently, and said well done to the person who had pointed it out.

You rejected the claim that the increase was unprecedented. You then edited your post to add that you hadn't actually been referring to the increase; rather you had been referring to the amount, which you claimed (according to my figures) had only been exceeded once, though you expected it had been exceeded other times.

Your original quote:

. . . So, let's look at these budgetary allocations. From 2001 to 2003, the defense budget increased by 33%- an unprecedented amount. This increase was pursued almost exclusively under the aegis of the War on Terror, which of course, is pursued under the aegis of the new PH. . . .

What you wrote clearly refers to the "increase" as unprecedented; however, I'll grant that that's not what you meant to say.

Incidentally, though you are getting caught up in the excitement, the point is not whether the rise was unprecedented, rather whether it was what PNAC wanted. They state that spending had to increase to 3.5%-3.8% of GDP, which you have illustrated quite nicely. So well done to you too!

You appear to believe that I've scored some sort of an "own goal," but in fact you have merely demonstrated that you use "statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost--for support, rather than illumination." (variously attributed) According to a Congressional Research Service report (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf), DoD's costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the costs of additional security (e.g., increased combat air patrols) in FY 2003 totalled US $77.4 billion. Deflating that back to Year 2000 dollars yields about US $72 billion. Looking at my source figures, it appears that I neglected to deflate the original FY 2003 defense budget back to Year 2000 dollars, which makes the 2003 increase even less remarkable. So let's also reconsider your purported 33% increase from FY 2001 to FY 2003.

2001 military spending: $297.5 (3.0%)

2002 military spending: $330.8 (3.4%)

2003 military spending: $374.5 (3.7%)

Billions of US dollars (percent of GDP)

Now, we see that the actual, inflation-adjusted increase from 2001 to 2003 is $77 billion, or about 26%, not 33% as you claimed. (Penalty kick for exaggerating by using non-inflation adjusted numbers! :warning1) Further, of that $77 billion, $72 billion is directly traceable to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and increased security costs. Most of this money is sunk and has contributed little or nothing to the PNAC goals (unless I missed the part in the report about fighting extended ground wars in the Middle East as one of the goals).

This entire issue serves to illustrate your twisting of the PNAC memo to support your conspiracist agenda. You claim that the September 11 attacks brought about the PNAC objective of increased military spending--however, the objective was not increased military spending for its own sake; it was rather the military transformation that would have required this increased military spending.

Also, you are committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

"If the PNAC plan had been implemented, military spending would have increased substantially."

"Military spending increased substantially."

"Therefore, the PNAC plan was implemented."

Ook! Ook! Eee! Eee!

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 12:46 PM

...

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 12:48 PM

You've moved the goal posts. You changed the response from an unsatisfactory answer to a blatant refusal to provide an answer.

I do not recall the Family Steering Committee at any point claiming the 9/11 Commission Report explicitly refused to answer any of their questions.

As for the Jersey Girls... at least one of them thinks there was a NORAD stand down on 9/11. Their unfounded accusations spit in the face of the thousands and thousands of people who tried to stop the attacks and then worked tirelessly to investigate them. Losing a loved one in such a horrific way makes acting irrational understandable, but it does not make acting irrational right.

-Gumboot

Right, well 1stly your last paragraph does nothing to illustrate that they are wrong in stating that the comm didnt answer their questions when they say they addressed them. You would still have to illustrate that.

Secondly, the goalposts have been moved, but not by me. The original point was "how many questions of the 167 did the Comm answer". I said 27. Gravy said, no, that's what Willie Rodriguez said, and its false, later going on to claim that the Jersey Girls said 95 were answered. However, the JG's state quite clearly that ~27 were answered, ~68 were addressed, and ~72 were ignored. This is what they said.

There should be no need to argue this.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 12:50 PM

This has relevance, please answer.
I dont think it does. Why does it?

HeyLeroy

13th June 2007, 12:51 PM

All that is aiming to be illustrated for now is that the neo-cons stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy. This is based on the fact of what is in black and white in their document. If you want to argue this point, then please address the document.

"...based on..." indicates your interpretation. Interpretation + opinion. Opinion =/= Fact.

Yes, I rejected it myself, subsequently, and said well done to the person who had pointed it out.

Incidentally, though you are getting caught up in the excitement, the point is not whether the rise was unprecedented, rather whether it was what PNAC wanted. They state that spending had to increase to 3.5%-3.8% of GDP, which you have illustrated quite nicely. So well done to you too!

[sound of brakes screeching as a deft Rockford turn is executed]

Do I understand correctly that you are setting aside the MIHOP argument ?
(snip)

Wait. Just wait'll he gets to WTC7 and his contention regarding "they" knew exactly where the fires weren't going to be burning, so that's where "they" planted explosives.

Given that
a) 7 was taken down by explosives
and
cool.gif there were fires in parts of the building

This brings us to the conclusion that the explosives were either planted away from the fires, or that the fires were not strong enough to hinder the explosives (either due to qualitie of the fires/qualities of the explosives)..
I (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=fires&pid=18904)

Neither am I, but even if the behaviour of explosives is limited to both our slight understandings of them, we can see that the bombs could have easily been placed where the fires were slight/non existent.
s**t (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=fires&pid=19000)

As I have stated, not B,C or D. But yes to A- they would have placed the explosives where the fires would not reach.
you (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=fires&pid=19033)

Regardless, I will be kind (for your 1st question anyway). They wuold have known that the fires would not affect the locations where the explosives were placed. This is not too hard to work out, since the fires were highly localised.
not. (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=fires&pid=19073)

In this case, being "more careful" means...
...changing their definition.

Now you see, in the 1st quote, I am illustrating to you how the terms "exploded/blown up/brought down" are synonymous with "imploded", and hence, to respond to your point, there is no need for them to go further, and state, "Oh and by the way everyone, this means that its gonna be imploded!"

Argues that "implode" is synonymous with "explode". (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=synonym&pid=19148):hypnotize

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 12:52 PM

so, in the little closed world you have created for yourself, the answer "None of your business" is not an answer at all, "I don't know" is an evasion, and "That cannot be determined with the data we have" is a lie.

So, have you quit beating your wife and girlfriend yet? please do not evade the issue. Yes or no, and why or why not is all that is acceptable.
Please address where these answers were given to the Jersey Girls.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 12:54 PM

In a retarded, emotionless, objective kind of way, yeah it would help that policy. They still didn't say they were going to cause it.

Good! So we have one person with a modicum of common sense on this board. This is the starting point. The rest will be addressed in a second (has already been in any case).

HyJinX

13th June 2007, 12:55 PM

I dont think it does. Why does it?

This coming from the guy who wants to know why some questions were left unanswered by the commission. :rolleyes:

beachnut

13th June 2007, 12:58 PM

All that is aiming to be illustrated for now is that the neo-cons stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy. This is based on the fact of what is in black and white in their document. If you want to argue this point, then please address the document.
So it does not have a thing to do with 9/11. What do you have then? The PNAC stuff is just talk? Where is the arguement for something, and what is that something you believe? The OP was a mess, and it has not improved with your 78 posts. What is you point, and why are there no facts to back it up?

There is such a chasm between the facts of this day, and what has been reported in the mainstream media, that the majority of people are not even aware of the most rudimentary facts of the day, one of the most newsworthy days any of our lives. I will address 2 smoking guns.

I was reading your OP again, still zero stuff there, you need to redo it. It is factually wrong. No sources, etc.

I was hoping you would present these smoking guns soon. They were not mentioned in your OP. Come on show us what you have. What were the smoking guns?

Arkan_Wolfshade

13th June 2007, 01:04 PM

Right, well 1stly your last paragraph does nothing to illustrate that they are wrong in stating that the comm didnt answer their questions when they say they addressed them. You would still have to illustrate that.

Secondly, the goalposts have been moved, but not by me. The original point was "how many questions of the 167 did the Comm answer". I said 27. Gravy said, no, that's what Willie Rodriguez said, and its false, later going on to claim that the Jersey Girls said 95 were answered. However, the JG's state quite clearly that ~27 were answered, ~68 were addressed, and ~72 were ignored. This is what they said.

There should be no need to argue this, it is either dishonesty or stupidity, and should be retracted.
Unless you are going to demonstrate in this specific case why "answered" and "addressed" should be lumped together then you are committing equivocation. Specifically, if the Jersey Girls' questions that were not unanswered have been dealt with to their satisfaction or not.

T.A.M.

13th June 2007, 01:05 PM

Debating tactic 49b. "Control the debate/discussion". Whether it is appropriate, or in proper form or etiquette, the key to winning a debate, is to be the one in control of it. Deciding the agenda, the questions to be answered, and not answered, as well as the time of answering, and content of the answer, are all ways in which control of the debate may be taken.

Look like anyones MO to you?

TAM:)

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 01:09 PM

Belz...

13th June 2007, 01:09 PM

In this case, being "more careful" means...
...changing their definition.

QUOTE MINING!!! QUOTE MINING!!!

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 01:10 PM

Unless you are going to demonstrate in this specific case why "answered" and "addressed" should be lumped together then you are committing equivocation. Specifically, if the Jersey Girls' questions that were not unanswered have been dealt with to their satisfaction or not.
Errr... no, it is you who is lumping the 2 together, not me, so it is you who is going to have to prove why they should be.

Belz...

13th June 2007, 01:10 PM

...

Stumped, I see.

Secondly, the goalposts have been moved, but not by me.

Of course, by you. You changed the whole scenario to mean something else. That's moving the goalposts. You change the rules to accomodate your debunked conclusion.

Good! So we have one person with a modicum of common sense on this board. This is the starting point. The rest will be addressed in a second (has already been in any case).

Common sense had nothing to do with it. You said:

All that is aiming to be illustrated for now is that the neo-cons stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy.

Assuming said policy is increasing funding to the military, then yes. But that says absolutely nothing, so your point is still unproven.

I don't think you know what "common sense" means.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 01:15 PM

Why do you think it "needs" to be created quickly ? This seems to be an assumption on your part.

For the reasons I stated. They are there in the post to which you are replyng. You can address them if you like.

Yeah, Afghanistan's got lots of oil.

Natural gas, excuse me.

This is an argument from Gallileo. Basically, you can see it but others can't. History will prove you right, etc. etc.

Errr... no. My point is one that is often stated by OTers- what has nuclear weapon upgrades and global missile defenses got to do with terrorism? nothing. This is an argument from your own camp; but if you would like to debunk it, then go ahead.

What the hell is WOT, anyway ?

War on Terror

What's this obsession with acronyms ?

Theyre shorter, and thus quicker to write.

beachnut

13th June 2007, 01:25 PM

For the reasons I stated. They are there in the post to which you are replyng. You can address them if you like.

Natural gas, excuse me.

Errr... no. My point is one that is often stated by OTers- what has nuclear weapon upgrades and global missile defenses got to do with terrorism? nothing. This is an argument from your own camp; but if you would like to debunk it, then go ahead.

War on Terror

Theyre shorter, and thus quicker to write.
And still no smoking gun or clarification on what the OP mess of words was all about? No proper quotes, hard, if not impossible to figure out what is your BS and what is quoted stuff.

You did miss that day in 3rd grade with cause and effect, and you missed the button.

What are the two smoking guns you teased us with and where are the facts to back them up? Cause there were no facts in the OP. Are you holding back? If you have time avoiding questions, then you could fix the OP and present those smoking guns. I am interested in them, but you failed to make the point in the OP, you mentioned some lies from the truth movement, but no real smoking gun. Do you understand, there was no stuff in you OP that has not been debunked many times over? Are you reading what everyone has said more than 50 times, that you basically have zero stuff to present on 9/11 that makes sense?

Arkan_Wolfshade

13th June 2007, 01:28 PM

I dont think it does. Why does it?
When defending your assertion that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were analogous, you stated, "Yes, but it was an unprovoked act of aggression in a state of peace between 2 nations. " To this, I replied, "Assume, for the sake of argument, that 9/11 was carried out in the manner portrayed by the MSM (I know you don't agree with this, but this if for the sake of argument). Who was the nation that made the unprovoked act of aggression against the US on that day?" It's relevence is directly tied to the definition of 'terrorism' that you are using in this discussion, your claims of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 being analogous, and to your statement of "between 2 nations".

If the US was the first nation, what was the other nation on 9/11?

Errr... no, it is you who is lumping the 2 together, not me, so it is you who is going to have to prove why they should be.

In post #183, you committed equivocation when you chose to say, "As you know, they put 167 questions to the Commission , of which only 27 were answered. " In that statement you implicitly lump "This question has been addressed in the Report, but not adequately answered.", "This question has been addressed in the Report, but not adequately answered." into the same group and compare them against, "This question has been generally ignored in or omitted from the Report.".

Now, justify your, apparent, attempt at deception.

jab712

13th June 2007, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...
In a retarded, emotionless, objective kind of way, yeah it would help that policy. They still didn't say they were going to cause it.

Originally Posted by mjd1982...
Good! So we have one person with a modicum of common sense on this board. This is the starting point. The rest will be addressed in a second (has already been in any case).

Ahhhh FINALLY, you agree that this thought process is retarded!!!

Do you understand what I am doing here? I am pulling a mjd1982. I took a few words out these posts and assumed something. Belz said it was retarded and you agreed. So, I am assuming that you do, in fact, think that this thought process is retarded. I have assumed what your intent was based on the few words in these sentences. Ignoring ALL the other statements you have made to the contrary.

Later on, I will comment about how something is no longer relevant.

HeyLeroy

13th June 2007, 01:53 PM

...please address the document.

Hello, document!
http://liveu-94.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1221294L.jpg

It's apparent that we don't see (after ~405 posts) the sinister outlines in the PNAC document that's so clear to mjd1982.

Let's all close one eye and squint with the other, hold the paper at arms' length on the diagonal, agree to disagree and move on. Let's move on here, folks, we're holding mjd back.

Okay, mjd1982, for the sake of argument let's just say that the PNAC document is a published public document detailing Bushco's nefarious plans to attempt to murder 25,000-50,000 innocent Americans in a devastating attack on the World Trade Center Complex, and the actual cold-blooded murder of approximately 3,000 civilians in a calculated 'Pearl Harbor'-type false-flag operation. As others here have said, "what next?"

A note to mjd1982: I know you and I have been around this maypole before. I know you're not unintelligent, but the people on this forum don't tolerate speculation much, they evaluate facts. Once you recognize that you're erroneously trying to present your opinions as facts, you'll fare much, much better here.

Remember that kerfuffle we had about the 'bending' of facts to fit supposition and I told you that facts don't bend, they're rigid things? Please take that to heart.

Now on to the good stuff! If I remember correctly, your (abridged) version of what happened to 7 World Trade Center went something like this:

http://liveu-91.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1179791L.gif knew that terrorists were going to hijack planes and fly them into the Twin Towers. http://liveu-91.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1179791L.gif knew exactly where chunks of WTC1 were going to impact upon WTC7, and had http://liveu-78.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1193578L.gifhttp://liveu-66.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1200166L.gif plant explosives throughout WTC7, in places where http://liveu-91.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1179791L.gif knew the raging fires wouldn't spread.

http://liveu-91.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1179791L.gif, for reasons unknown (but we can assume wasn't guilt, as http://liveu-91.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1179791L.gif just did nothing to stop planes from smashing into buildings that could've potentially contained 50,000 innocent people) risked http://liveu-49.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1221349L.gif or even http://liveu-72.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1200172L.gif in the electric chair, and warned three fire-fighters of their nefarious plans, allowing them to... stay safe behind the collapse perimeter they'd set up, as the firefighters figured the building was gonna collapse anyways.

Did I miss anything?

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 01:58 PM

Here's why I'm not impressed by the argument based on PNAC aims outlined in "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

Because, in the end, it's typical think tank pap. Not because it's false, but because most of it (with a few exceptions, such as thumbs-up thumbs-down on specific weapons development programs) is bleeding obvious. Of course forces should be based closer to where they're most likely to be needed. Of course the U.S. needs to act to avoid being outflanked technologically, what use are tanks if the country's economy can be crippled by a computer virus or an antisatellite weapon? Of course having to swap working parts or available crewmen between weapon systems, in order to get one of them up and running, is a bad thing and should be corrected. Of course a bigger army can take on more simultanous missions at once. Of course the miliary should not be the only human enterprise on the planet not seeking to exploit new information technology to improve its effectiveness. Duh!

All the unjustified accusations about PNAC and 9/11 are rooted in the erroneous idea that these ideas, instead of being patently obvious, constitute some kind of radical agenda that would never be accepted without a major galvanizing event causing fundamental political change. (I can see the protest signs now: "Don't give our troops computers!" "No more spare parts!") It's a pro-military agenda, to be sure, which is traditionally part of the Republican party platform. But otherwise, it's common sense stuff that an administration subscribing to a generally pro-miliary philosophy, such as the that had just taken office, would support, that a large segment of the American population would be expected to agree with, and it's on a modest scale. It's about as controversial, and as specific, as recommending that getting tougher on crime would require more police officers and more prisons.

So, the observation that various objectives outlined in PNAC have in fact been pursued and in some cases achieved means only that the current administration is pro-military (no surprise) and that the generals are not total idiots when it comes to perceiving what changes were needed. ("Let's see, if we're going to be expected to send troops in to avert genocide every time some unstable country goes pear-shaped, do we need more troops or fewer troops? That's a toughie, let's convene some more think tanks.")

Did they exploit 9/11 to make those objectives easier politically? Probably. Politicians exploit events whenever and however they can. They're rather good at it. They don't need to cause the events in order to exploit them, any more than umbrella sellers have to cause the rain.

You can't make a LIHOP or MIHIP case on motive alone, based on ex post facto run-of-the-mill opportunistic political behavior. (Though that behavior might certainly justify wanting to vote people out of office, which the American public did.) You need actual evidence that someone actually did something illegal.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Ok, a number of problems here, IMO.

1stly, I dont think that you've read the doc carefully enough. The changes it calls for are not banal like you make them out to be. I mean even to point to your example of the army, we can see how the doc describes the changes itself:

Terminating marginal programs like the
Crusader howitzer, trimming administrative
overhead, base closings and the like will not
free up resources enough to finance the
radical overhaul the Army needs

Design
and research on a future CVX carrier
should continue, but should aim at a
radical design change

halt production of current-paradigm weapons
and shift to radically new designs

when
the results of vigorous experimentation
introduce radically new weapons,

Yet this initial process of transformation
must be just the first step toward a more
radical reconfiguring of the Army.

And I could go on; and this is just one adjective.

Further, this does not even touch on the radical elements that are either stated or strongly implied in the doc- the overthrow of Saddam, militarisation of space, use of cyberspace as a defense tool etc, which would never be done normally.

Also, you miss the notion of quantity/specificity. So troops are going to be repositioned. Where? How many of them? How much to spend on bases? etc etc

You also, inexplicably, seem to contradict the documents own import:

All the unjustified accusations about PNAC and 9/11 are rooted in the erroneous idea that these ideas, instead of being patently obvious, constitute some kind of radical agenda that would never be accepted without a major galvanizing event causing fundamental political change. (I can see the protest signs now: "Don't give our troops computers!" "No more spare parts!")

But this is pretty much what is said in the doc, directly! I think the problem may be, as I have tried to illustrate, the fact that you underestimate the radical nature of the changes called for.

And finally, as I have stated, the actual changes themselves do not matter so much in their detail; what is important is the broad import, to be sped up by a new PH, since we are arguing design rather than execution.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 02:01 PM

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 02:06 PM

You rejected the claim that the increase was unprecedented. You then edited your post to add that you hadn't actually been referring to the increase; rather you had been referring to the amount, which you claimed (according to my figures) had only been exceeded once, though you expected it had been exceeded other times.

Your original quote:

What you wrote clearly refers to the "increase" as unprecedented; however, I'll grant that that's not what you meant to say.

You appear to believe that I've scored some sort of an "own goal," but in fact you have merely demonstrated that you use "statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost--for support, rather than illumination." (variously attributed) According to a Congressional Research Service report (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf), DoD's costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the costs of additional security (e.g., increased combat air patrols) in FY 2003 totalled US $77.4 billion. Deflating that back to Year 2000 dollars yields about US $72 billion. Looking at my source figures, it appears that I neglected to deflate the original FY 2003 defense budget back to Year 2000 dollars, which makes the 2003 increase even less remarkable. So let's also reconsider your purported 33% increase from FY 2001 to FY 2003.

2001 military spending: $297.5 (3.0%)

2002 military spending: $330.8 (3.4%)

2003 military spending: $374.5 (3.7%)

Billions of US dollars (percent of GDP)

Now, we see that the actual, inflation-adjusted increase from 2001 to 2003 is $77 billion, or about 26%, not 33% as you claimed. (Penalty kick for exaggerating by using non-inflation adjusted numbers! :warning1) Further, of that $77 billion, $72 billion is directly traceable to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and increased security costs. Most of this money is sunk and has contributed little or nothing to the PNAC goals (unless I missed the part in the report about fighting extended ground wars in the Middle East as one of the goals).

This entire issue serves to illustrate your twisting of the PNAC memo to support your conspiracist agenda. You claim that the September 11 attacks brought about the PNAC objective of increased military spending--however, the objective was not increased military spending for its own sake; it was rather the military transformation that would have required this increased military spending.

Also, you are committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

"If the PNAC plan had been implemented, military spending would have increased substantially."

"Military spending increased substantially."

"Therefore, the PNAC plan was implemented."

Ook! Ook! Eee! Eee!
Ook ook indeed.

Were you not so busy making chimp noise (I assume this is quite standard for you) you would have realised the point that has been made many times, i.e. that military increases are but one element of the WOT/PNAC plan. If you want to know the rest, and how they have been implemented, banana out of mouth, and read my dismantliing of Gravy's LC guide re: PNAC.

lapman

13th June 2007, 02:12 PM

Except that none of the people who have benefitted had the capacity to covertly cause such events. This has been addressed eariler, do keep up pelase.

You're saying that the Catholic Church does not have the capacity to start a war?!?!? I guess history was not one of your subjects in school.

Unsecured Coins

13th June 2007, 02:17 PM

Ook ook indeed.

Were you not so busy making chimp noise (I assume this is quite standard for you) you would have realised the point that has been made many times, i.e. that military increases are but one element of the WOT/PNAC plan. If you want to know the rest, and how they have been implemented, banana out of mouth, and read my dismantliing of Gravy's LC guide re: PNAC.

Re-po'ted

HeyLeroy

13th June 2007, 02:23 PM

Ok, a number of problems here, IMO.

1stly, I dont think that you've read the doc carefully enough. The changes it calls for are not banal like you make them out to be. I mean even to point to your example of the army, we can see how the doc describes the changes itself:

radical...
radical...
radically...
radically...
radical...

And I could go on; and this is just one adjective.

Further, this does not even touch on the radical elements that are either stated or strongly implied in the doc- the overthrow of Saddam, militarisation of space, use of cyberspace as a defense tool etc, which would never be done normally.

Also, you miss the notion of quantity/specificity. So troops are going to be repositioned. Where? How many of them? How much to spend on bases? etc etc

You also, inexplicably, seem to contradict the documents own import:

But this is pretty much what is said in the doc, directly! I think the problem may be, as I have tried to illustrate, the fact that you underestimate the radical nature of the changes called for.

And finally, as I have stated, the actual changes themselves do not matter so much in their detail; what is important is the broad import, to be sped up by a new PH, since we are arguing design rather than execution.

Except that none of the people who have benefitted had the capacity to covertly cause such events. This has been addressed eariler, do keep up pelase.

Ook ook indeed.

Were you not so busy making chimp noise (I assume this is quite standard for you) you would have realised the point that has been made many times, i.e. that military increases are but one element of the WOT/PNAC plan. If you want to know the rest, and how they have been implemented, banana out of mouth, and read my dismantliing of Gravy's LC guide re: PNAC.

Okay, we get it; you see things we don't. Get to the good stuff.

I did a cryptoquote last night and I thought how apt it was; more words to keep in mind:

Accuracy of statement is one of the first elements of truth; inaccuracy is a near kin to falsehood.
--Tryon Edwards

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 02:31 PM

When defending your assertion that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were analogous, you stated, "Yes, but it was an unprovoked act of aggression in a state of peace between 2 nations. " To this, I replied, "Assume, for the sake of argument, that 9/11 was carried out in the manner portrayed by the MSM (I know you don't agree with this, but this if for the sake of argument). Who was the nation that made the unprovoked act of aggression against the US on that day?" It's relevence is directly tied to the definition of 'terrorism' that you are using in this discussion, your claims of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 being analogous, and to your statement of "between 2 nations".

If the US was the first nation, what was the other nation on 9/11?

This has been addressed earlier.

PH had many characteristics. It wasnt just the fact that it was one nation attacking another; it was done by Japanese, it was done on a fleet, it was done by air etc etc.

The question is, which of these many characteristics are pertinent to the analogy between 9/11 and PH. The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

In post #183, you committed equivocation when you chose to say, "As you know, they put 167 questions to the Commission , of which only 27 were answered. " In that statement you implicitly lump "This question has been addressed in the Report, but not adequately answered.", "This question has been addressed in the Report, but not adequately answered." into the same group and compare them against, "This question has been generally ignored in or omitted from the Report.".

Now, justify your, apparent, attempt at deception.[/QUOTE]

Its understandable that I would lump those 2 sentences together since they are identical.

In any case, I am not equivocating anything; I am differentiating between 3 things: answering, addressing, and ignoring. None of them mean the same thing. You equivocate addressing with answering, since you feel that because 96 questions were addressed, 96 were answered. Since addressing a question can mean anything from "Dont ask such a stupid question", I do not do the same.

David Wong

13th June 2007, 02:31 PM

For those of you following along, mjd says PNAC's suggestion that the CVX carrier be "radically" redesigned is one piece of evidence that they blew up World Trade Center 7.

David Wong

13th June 2007, 02:33 PM

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

And yet, it is disputed by many, many people far, far, far, far, far, far, far more intelligent and educated and qualified than you.

You have an over-inflated ego that borders on neurosis.

mjd1982

13th June 2007, 02:42 PM

I think that, for the sake of clarity, we should do a quick heads up.

So, the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, but many here find it hard to comprehend, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

Initially, there has been debate as to whether 911 was indeed a new PH. This has been addressed by me in #416. Anyone who wants to address this point, please refer to this post.

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years. I think that ordinarily would be obvious, but we can argue it here on the basis that:
a) The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.
b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.
c) The fact that a (+ve) revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape is preferable to power hungry politicians soon, rather than later. I do realise that chimps wil cry "That's not in the doc", but I think that it is pretty much common sense.

Do not use insults to argue your point. This sub-forum is under stricter moderation than any other sub-forum. If you cannot post civilly, without insults, your posts will be deleted with no further warning.

beachnut

13th June 2007, 02:49 PM

I think that, for the sake of clarity, we should do a quick heads up.

So, the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, but many here find it hard to comprehend, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

Initially, there has been debate as to whether 911 was indeed a new PH. This has been addressed by me in #416. Anyone who wants to address this point, please refer to this post.

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years. I think that ordinarily would be obvious, but we can argue it here on the basis that:
a) The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.
b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.
c) The fact that a (+ve) revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape is preferable to power hungry politicians soon, rather than later. I do realise that chimps wil cry "That's not in the doc", but I think that it is pretty much common sense.
Does this mean you had no smoking guns as in the OP teased?
There is such a chasm between the facts of this day, and what has been reported in the mainstream media, that the majority of people are not even aware of the most rudimentary facts of the day, one of the most newsworthy days any of our lives. I will address 2 smoking guns.

I suspected you were just talk and now you prove it. No smoking gun will be clarified and you are off on some PNAC hunt which has not a darn thing to do with 9/11. Cause and effect seem to be a messed up system, in the fictional world of 9/11 truth. What do you think?

HeyLeroy

13th June 2007, 02:55 PM

(snip)

9/11

There is such a chasm between the facts of this day, and what has been reported in the mainstream media, that the majority of people are not even aware of the most rudimentary facts of the day, one of the most newsworthy days any of our lives. I will address 2 smoking guns.

WTC7

Another indication of how little the public knows about 9/11 can be gauged from the fact that the vast majority of people in this country are not even aware how many buildings fell on 9/11. And those that are will most likely never have seen the 3rd and final building to fall that day, World Trade Centre 7, collapse. It is unprecedented, that in an age where information travels so freely, that so many people are unaware of one of the most rudimentary facts of the most newsworthy day of our lives.

WTC 7 was a 47 storey building, 100m north of the North Tower that housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Mayor’s Emergency Management Office, the IRS, and the SEC, among others. At 5.20 pm on 9/11, it was taken down in a manner that raised eyebrows. In the words of top Dutch implosion expert Danny Jowenko: “This is controlled demolition. Absolutely certain. This is a hired job done by a team of experts.” Or to quote emeritus Professor in structural analysis and construction at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Hugo Bachmann: “In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts". Also, emeritus Professor in structural analysis and construction at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Joerg Schneider: "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".

The official government story is that the tower was damaged by falling debris, and so fell in a manner that just looked like an implosion, but it was actually structural failure. Any doubts as to this can be put to bed by the testimony of 1st responders both at the time, and subsequently, who state they were told to get away from the building, because it was about to be imploded:
(Google video- WTC7- The smoking gun of 9/11)

I am aware that there is testimony regarding suspicions that the building was at risk, and this is not testimony I deny; I have no doubt that those firefighters thought the building would collapse. Nonetheless, nor do I deny the testimony provided in the above video, and anyone who will accept only one will have to justify why they deny the other.

In line with this notion of foreknowledge as to the collapse of WTC7, is the astonishing recent revelation that the BBC and CNN both reported the collapse of the building while it was still standing, and in the case of the BBC, while the reporter was standing in front of it:

Incidentally, another interesting fact about 9/11 is that the owner of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, had his offices on the 88th floor of the North Tower. But by a surprising coincidence, on this day, Larry didn’t make it in, as he had a doctor’s appointment, and his 2 kids, Lisa and Roger, who worked with him, didn’t make it either- they were running late.

Luck of the devil I guess.

Let’s not forget our aim- is this sufficient evidence to warrant a new independent investigation?

William Rodriguez et al

Another fact that has not seen a speck of daylight in the mainstream media, is the multiple, identical reports, of a bomb going off in the basement of the North Tower seconds before the 1st plane had hit. This bomb injured and hospitalised civilians, yet was completely ignored by the authorities, not investigated anywhere, and whitewashed from the 9/11 Commission Report.

Witnesses to this include William Rodriguez, Felipe David, Jose Sanchez, Salvatore Giambanco, Mike Pecoraro and Philip Morelli. Rodriguez is the foremost proponent of this in the public eye, having gained a measure of celebrity post 9/11- he was the last man out of the North Tower, being in fact pulled from the rubble. He was the master janitor in the building, having worked there for 20 years, and as such he had the master key. When the attacks happened, he was helping the firefighters, running up and down the stairs, unlocking doors, and helping people get out, until the towers collapsed. After 9/11, he was honour at the WH 5 times, and the Republicans wanted him to be their poster boy for the War on Terror. One problem though- he was urging an investigation into the bombs that went off in the basement, and that he claimed were going of all over the building as he was running around (he assumed at the time that they had been planted by the terrorists). He was soon ditched by the GOP, and every reference he has made to bombs has been edited out by the MSM, as you will all be able to testify.

Now… I am aware of the “debunking” of the above claims that have stemmed from this forum. This is fine. However, bearing in mind our oft-stated aim, I will ask one question-

Please name 1 instance in history, in an advanced society, where there has been multiple, independent testimony, in addition to injury and hospitalisation of civilians, of a bomb in an important and populous location (the North Tower, rather than the basement), that has not been investigated by authorities, and has indeed been actively whitewashed from mainstream public record (e.g. the 9/11 Commission Report) by the government/mainstream media- and which has not involved government conspiracy? Such an occurrence is clearly enough to raise serious suspicions, and as such, deserves a full independent investigation (including into the non-investigation).

Incidentally, anyone acquainted with the Propaganda Model should come to a simple conclusion regarding this evidence, but more on that in a sec.

(snip)

Can we agree to disagree on PNAC and skip to this part?

Belz...

13th June 2007, 02:59 PM

For the reasons I stated. They are there in the post to which you are replyng. You can address them if you like.

Those are not reasons. They are an interpretation. Where do they STATE that it's a "need" ?

Natural gas, excuse me.

Yeah, lots of demand for that. And look how the gas industry has benefited from the US' attack on Afghanistan.

Errr... no. My point is one that is often stated by OTers- what has nuclear weapon upgrades and global missile defenses got to do with terrorism? nothing. This is an argument from your own camp; but if you would like to debunk it, then go ahead.

That's not what you said. You said that it was obvious to rational people, but that most people were duped. That's YOUR argument, not mine, not my "camp"'s.

War on Terror

Good.

Theyre shorter, and thus quicker to write.

They indicate laziness. Be clear and use the actual words, please.

David Wong

13th June 2007, 03:02 PM

Especially since, after dozens of posts, he's given up on the idea of PNAC's statement actually implicating them in anything, and has fallen all the way back to the position that:

1. The events of 9/11 caused increased military spending;
2. Increased military spending was mentioned in the PNAC statement.

He has the double whammy of being wrong and, even if right, his point amounting to nothing.

So perhaps WTC 7 is a better area of discussion.

I predict it will look like this:

He will post a pure opinion about WTC 7. When others point out dozens of factual reasons why his opinion is incorrect, he will simply redirect us to his opinion post.

David Wong

13th June 2007, 03:03 PM

By the way, is there a specific mental disorder wherein the victim believes that his opinions become fact purely by the act of his writing them down?

tacodaemon

13th June 2007, 03:04 PM

Can we agree to disagree on PNAC and skip to this part?

Has he ever posted any citations backing up his claim that almost nobody remembers that WTC7 collapsed and that those who do remember it mostly never saw the footage of it?

lapman

13th June 2007, 03:08 PM

I think that, for the sake of clarity, we should do a quick heads up.

So, the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, but many here find it hard to comprehend, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.
Actually he said it was retarded. I guess you missed that

Initially, there has been debate as to whether 911 was indeed a new PH. This has been addressed by me in #416. Anyone who wants to address this point, please refer to this post.
The Alamo was the same type of event. So, are we going to call it the NA as well?

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years. I think that ordinarily would be obvious, but we can argue it here on the basis that:
a) The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.
We've had that for the past 60 years and even more so since 1991. So what's going to change? So the most powerful nation in the world is supposed to become the mostest powerfullest nation in the world?

b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.
I am just getting into this discussion. So what's a QDR?

c) The fact that a (+ve) revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape is preferable to power hungry politicians soon, rather than later. I do realise that chimps wil cry "That's not in the doc", but I think that it is pretty much common sense.
So Iraq and Afghanistan are supposed to be this revolutionary change? How does this compare to the changes that occurred after the fall of the USSR?

Belz...

13th June 2007, 03:09 PM

And I could go on; and this is just one adjective.

The use of the word "radical" does not prove that they orchestrated 9/11. Nor does it raise suspicion, in fact. To summarise, your entire position on this thread has been nothing more than an argument from ignorance, as you state something that has NOT been said in the document, and use this absense to support your case. That, of course, is a fallacy.

And finally, as I have stated, the actual changes themselves do not matter so much in their detail;

Of course they do. You claim they are outlined in the document, but you omit to mention WHERE they are specifically refered to. Basically, you're arguing that it was IMPLIED, but not said. How can this be supported if the text isn't there ?

Were you not so busy making chimp noise (I assume this is quite standard for you) you would have realised the point that has been made many times, i.e. that military increases are but one element of the WOT/PNAC plan.

Are you denying your use of the affirming the consequent fallacy ?

PH had many characteristics. It wasnt just the fact that it was one nation attacking another; it was done by Japanese, it was done on a fleet, it was done by air etc etc.

Nice dodge. You said it was analogous BECAUSE it was an unprovoked act of aggression in a state of peace between 2 nations. You have now effectively made your analogy void.

The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Good. So your only criteria are those two things ? Well, from that point of view, the first gulf war was also analogous to Pearl Harbor. It was catastrophic (for Kuwait) and catalysing (military). Or is there some other criterion you'd like to add ?

Its understandable that I would lump those 2 sentences together since they are identical.

How can you adress a question and NOT answer it ?

So, the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, but many here find it hard to comprehend, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

I've only admitted that, by your own logic, yes, it was beneficial to that policy. Of course, that policy is a strawman, as I've tried to show you. Please remove me from your list of persons that have admitted anything.

Belz...

13th June 2007, 03:11 PM

By the way, is there a specific mental disorder wherein the victim believes that his opinions become fact purely by the act of his writing them down?

Must be a subset of a form of schizophrenia; wherein the victim believes that his opinions become facts, period.

Gravy

13th June 2007, 03:13 PM

Er, hello? I'm pretty pissed off with them as well... does this mean that my analysis of them re: 911 is flawed because of it? Or them re: Iraq? WOT? etc

Learn to differentiate between cause and effect please, you'll have fewer problems.You asked if the poll was taken at a time of bad PR for Bush. I showed you that it was taken at a time of record bad PR. You're welcome to commission another poll to ask if those historic low ratings are due to people's belief that 9/11 was an inside job. I'll wager lots of money on the results if you're game.

Oh boy...ok, well firstly 28 + 68=95, so it would appear that your skill in maths is little better than that in basic comprehension.Serves me right for using twoofer numbers. Yes, the Commission answered 96 of the questions.

Secondly, 95 addressed or answered. only 28 answered. False. Here are the 3 categories that the Family Steering Committee used:

1) This question has been satisfactorily answered by the 9/11 Commission Report.

2) This question has been addressed in the Report, but not adequately answered.

3) This question has been generally ignored in or omitted from the Report.96 questions fall into categories 1 and 2, according to the Steering Committee. Note the use of "satisfactorily" in category 1 and "adequately" in category 2. If you want to claim that the Commission had a mandate to answer every question to everyone's satisfaction, you'll be wrong. I suggest that you review the Steering Committee's list of questions and demands again (http://justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php).

DGM

13th June 2007, 03:15 PM

9/11

There is such a chasm between the facts of this day, and what has been reported in the mainstream media, that the majority of people are not even aware of the most rudimentary facts of the day, one of the most newsworthy days any of our lives. I will address 2 smoking guns.

I really hope that PNAC has nothing to do with this.

tacodaemon

13th June 2007, 03:15 PM

The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century.

Just to be clear, they wanted it to be the new American century, following the previous American Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century).

Belz...

13th June 2007, 03:17 PM

I'd like to add that "This question has been addressed in the Report, but not adequately answered." means ANSWERED, but not ADEQUATELY, Mjd.

To Adress: "to deal with or discuss: to address the issues." - Dictionary.com

That's an answer, Mjd!

lapman

13th June 2007, 03:19 PM

Please name 1 instance in history, in an advanced society, where there has been multiple, independent testimony, in addition to injury and hospitalisation of civilians, of a bomb in an important and populous location (the North Tower, rather than the basement), that has not been investigated by authorities, and has indeed been actively whitewashed from mainstream public record (e.g. the 9/11 Commission Report) by the government/mainstream media- and which has not involved government conspiracy? Such an occurrence is clearly enough to raise serious suspicions, and as such, deserves a full independent investigation (including into the non-investigation).

Since the reported explosion happened in conjunction with the airliner ramming the building there wasn't any need for further investigation since there was no bomb. If you do any research on fuel-air explosions, you would know that the blast wave from it travels at 2mi/sec. More than fast enough for the blast wave to travel down the few top-to-bottom elevator shafts faster than the sound of the impact, hence the illusion that the explosion occurred prior to the impact.

HawksFan

13th June 2007, 03:24 PM

Sorry I'm late. Did I miss the facts? It's only page 11, so I assume that the facts haven't been served yet?

lapman

13th June 2007, 03:29 PM

Sorry I'm late. Did I miss the facts? It's only page 11, so I assume that the facts haven't been served yet?
Nope. mj hasn't served them up yet. But I hear that they are crunchy and taste good with catsup!:D

Myriad

13th June 2007, 03:35 PM

1stly, I dont think that you've read the doc carefully enough. The changes it calls for are not banal like you make them out to be. I mean even to point to your example of the army, we can see how the doc describes the changes itself.

...
Design and research on a future CVX carrier should continue, but should aim at a radical design change

...

And I could go on; and this is just one adjective.

Oh come now. Our evaluation of the political import of a 76-page document is now to be based on the "find" feature? Do you really think using the word "radical" to describe a technological change in weapons design or tactics training equates to a "radical" political agenda that would require a Pearl Harbor event to achieve?

Sure, I can see how the debate would have gone, if not for 9/11...

Do you ever wonder why our military is always trying to 'radically redesign' its weapon systems? When I was growing up we were all perfectly satisfied with an ordinary future CVX carrier design. But now, get this, they want a 'new' future CVX carrier design. That's right, they want to give our old familiar future CVX carrier a 'radical design change.' But why? What was so bad about the old future CVX carrier design anyhow? It's not like anyone has recently crashed large passenger jetliners into large skyscrapers or anything. I say, let's tell the military that if a regular old future CVX carrier design was good enough for last year, it's good enough for this year.

Further, this does not even touch on the radical elements that are either stated or strongly implied in the doc- the overthrow of Saddam, militarisation of space, use of cyberspace as a defense tool etc, which would never be done normally.

Militarization of space would never have been done without 9/11? Then why did it start in the 50s, and what was all that Star Wars research all about in the 80s? What's so radical about wanting to defend the infrastructure on which you've come to depend, such as information systems and satellites, from possible attack? Or about seeing the other guy's corresponding infrastructure as a potential target? Civil War generals were doing it with railroads. Ancient Greek generals were probably doing it with signal towers.

Also, you miss the notion of quantity/specificity. So troops are going to be repositioned. Where? How many of them? How much to spend on bases? etc etc

Moving forces around isn't radical, no matter where/how many are repositioned. It might seem so if you're accustomed only to the situation during decades of Cold War stalemate, but it's business as usual for U.S. military history. "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli..."

Again, I'm having trouble imagining the debate on this being very contentious had 9/11 not happened. "What? You want to add more bases in southeast Asia? Preposterous! It'll never happen. Since no Saudi terrorists have crashed any hijacked airliners into New York City skyscrapers yet, I can't imagine the House Armed Services Committee or the Joint Chiefs approving such a plan."

The more I look at this notion of RAD pre-justifying 9/11, the sillier it appears. How about we go with HeyLeroy's plan, pretend you've made some sort of point here about PNAC, and move on.

Respectfully,
Myriad

sleahead

13th June 2007, 03:38 PM

I am just getting into this discussion. So what's a QDR?

Quadrennial Defense Review. A review of America's defense strategy and spending. Rumsfeld organised the 2001 review. mjd1982 seems to think it is odd that the document reflects Rumsfeld/PNAC ideas.

MIKILLINI

13th June 2007, 03:43 PM

Fixed that one for you.

You sure are doing a lot of fixin' today, RW :D

lapman

13th June 2007, 03:46 PM

Quadrennial Defense Review. A review of America's defense strategy and spending. Rumsfeld organised the 2001 review. mjd1982 seems to think it is odd that the document reflects Rumsfeld/PNAC ideas.
Thank you.

Tirdun

13th June 2007, 03:56 PM

Just popping in to see if this thread moving any faster than the malcolm thread. That one is pushing up daisies...

This one... seems to betwitching and sputtering on the ground, gasping dramatically, but I have hopes.

MIKILLINI

13th June 2007, 03:57 PM

Was a new PH propitiosu to policy for PNAC.

So, given that 911 was both catastrophic and catalysing, it was a new PH in the sense that PNAC meant.

In an interview with Time magazine in 2004, President Bush declared the war in Iraq a "catastrophic success."
Maybe Cheney told him to say that. :D

Sen. John Edwards responds in the Washington Post: "I, like most Americans, have no idea what that means."

Gravy

13th June 2007, 04:19 PM

But this is pretty much what is said in the doc, directly!No it isn't.
The PNAC document contains recommendations for effecting a military transformation over many years. It is an outline of a plan. That plan does not include reliance on a "catastrophic and catalyzing" event to effect the change. As any strategist knows, when catastrophic events happen, the best-laid plans can go out the window. Just ask the neo-cons how their Bush administration plans have worked out, how the administration's popularity has been affected, how the last national elections went, and who controls Congress now. Guess why all that happened? Ground war in Iraq, which was not part of PNAC's plan.

Perhaps you should read PNAC's "new Pearl Harbor" passage in context:

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. The United States enjoys every prospect of leading this transformation. Indeed, it was the improvements in capabilities acquired during the American defense buildup of the 1980s that hinted at and then confirmed, during Operation Desert Storm, that a revolution in military affairs was at hand. At the same time, the process of military transformation will present opportunities for America's adversaries to develop new capabilities that in turn will create new challenges for U.S. military preeminence.

Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced dramatically over the past decade. Indeed, during the mid-1980's, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan buildup which was primarily an effort to expand existing forces and field traditional weapons systems, research spending represented 20 percent of total Pentagon budgets. By contrast, today's research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending. And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons. Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge on future battlefields.

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a "strategic pause" while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

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. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades. Here's the link to the whole report. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

I see that our friend the JSF cropped up again at the end there. Remember, the one you couldn't find any information about because you forgot how to Google "JSF" and click on the first link that comes up? Note how the PNAC considered the JSF to be an unwise investment at $200 billion. As we've read in this thread, its projected cost is now $300 billion.

You see, mjd, plans for change can go awry even without the intervention of catastrophic events. With the intervention of catastrophic events, all bets are off. Such events do produce transformation, but not transformation that can be accurately predicted or relied upon. Strategists understand this. You don't. To you, the the gearbox and the monkey wrench that's thrown into it are equally desirable components of the machine.

Oook, oook.

aggle-rithm

13th June 2007, 04:28 PM

Except that none of the people who have benefitted had the capacity to covertly cause such events.

In your opinion. How do you KNOW the Catholic Church could not start WWII? Do you know how many employees they had scattered throughout Europe at the time? How do you KNOW the Swiss bankers couldn't have caused the Holocaust?

You believe it is reasonable to think that the US govt. could have caused 9/11 to happen without ANYONE finding out, despite the fact that they (according to you) published their intentions for everyone to see.

It is YOU who believe the US government had the capacity to make 9/11 happen. YOU need to convince US, not simply state that it is so and make snide comments about how stupid we are that we don't share your twisted worldview.

This has been addressed eariler, do keep up pelase.

If by "addressed" you mean "words were written about it", then yes, it has.

Mobyseven

13th June 2007, 09:01 PM

Lol'd at this:

Did Cheney just wake up one day between 1991 and 1997 and decide to be evil? Or was it a gradual change?

-Gumboot

Lol'd even harder at this:

As far as alienation goes... well, on the US side we have, effectively, UK, France, [Mobyseven: Did I miss something here, or what?]Germany, Oz, Canada (?), India, Pakistan, Japan, Brazil, S Korea, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Poland, Czech Rep, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan, and many others (incl Albania of course!). So theyre not doing too bad.

But I think the most loling I've done so far in this thread was at mjd's argument ad jective.

Corsair 115

13th June 2007, 10:02 PM

.The 2 are similar since they were mass terror attacks against the US that galvanised the public consciousness into approving drastic military action.The only similarity is that both events featured surprise attacks upon the United States. The subsequent reactions, in both general terms and in specific detail, are not terribly similar.

Militarily, the PH attacks had a specific and rational purpose: To disable the US fleet and allow Japan to go ahead with their expansion plans in SE Asia. In fact, Japan intended to declare war BEFORE the attacks, it was only poor execution by their diplomats that prevented this from happening.My understanding is that final diplomatic message the Japanese were going to deliver on that day did not formally declare war on the U.S. That is, it didn't say anything overt like, "...therefore, the Empire of Japan hereby declares war on the United States." Rather, the message was more vague and simply had Japan saying further negotiations with the United States were pointless and it was breaking off relations. This technically is not a formal declaration of war, though it practical terms, given the state of affairs between the two nations at the time, it was effectively one.

Yes, but it was an unprovoked act of aggression in a state of peace between 2 nations.Unprovoked? That's not necessarily the case, depending on how you define unprovoked.

Due to Japan's invasion of China, the U.S. had placed embargoes on the export of vital raw resources that Japan desperately needed. The U.S. did not intend to remove those trade restrictions until Japan withdrew from China. The militarists in charge of Japan were not about to withdraw from China, and knew there was little chance of a negotiated settlement given the U.S. position. Since Japan needed those raw resources, and couldn't get them from the U.S., they were going to have to be taken from other countries via military means. That meant war, and a first-strike against the U.S. was the only way it was going to buy the time it needed to grab the necessary territory and consolidate its gains.

So, from the Japanese point of view, you could say the U.S. provoked the attack due to its trade embargoes and its insistence on a Japanese military withdrawal from China.

From the American perspective, it was unprovoked since the two nations were still negotiating and the U.S. was still prepared to try and find a diplomatic solution to the impasse (though pessimistic about the chances).

volatile

14th June 2007, 03:04 AM

Perhaps you should read PNAC's "new Pearl Harbor" passage in context:

Actually, reading that passage again, it kinda sounds as if they don't want a new Pearl Harbour, doesn't it?

The paragraphs you quoted there, Mark, seem to be pushing for firm but controlled increases in military spending, and there is the suggestion in that "new Pearl Harbour" adjunct that rapid and sudden upheaval is exactly what the PNAC don't want! I mean, the sentence "Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs", for one, seems to be asserting the opposite to what my poor unesteemed countryman is trying to claim it is!

But that's by the by. As I said aout 5 pages ago, I'm bored of PNAC. I wan't to get to the good parts. What happened when Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz sat down and agreed that staging a massivey elaborate false-flag attack was the best way to fulfil their nefarious goals? What happened next?

gumboot

14th June 2007, 03:33 AM

Right, well 1stly your last paragraph does nothing to illustrate that they are wrong in stating that the comm didnt answer their questions when they say they addressed them. You would still have to illustrate that.

It illustrates that the Jersey Girls are irrational. Irrational people cannot be trusted to accurately recount information.

Secondly, the goalposts have been moved, but not by me.

Nonsense. You presented a scenario in which two answers were given, claiming one was not an answer. I pointed out that both were answers. You then altered one of the answers and claimed it was therefore not an answer. This is called moving the goalposts.

The original point was "how many questions of the 167 did the Comm answer". I said 27. Gravy said, no, that's what Willie Rodriguez said, and its false, later going on to claim that the Jersey Girls said 95 were answered. However, the JG's state quite clearly that ~27 were answered, ~68 were addressed, and ~72 were ignored. This is what they said.

Actually the Family Steering Committee (read: Not just the Jersey Girls) said 28 were answered satisfactorily, 68 were unsatisfactorily addressed, and 72 were not addressed.

In the above context, "address" and "answer" are interchangeable, hence the "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory" qualifiers. I suspect the use of the word "addressed" was done to try and support the unsubstantiated Family Steering Committee assertion that their questions were not answered fully. Incidentally, I happen to have read their questions (other groups cite 400 questions that were not answered) and every single one of them either A) Was answered or B) Is a stupid question not deserving of an answer.

-Gumboot

gumboot

14th June 2007, 03:41 AM

Natural gas, excuse me.

Afghanistan has neither Natural Gas nor Oil. In fact Afghanistan has nothing to offer the civilised world whatsoever.

I'll grant CTers this much. Had the USA immediately invaded Iraq post-9/11, I would be inclined to accept that perhaps the US government had a hand in the attacks.

But they didn't. They invaded Afghanistan first. Why? There's absolutely no reason whatsoever why any nation in its right might would ever want to invade Afghanistan. It offers nothing.

Unless it happens to be housing a terrorist network that just attacked you.

The USA invaded Afghanistan to take out Al Qaeda, and that's it. They did so solely because of 9/11.

The comparisons between the US military commitment to Afghanistan and Iraq clearly shows that the Administration considered Afghanistan nothing more than a hindrance - an operation delaying their action in Iraq. Thus going into Afghanistan was not part of their plan - in fact it got in the way of their plan. Thus the event that caused US action in Afghanistan - 9/11 - was not the government's doing.

My theory: the US were going to invade Iraq, pushing the WMD threat. 9/11 came along and totally fouled up the admin's plans. They knew they HAD to respond to 9/11. The admin offered up a half-hearted operation in Afghanistan. After satisfying the public that they were doing something they all but abandoned the efforts to shut down Al Qaeda and continued with their pre-9/11 agenda to invade Iraq.

I think in all probability this is what happened. I think the US admin made an attempt to use 9/11 for their agenda, but I think in actual fact 9/11 hindered the execution of their agenda.

-Gumboot

mjd1982

14th June 2007, 05:00 AM

You asked if the poll was taken at a time of bad PR for Bush. I showed you that it was taken at a time of record bad PR. You're welcome to commission another poll to ask if those historic low ratings are due to people's belief that 9/11 was an inside job. I'll wager lots of money on the results if you're game.

Again- learn the difference between cause and effect. One of the reasons why Bush is unpopular is because many people have suspicions of his role in 9/11. This is illustrated by polls I have given you. If you want to therorise that people don't like him for other reasons, therefore they have suspicions that he was involved in 9/11, then I will await your evidence for such.

Serves me right for using twoofer numbers. Yes, the Commission answered 96 of the questions.

False. Here are the 3 categories that the Family Steering Committee used:

96 questions fall into categories 1 and 2, according to the Steering Committee. Note the use of "satisfactorily" in category 1 and "adequately" in category 2. If you want to claim that the Commission had a mandate to answer every question to everyone's satisfaction, you'll be wrong. I suggest that you review the Steering Committee's list of questions and demands again (http://justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php).

Ok... fine. Let's settle on this- the Commission answered 28 questions satisfactorily, 68 unsatisfactorily, and ignored 71. Now what was the point again? The comprehensive nature of the report. You were trying to argue that it was comprehensive based partly on the assertion that they had answered 96 questions raised by the Steering Committee. This is of course a distortion, since the overwhelming majority of that number were answered insatisfactorily. So we are back where we started.

I do not state that there was a mandate to answer all their questions, but it offers a reasonable yardstick.

Now, if you want to argue that the Jersey Girls are irrational loons so their judgment is worthless, then you have some work to do. If not, we can conclude that on this basis, not to mention the others I cited, the report was highly incomplete and thus ineffective.

volatile

14th June 2007, 05:05 AM

Hey MJD! Take note of the sentence from the PNAC - "Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades."

Transition, and transformation. That whole "Pearl Harbour" paragraph extolls the virtues of slow and managed change, and seems, to these eyes at least, to NOT want a new Pearl Harbour. It interferes with the entire scope of the project as laid out in that section of the document!

gumboot

14th June 2007, 05:07 AM

Again- learn the difference between cause and effect. One of the reasons why Bush is unpopular is because many people have suspicions of his role in 9/11.

By far and away, the reason for Bush's unpopularity is the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina.

The vast overwhelming majority of Americans do not agree with those sad delusional fools who think the Bush administration was involved in 9/11. Accept it, and move on with your lives.

-Gumboot

DGM

14th June 2007, 05:08 AM

Again- learn the difference between cause and effect. One of the reasons why Bush is unpopular is because many people have suspicions of his role in 9/11. This is illustrated by polls I have given you. If you want to therorise that people don't like him for other reasons, therefore they have suspicions that he was involved in 9/11, then I will await your evidence for such.

Ok... fine. Let's settle on this- the Commission answered 28 questions satisfactorily, 68 unsatisfactorily, and ignored 71. Now what was the point again? The comprehensive nature of the report. You were trying to argue that it was comprehensive based partly on the assertion that they had answered 96 questions raised by the Steering Committee. This is of course a distortion, since the overwhelming majority of that number were answered insatisfactorily. So we are back where we started.

I do not state that there was a mandate to answer all their questions, but it offers a reasonable yardstick.

Now, if you want to argue that the Jersey Girls are irrational loons so their judgment is worthless, then you have some work to do. If not, we can conclude that on this basis, not to mention the others I cited, the report was highly incomplete and thus ineffective.
It would be interesting to see a list of the questions. I can't seem to find it. Any links?

mjd1982

14th June 2007, 05:09 AM

Oh come now. Our evaluation of the political import of a 76-page document is now to be based on the "find" feature? Do you really think using the word "radical" to describe a technological change in weapons design or tactics training equates to a "radical" political agenda that would require a Pearl Harbor event to achieve?

Your point which i addressed here, if you remember, was not about whether the agenda was radical, but whether the transformations envisaged were. I illustrated they were by pointing to PNAC's description of them as such. Simple.

Sure, I can see how the debate would have gone, if not for 9/11...

Do you ever wonder why our military is always trying to 'radically redesign' its weapon systems? When I was growing up we were all perfectly satisfied with an ordinary future CVX carrier design. But now, get this, they want a 'new' future CVX carrier design. That's right, they want to give our old familiar future CVX carrier a 'radical design change.' But why? What was so bad about the old future CVX carrier design anyhow? It's not like anyone has recently crashed large passenger jetliners into large skyscrapers or anything. I say, let's tell the military that if a regular old future CVX carrier design was good enough for last year, it's good enough for this year.

Militarization of space would never have been done without 9/11? Then why did it start in the 50s, and what was all that Star Wars research all about in the 80s? What's so radical about wanting to defend the infrastructure on which you've come to depend, such as information systems and satellites, from possible attack? Or about seeing the other guy's corresponding infrastructure as a potential target? Civil War generals were doing it with railroads. Ancient Greek generals were probably doing it with signal towers.

I said this before, it's not so much about what, as it is about emphasis and specificity. Yes there was a space program before, there were modernisations going on before, there was emphasis on controlf of straegic resources before. The point of PNAC is that there needs to now be a huge emphasis on such factors, to create the platform for hegemony. If you look up the docs that I cited in my riposte to the LC critique, you will see this made very clear, done in the light of the WOT/911

Moving forces around isn't radical, no matter where/how many are repositioned. It might seem so if you're accustomed only to the situation during decades of Cold War stalemate, but it's business as usual for U.S. military history. "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli..."

As above. No one is saying this. It is the nature of the redployment, the emphasis placed on it, and the funds put behind it.

Again, I'm having trouble imagining the debate on this being very contentious had 9/11 not happened. "What? You want to add more bases in southeast Asia? Preposterous! It'll never happen. Since no Saudi terrorists have crashed any hijacked airliners into New York City skyscrapers yet, I can't imagine the House Armed Services Committee or the Joint Chiefs approving such a plan."

But again, this has been addressed. Please refer to the docs I have cited, and think about the nature of emphasis and resources.

The more I look at this notion of RAD pre-justifying 9/11, the sillier it appears. How about we go with HeyLeroy's plan, pretend you've made some sort of point here about PNAC, and move on.

Respectfully,
Myriad

And finally, this doesnt change the point that in PNAC's opinion, such a transformation will be long (which also serves to prove that the changes envisgaed are not so simple), absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. So although you feel the changes to be banal, they dont, and they are aware of what would need to take place for the changes to happen over short time.

volatile

14th June 2007, 05:14 AM

And finally, this doesnt change the point that in PNAC's opinion, such a transformation will be long (which also serves to prove that the changes envisgaed are not so simple), absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. So although you feel the changes to be banal, they dont, and they are aware of what would need to take place for the changes to happen over short time.

This is the key part. Read that section of the document, the very section you've dissected over an over again, and you'll see that they don't want a catastrophic event. Rapid change is bad change, according to the authors. A "new Pearl Harbour" would be catastrophic to the Project for a New American Century. It makes no sense that they'd deliberately orchestrate one, nor be "complict", in your words, to one.

Still, I don't care, because even if 911 was politically expedient, it doesn't mean the government of the USA made it happen. But, let's agree to disagree on that. Say that they had a meeting, whereupon it was decided to expediate the Project by creating a catastrophic event. TELL US WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

mjd1982

14th June 2007, 05:30 AM

No it isn't.
[SIZE=2]The PNAC document contains recommendations for effecting a military transformation over many years. It is an outline of a plan. That plan does not include reliance on a "catastrophic and catalyzing" event to effect the change. As any strategist knows, when catastrophic events happen, the best-laid plans can go out the window. Just ask the neo-cons how their Bush administration plans have worked out, how the administration's popularity has been affected, how the last national elections went, and who controls Congress now. Guess why all that happened? Ground war in Iraq, which was not part of PNAC's plan.

Perhaps you should read PNAC's "new Pearl Harbor" passage in context:

I think it would be best if you [SIZE="7"]read my posts before you respond to them. I have nowhere stated that PNAC where relying on a catastrophic and catalysing event; so why do you impute this to me? Is it deceit or ineptness; it must be one or the other.

This has been stated probably a dozen times by me here, including in the recent recap post- the point is, for now, whether PNAC felt such an event would be propitious to policy. This will give us a good avenue, and framework to proceed.

Please refer to my post ~419 , where this is all laid out. Kindly refer to it if you are going to respond to my point on this; my argument on it is well condensed there.

Incidentally, I have also responded to the PNAC section of your LC critique, perhaps you should read that again.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3

I see that our friend the JSF cropped up again at the end there. Remember, the one you couldn't find any information about because you forgot how to Google "JSF" and click on the first link that comes up? Note how the PNAC considered the JSF to be an unwise investment at $200 billion. As we've read in this thread, its projected cost is now $300 billion.

You see, mjd, plans for change can go awry even without the intervention of catastrophic events. With the intervention of catastrophic events, all bets are off. Such events do produce transformation, but not transformation that can be accurately predicted or relied upon. Strategists understand this. You don't. To you, the the gearbox and the monkey wrench that's thrown into it are equally desirable components of the machine.

Oook, oook.

Oook indeed. I have referred to this point countless times here, please do keep up it will save us all a lot of time. There is a difference between execution and design. You might wanna think about that. The point here is not one of PNAC's execution, but their design. If their design was that a new PH would be useful for policy, then we have a useful framework to proceed.

mjd1982

14th June 2007, 05:31 AM

The only similarity is that both events featured surprise attacks upon the United States. The subsequent reactions, in both general terms and in specific detail, are not terribly similar.

My understanding is that final diplomatic message the Japanese were going to deliver on that day did not formally declare war on the U.S. That is, it didn't say anything overt like, "...therefore, the Empire of Japan hereby declares war on the United States." Rather, the message was more vague and simply had Japan saying further negotiations with the United States were pointless and it was breaking off relations. This technically is not a formal declaration of war, though it practical terms, given the state of affairs between the two nations at the time, it was effectively one.

Unprovoked? That's not necessarily the case, depending on how you define unprovoked.

Due to Japan's invasion of China, the U.S. had placed embargoes on the export of vital raw resources that Japan desperately needed. The U.S. did not intend to remove those trade restrictions until Japan withdrew from China. The militarists in charge of Japan were not about to withdraw from China, and knew there was little chance of a negotiated settlement given the U.S. position. Since Japan needed those raw resources, and couldn't get them from the U.S., they were going to have to be taken from other countries via military means. That meant war, and a first-strike against the U.S. was the only way it was going to buy the time it needed to grab the necessary territory and consolidate its gains.

So, from the Japanese point of view, you could say the U.S. provoked the attack due to its trade embargoes and its insistence on a Japanese military withdrawal from China.

From the American perspective, it was unprovoked since the two nations were still negotiating and the U.S. was still prepared to try and find a diplomatic solution to the impasse (though pessimistic about the chances).
Please refer to post #416, where this has been dealt with

mjd1982

14th June 2007, 05:38 AM

Afghanistan has neither Natural Gas nor Oil. In fact Afghanistan has nothing to offer the civilised world whatsoever.

I'll grant CTers this much. Had the USA immediately invaded Iraq post-9/11, I would be inclined to accept that perhaps the US government had a hand in the attacks.

But they didn't. They invaded Afghanistan first. Why? There's absolutely no reason whatsoever why any nation in its right might would ever want to invade Afghanistan. It offers nothing.

Unless it happens to be housing a terrorist network that just attacked you.

The USA invaded Afghanistan to take out Al Qaeda, and that's it. They did so solely because of 9/11.

The comparisons between the US military commitment to Afghanistan and Iraq clearly shows that the Administration considered Afghanistan nothing more than a hindrance - an operation delaying their action in Iraq. Thus going into Afghanistan was not part of their plan - in fact it got in the way of their plan. Thus the event that caused US action in Afghanistan - 9/11 - was not the government's doing.

My theory: the US were going to invade Iraq, pushing the WMD threat. 9/11 came along and totally fouled up the admin's plans. They knew they HAD to respond to 9/11. The admin offered up a half-hearted operation in Afghanistan. After satisfying the public that they were doing something they all but abandoned the efforts to shut down Al Qaeda and continued with their pre-9/11 agenda to invade Iraq.

I think in all probability this is what happened. I think the US admin made an attempt to use 9/11 for their agenda, but I think in actual fact 9/11 hindered the execution of their agenda.

-Gumboot
I suggest you read up on the CENTGAS project. This is pretty basic.

ETA- This might help http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5166

DGM

14th June 2007, 05:39 AM

Found the questions. MJ do you have the break down to the answers?

http://www.911independentcommission.org/bush2162004.html

Belz...

14th June 2007, 05:47 AM

I see that our friend the JSF cropped up again at the end there. Remember, the one you couldn't find any information about because you forgot how to Google "JSF" and click on the first link that comes up?

Actually, you made it one click too hard, Gravy. All he has to do is click on the "I'm feeling lucky" button.

DGM

14th June 2007, 05:47 AM

I'm sorry I spoke too soon. Do you have a list of the ignored/ unsatisfactorily. This would be important to put this issue to bed.

T.A.M.

14th June 2007, 05:50 AM

saying "one" of the reasons people dislike Bush is because of their suspicions of his role in 9/11, is equal to saying "one" of the reasons they dislike him is because of his smile, or because he farts in public.

IF, if it is a factor in peoples dislike for him, it is an EXTREMELY MINOR factor, in an EXTREMELY SMALL group of people. You have not proven otherwise, and trust me, I have seen all the silly insignificant polls.

TAM:)

Unsecured Coins

14th June 2007, 05:51 AM

I suggest you read up on the CENTGAS project. This is pretty basic.

Do you actually look up ANYTHING before you run off at the mouth?

CENTGAS - A project to build a pipeline that runs THROUGH Afghanistan to get natural gas to Pakistan from Turkmenistan.

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank. The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India.
The 1,680 km pipeline will run from the Dauletabad gas field to Afghanistan. From there TAPI will be constructed alongside the highway running from Herat to Kandahar, and then via Quetta and Multan in Pakistan. The final destination of the pipeline will be the Indian town of Fazilka, near the border between Pakistan and India. The pipeline will be 1,420 mm in diameter with a working pressure of 100 atm and the capacity of 33 billion cubic meter (bcm) of natural gas annually. Six compressor stations are to be constructed along the pipeline. The cost of this international infrastructure is estimated at US$3.5 billion (2005 figures). Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Afghan government is expected to receive 8% of the project's revenue.

The only thing that A-stan is offering would be... space

But I guess that's irrelevant now, eh?

Belz...

14th June 2007, 05:51 AM

Please refer to post #416, where this has been dealt with

Is that you, Malcolm ?

gumboot

14th June 2007, 06:00 AM

I suggest you read up on the CENTGAS project. This is pretty basic.

You mean the natural gas pipeline Unocal were talking about building through Afghanistan to get Caspain Sea gas to Pakistan and India? The plan they were talking about implementing in 1995?

The project that they dropped a decade ago because a number of large Caspain Sea ports were established, India and Pakistan found somewhere else for their gas, and Russia opened up its gas pipe grid to the Caspian Sea states?

That plan?

-Gumboot

volatile

14th June 2007, 06:03 AM

Oook indeed. I have referred to this point countless times here, please do keep up it will save us all a lot of time. There is a difference between execution and design. You might wanna think about that. The point here is not one of PNAC's execution, but their design. If their design was that a new PH would be useful for policy, then we have a useful framework to proceed.

You're engaging in some pretty ludicrous circular reasoning here, MJD... first you'd have it that PNAC mentioning "a new Pearl Harbour" shows complicity, then you state that 911 was "propitious to policy" therefore 911 was the "new Pearl Harbour" PNAC supposedly called for, thus you draw the conclusion that PNAC shows complicity.

You've ignored all my recent posts, particularly the ones suggesting that the PNAC docment actually suggests the opposite to what you think it does. I'll say it again: the document says that a "new Pearl Harbour" would impede ther plans, not bolster them. Despite the plausible contention that, post hoc, the GOP used the events of 911 in a politically expdient way, the PNAC document, which is at the core of your "argument" here, clearly does not see a new Pearl Harbour as "propitious to policy", as the section in which such an event is (cursorily) mentioned talks quite explicitly at how bad it is to take decisions hastily, and how the PNAC must be implemented sensibly and slowly if it is to be effectve at all.

Care to respond? If not, then we've reached an impasse and I'd implore you again to tell us what happened next.

T.A.M.

14th June 2007, 06:06 AM

You mean the natural gas pipeline Unocal were talking about building through Afghanistan to get Caspain Sea gas to Pakistan and India? The plan they were talking about implementing in 1995?

The project that they dropped a decade ago because a number of large Caspain Sea ports were established, India and Pakistan found somewhere else for their gas, and Russia opened up its gas pipe grid to the Caspian Sea states?

That plan?

-Gumboot

No, not that plan. The NWO plan of 2001 where they were going to cause a new Pearl Harbour as a means to invade Afghanistan in order to build a SEKRIT pipeline for the NWO's oil supply...you remember, NWO memo S-911 don't you?

TAM:)

Swing Dangler

14th June 2007, 06:16 AM

No, not that plan. The NWO plan of 2001 where they were going to cause a new Pearl Harbour as a means to invade Afghanistan in order to build a SEKRIT pipeline for the NWO's oil supply...you remember, NWO memo S-911 don't you?

TAM:)

Hmmm I thought that NWO memo stated that the plan was shelved because the Taliban weren't the most cooperative NWO agents in the neighborhood.

T.A.M.

14th June 2007, 06:19 AM

shhhhh....

That info is still classified agent Dangler.

TAM;)

DGM

14th June 2007, 06:22 AM

I found the list I was looking for and have no further questions about this.

. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.

•Who found the passports and what time where they found?
•Please describe the condition of each passport.
•Please explain how the passports of two hijackers survived the explosion and inferno.

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

WildCat

14th June 2007, 06:26 AM

I found the list I was looking for and have no further questions about this.

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
Ah yes, explaining every little trivial point of interest was absolutely critical to the 9/11 Report...

Odd that mjd1982 thinks that is a critical question. :rolleyes:

T.A.M.

14th June 2007, 06:50 AM

So here is a problem I have with some of the Steering Committee questions.

They often ask for the name of this FBI agent, or that CIA agent that was involved in a particular aspect of this or that...

Now, if it is possible, yes, give them the name, but my god, do they really expect the USG to compromise national security, and the lives of the CIA/FBI agents, by giving out their names?

TAM:)

T.A.M.

14th June 2007, 06:56 AM

what does the time of finding the passports have anything to do with anything?

the questions read like a detective question list, leading in many instances by their inference.

I am guessing the passports survived by luck, just like the guy who hid under his desk as flight 175 plowed by him through the building survived.

TAM:)

Swing Dangler

14th June 2007, 07:06 AM

Well lets look at PNAC and this Pearl Harbor business.

Opening of Ch. 5.
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.

So in order for the U.S. military to be the most superior fighting force in the world, they have to experiment with new technologies. As we all know this requires increased spending. As the spending now is huge to keep us on 'top' then it follows that increase in spending will be needed for this new research. They go on to state how this would change the face of war, etc.
Apparently this transformation is taking a long time as it was begun in the 80's and we showed it off in the Gulf War. You know, stealth technology and the money behind that.

Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by
limited budgets and pressing current
missions, has seen funding for experi-
mentation and transformation crowded out
in recent years. Spending on military
research and development has been reduced
dramatically over the past decade.

Uh oh! Not enough money and lots of missions are keeping the coffers from performing their function of financing this transformation. And that dam Clinton and his cutbacks for the social 'stuff' is slowing that transformation process as well. Get that guy a blow job, quickly!

Department was in the midst of the Reagan
buildup which was primarily an effort to
expand existing forces and field traditional
weapons systems, research spending
represented 20 percent of total Pentagon
budgets.
So the Pentagon spends 20% of the budget on building more tanks, ships, and planes, and then putting some high tech gadgets on them and the toys they already have. I love laser guided stuff with cameras! It makes for such awesome briefings to the press corp.
That is fine of course, it keeps the contractors happy, the Brass happy, and the troops happy, but we aren't spending enough on the really really high tech stuff, dang it! More money for R&D so we can make the really really cool stuff. Like Xwing fighters, laser blasters, hover tanks,...you know all the stuff in the movies!

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of
U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts.

Now as far as this high tech transformation goes, we can't cut back funding on other areas, we can't reduce our missions, we can't reduce our presence around the world, because American's love to see their young men and women die for other peoples freedoms.

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.

Now this whole high tech revolution that has been going on since the 80's is going to take a really long time. Why is it going to take a really long time? Budget constraints based upon Congress and current National Security issues.
So a surprise attack by a foreign country on American soil near water that kills upwards of 3000+ people is going to speed up this transformation. How do you speed up the transformation? Throw more money at the transformation. This of course requires an increase in defense budgets by Congress. And who wouldn't want to throw more money to the Defense Department after a surprise attack? Because God knows the money they had already failed its purpose, so send more money to speed up the transformation!

9/11 was even better than Pearl Harbor in this instance, because it started a war on a concept not a country, and as we all know, you can't defeat a concept! See War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc, etc.
Perpetual war, gentlemen, with an enemy that can't be defeated.
Defense contractors, stockholders, the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex in general just love perpetual war. Not so good for public education, health care, infrastructure, you know all the things that could be improved if we weren't dumping billions into a war on a concept. I like Ike and he was right! Along the way we can throw in a couple of conventional wars along the way to get rid of some old equipment, prove we need new equipment, pick some oil, build some strategic bases, etc.

In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership, tomorrow’s U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions.

So in order for the U.S. military to be the best in the world and maintain the President and CEO of the NWO,they have to complete the following missions:
1. Global Missile Defense. Check. More money headed that way.
2. Control of space and cyberspace. Check. More money headed that way.
3. Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces.
Check. More money headed that way to update with new gadgets, and R&D to make sure the tax payers are safe from a concept.

The plan of transformation doesn't rely on the "Pearl Harbor". The plan's funding and speed rely on the "Pearl Harbor". And whatever your thoughts on that 9/11 issue, the plan's funding and speed benefited from 9/11.

If the funding benefits, then military contractors, i.e. corporations benefited and social programs suffer. Eisenhower was indeed correct.

From Foreign Policy in Focus: (http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol7/v7n10arms.html)
Key Points
* In the wake of September 11, President Bush requested the largest increase in defense spending in two decades.
* The potential for an open-ended war poses great opportunities for weapons makers and great challenges for those who seek to curb wasteful military spending.
* Major defense contractors are figuring out new ways to tap into the homeland defense market.

Remind me again who benefited from 9/11?

Swing Dangler

14th June 2007, 07:13 AM

what does the time of finding the passports have anything to do with anything?
I am guessing the passports survived by luck, just like the guy who hid under his desk as flight 175 plowed by him through the building survived.
TAM:)

I would give that an RMackey plausibility factor of -756. :newlol
I'm not sure if Rmackey figured in "luck" into his equation, but there was a lot of luck taking place that day. I guess I didn't realize how many four leaf clovers Afghanistan had.;)

aggle-rithm

14th June 2007, 07:19 AM

Remind me again who benefited from 9/11?

No one is arguing that certain elements didn't benefit from 9/11. The question is whether benefit = complicity.

No.

H'ethetheth

14th June 2007, 07:19 AM

Well lets look at PNAC and this Pearl Harbor business.

[...]

So a surprise attack by a foreign country on American soil near water that kills upwards of 3000+ people is going to speed up this transformation. How do you speed up the transformation? Throw more money at the transformation. This of course requires an increase in defense budgets by Congress. And who wouldn't want to throw more money to the Defense Department after a surprise attack? Because God knows the money they had already failed its purpose, so send more money to speed up the transformation!

9/11 was even better than Pearl Harbor in this instance, because it started a war on a concept not a country, and as we all know, you can't defeat a concept! See War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc, etc.
Perpetual war, gentlemen, with an enemy that can't be defeated.

Except that a very significant part of the US military is now engaged in several very expensive missions that are not going to end any time soon. Any numbers on how much the R&D budget has gone up?

rwguinn

14th June 2007, 07:30 AM

This is the key part. Read that section of the document, the very section you've dissected over an over again, and you'll see that they don't want a catastrophic event. Rapid change is bad change, according to the authors. A "new Pearl Harbour" would be catastrophic to the Project for a New American Century. It makes no sense that they'd deliberately orchestrate one, nor be "complict", in your words, to one.

Still, I don't care, because even if 911 was politically expedient, it doesn't mean the government of the USA made it happen. But, let's agree to disagree on that. Say that they had a meeting, whereupon it was decided to expediate the Project by creating a catastrophic event. TELL US WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
PNAC's point was that more R & D is required. A "Pearl Harbor" event essentially halts R & D in the new technology department--all the budget goes to supporting the current effort, and on "minor" improvements in existing systems--better utilization of the existing weapons systems, not new and improved.
When dealing with the Missouri river overflowing it's banks into your farm acrage is not the time you will be investing in new and improved planting impliments--you need pumps and bulldozers!

aggle-rithm

14th June 2007, 07:38 AM

PNAC's point was that more R & D is required. A "Pearl Harbor" event essentially halts R & D in the new technology department--all the budget goes to supporting the current effort, and on "minor" improvements in existing systems--better utilization of the existing weapons systems, not new and improved.
When dealing with the Missouri river overflowing it's banks into your farm acrage is not the time you will be investing in new and improved planting impliments--you need pumps and bulldozers!

I think that, historically, the only time military R & D was performed with any urgency was when the enemy had as good, or possibly better, technology than the US did. This was true during WWII and the Cold War, and it resulted in a frenzy of new development.

Today, there just isn't any competition. We're already years ahead of our enemies, why would we need to be decades ahead?

I think the "New Pearl Harbor" that PNAC spoke of would really have to be more of a high-tech attack, something that revealed an unexpected technological edge for an enemy, before R & D spending would benefit.

gumboot

14th June 2007, 07:43 AM

* In the wake of September 11, President Bush requested the largest increase in defense spending in two decades.

The problem is all of that extra money went into combat operations and increasing troop strength.

It didn't go into developing new technologies. In fact, a number of projects that were being developed for future battlefields have been scrapped, suspended, or significantly slowed down because the money is needed for Iraq and Afghanistan. These include the Land Warrior project and integration with the Future Force system (the Stryker was meant to be a component of the overall project), replacements for the M-16 rifle, and the OICW.

-Gumboot

DGM

14th June 2007, 07:44 AM

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.

This same quote could have been made after the civil war.

Apparently this transformation is taking a long time as it was begun in the 80's and we showed it off in the Gulf War. You know, stealth technology and the money behind that.

Advancement in military technology has been going on as long as there has been armys. How does this mean that it had to happen right away.

Jocce

14th June 2007, 07:46 AM

The point here is not one of PNAC's execution, but their design. If their design was that a new PH would be useful for policy, then we have a useful framework to proceed.

You must suffer from some kind of reading disability mjd. At the end of the text even you should be able to read:

"Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades."

They advocate a process over decades, not at new PH. Another way to say this using your terminology is that a long process is useful for policy. How can that be so hard to comprehend?

gumboot

14th June 2007, 07:52 AM

I think the "New Pearl Harbor" that PNAC spoke of would really have to be more of a high-tech attack, something that revealed an unexpected technological edge for an enemy, before R & D spending would benefit.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

What was significant about Pearl Harbor? The Japanese attack was carried out solely by carrier-based aircraft.

In 1941 carriers were not considered important ships. The notion of naval warfare was still huge capital ships blasting each other. Pearl Harbor revealed a serious technological gap, not just in terms of equipment, but about the WAY war was fought.

The US carrier based aircraft were significantly outclassed by the Japanese aircraft because the US hadn't invested money in carrier-based naval warfare. Japan had.

Because the US surface fleet had been so severely hit, the USA had no choice but to reply on carrier battle groups to fight the war, thus Pearl Harbor led to a revolution in naval warfare: the establishment of the supremacy of airpower.

When PNAC talk about "A New Pearl Harbor" I think they're talking about a sudden attack that notifies the USA that their warfare doctrine and technologies are obsolete, and need upgrading.

This didn't happen with 9/11. The US military still has the upper hand. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military are in control. It's certainly not peaceful, and it's certainly not how we want it to be, but the only thing that could possibly pull Iraq or Afghanistan out of the USA's control is a decision by the USA to withdraw. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the insurgents in Iraq, they have no hope whatsoever of forcibly driving out US forces.

-Gumboot

rwguinn

14th June 2007, 07:52 AM

I think that, historically, the only time military R & D was performed with any urgency was when the enemy had as good, or possibly better, technology than the US did. This was true during WWII and the Cold War, and it resulted in a frenzy of new development.

Today, there just isn't any competition. We're already years ahead of our enemies, why would we need to be decades ahead?

I think the "New Pearl Harbor" that PNAC spoke of would really have to be more of a high-tech attack, something that revealed an unexpected technological edge for an enemy, before R & D spending would benefit.
The Cold Was did not involve actual battlefield actions, thus $$ were available for R & D. Hot wars require allocationnof resources to the actual battlefield, which reduces available R & D.
As far as WWII goes--the technology the Axis Powers had was not Better than that of the Allies (with the possible exception of the V-2 program, but that was fairly late in the war) , but it was Better utilized, at least at the beginning.
Add to that complacency and appeasement by the major powers during the 1930's, and the appearance of advanced technology by Germany and its allied countries is more apparent than real.

volatile

14th June 2007, 07:58 AM

PNAC's point was that more R & D is required. A "Pearl Harbor" event essentially halts R & D in the new technology department--all the budget goes to supporting the current effort, and on "minor" improvements in existing systems--better utilization of the existing weapons systems, not new and improved.
When dealing with the Missouri river overflowing it's banks into your farm acrage is not the time you will be investing in new and improved planting impliments--you need pumps and bulldozers!

Well, precisely. It's clear, to me at least, that the PNAC document quite explicitly fears a new Pearl Harbour and its effects on the transition the document's authors advocated. It seems that they want firm and decisive increases in spending in technology, but, and this is what MJD is missing, within a considered, managed, sensible and strategic framework. They warn against rushing into things for the sake of it (see the sentence on the JSF). They quite clearly do not want a new Pearl Harbour; they actually explain right there in black and white how such an event would scupper, not aid, their plans.

T.A.M.

14th June 2007, 07:59 AM

I would give that an RMackey plausibility factor of -756. :newlol
I'm not sure if Rmackey figured in "luck" into his equation, but there was a lot of luck taking place that day. I guess I didn't realize how many four leaf clovers Afghanistan had.;)

So are you speaking to the implausibility of the survival of the passports, or the implausibility that the individual I spoke of, survived the impact of UA175, which brushed right over his desk, but did him no harm?

So your opinion is what? They fabricated the passports? And the single piece, just one, of evidence that proves they fabricated the passports is? And do you have a particular individual you feel is behind this fabrication, that you could accuse here?

As for the guy who survived the 175 impact, is he a liar. He states he watched the plane come toward the building, and hence the reason he was able to leap under his desk, which saved him. Is he a liar? A paid Shill?

TAM:)

Edit: by the way swing, your demeanor here, for a truther in a den full of debunkers, is so far commendable.

TAM:)

HeyLeroy

14th June 2007, 09:48 AM

So... Bushco published their nefarious evil plan in the PNAC white paper.

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

JonnyFive

14th June 2007, 09:53 AM

So... Bushco published their nefarious evil plan in the PNAC white paper.

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

Well, they had a bit of a spat about what to get for lunch. Bush wanted Chinese, but Cheney said that it gave him heartburn and he didn't have any Tums with him, so he wanted to get an extra cheese pizza instead. But Rumsfeld can't eat too much dairy or he gets stomach cramps, so they ended up ordering hamburgers. Bush was kind of sulky about it, but he ordered double bacon on his and felt better when the food came and he had something to eat.

Mmmm... hamburgers with bacon.

Wait a minute, what were we talking about again?

aggle-rithm

14th June 2007, 10:14 AM

The Cold Was did not involve actual battlefield actions, thus $$ were available for R & D. Hot wars require allocationnof resources to the actual battlefield, which reduces available R & D.
As far as WWII goes--the technology the Axis Powers had was not Better than that of the Allies (with the possible exception of the V-2 program, but that was fairly late in the war) , but it was Better utilized, at least at the beginning.
Add to that complacency and appeasement by the major powers during the 1930's, and the appearance of advanced technology by Germany and its allied countries is more apparent than real.

I think WWII was a special case, because never before or since has the US been on such a total war footing (with the possible exception of wars fought on US soil, but it's difficult to make a comparison there).

There was a huge amount of money spent on R&D during the hot part of the war. Two billion dollars were spent on the Manhattan Project alone. There were also projects to develop a computer to calculate trajectory charts, as well as a few hare-brained schemes like the one to strap incendiary devices to bats and to use pigeons as Kamikaze pilots (actually, that last one was a good idea, but sounded too kooky to be approved).

At the same time there was a huge amount of research being done to develop synthetic materials to replace those whose supply had been cut off by the war, such as rubber (although much of this may have been done voluntarily by private firms that didn't want to go out of business. I'll have to check on that).

Also, there was one crucial way in which Germany and Japan were more technologically advanced than the US, and that was in manufacturing (although, again, this could be due to the utilization of technology rather than the technology itself). The US caught up and surpassed them pretty quickly, but it was a while before they even had the equipment to build tanks that could go up against the Panzers.

aggle-rithm

14th June 2007, 10:24 AM

Well, they had a bit of a spat about what to get for lunch. Bush wanted Chinese, but Cheney said that it gave him heartburn and he didn't have any Tums with him, so he wanted to get an extra cheese pizza instead. But Rumsfeld can't eat too much dairy or he gets stomach cramps, so they ended up ordering hamburgers. Bush was kind of sulky about it, but he ordered double bacon on his and felt better when the food came and he had something to eat.

Mmmm... hamburgers with bacon.

Wait a minute, what were we talking about again?

And on 9/11, the following secret phone conversation took place:

CHENEY: When are we going to do that New Pearl Harbor thing, Rummy?!?

RUMSFELD: Hmmm...um...what? What squirrel arbor thing?

CHENEY: Dammit, Rummy, stop playing Solitaire on your computer and pay attention!

RUMSFELD: Okay, okay...what was that about squirrels?

CHENEY: Not squirrels, idiot! Pearl Harbor!

RUMSFELD: What about it?

CHENEY: Remember...? The PNAC? The 'New Pearl Harbor'? You said months ago you were going to 'get right on it'!

RUMSFELD: Oh, that. Can't I do it tomorrow?

CHENEY: NO, we can't....

AIDE (interrupting): Mr. Vice President, sir! We've been attacked by terrorists!

RUMSFELD: What's going on?

CHENEY: Ummm....never mind, Rummy. Problem solved. <click>

RUMSFELD: Cool beans! (pause) Now where's the other black queen...?

gumboot

14th June 2007, 10:49 AM

I think WWII was a special case, because never before or since has the US been on such a total war footing (with the possible exception of wars fought on US soil, but it's difficult to make a comparison there).

Quite right. World War Two is the only "Total War" in history. The definition of a "Total War" is that every aspect of society is directed towards the war effort. In a Total War scenario "budget" and "funds" are actually irrelevant. The only limitation on what you can do is your raw materials and manpower.

If we look at the area of Fighter Aircraft, the US alone developed and put into production 10 different fighters between 1939 and 1945.

In contrast, the US has only developed and put into production 6 Fighter Aircraft in the last 35 years, with a 7th, the F-35 Lightning II, set to enter service in 2011, which will mean only 7 aircraft in the fighter role in 40 years.

-Gumboot

ETA. Actually scratch that, I included the Harrier which A) Was not developed by the USA and B) is not used by the USA as a fighter. So it's only 6 aircraft in 41 years (maiden flight of F-14 1970 to F-35 becoming operational 2011). The Six aircraft are the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35.

Pardalis

14th June 2007, 10:52 AM

And on 9/11, the following secret phone conversation took place:

CHENEY: When are we going to do that New Pearl Harbor thing, Rummy?!?

RUMSFELD: Hmmm...um...what? What squirrel arbor thing?

CHENEY: Dammit, Rummy, stop playing Solitaire on your computer and pay attention!

RUMSFELD: Okay, okay...what was that about squirrels?

CHENEY: Not squirrels, idiot! Pearl Harbor!

RUMSFELD: What about it?

CHENEY: Remember...? The PNAC? The 'New Pearl Harbor'? You said months ago you were going to 'get right on it'!

RUMSFELD: Oh, that. Can't I do it tomorrow?

CHENEY: NO, we can't....

AIDE (interrupting): Mr. Vice President, sir! We've been attacked by terrorists!

RUMSFELD: What's going on?

CHENEY: Ummm....never mind, Rummy. Problem solved. <click>

RUMSFELD: Cool beans! (pause) Now where's the other black queen...?

Condoleeza walks in the room. :D

sleahead

14th June 2007, 11:09 AM

I have nowhere stated that PNAC where relying on a catastrophic and catalysing event; so why do you impute this to me? Is it deceit or ineptness; it must be one or the other.

Well, in you OP you did state this:

.......anyone who has read the PNAC document will be familiar with the processes that are happening right now, because they are, to a great degree, what was called for by the document. Except now, they are being pursued, not under the banner of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, but rather the WoT”. In short, these 2 are essentially the same thing.

Coincidence? No. All design and no luck; that is almost certain........

The WoT arose through 9/11. If you consider this 'all design and no luck', then you must believe 9/11 was an integral part of the the PNAC plan. However, in subsequent posts you have use the word 'propitious' rather than than linking 9/11 to the PNAC plan in the manner you did in the OP.

mjd1982

14th June 2007, 11:09 AM

Oh boy.

Now look. I posted very clearly in #416 and #419, crystalising the arguments about 1) How 9/11 is a new PH, and 2) Why according to RAD, a new PH would be propitious to policy. I asked for responses. I have had none, none that address the points.

So I will post them again. Anyone who is interested in arguing this point, please refer to them- click the reply button, and go through them. To recap the former:

PH had many characteristics. It wasnt just the fact that it was one nation attacking another; it was done by Japanese, it was done on a fleet, it was done by air etc etc.

The question is, which of these many characteristics are pertinent to the analogy between 9/11 and PH. The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Indeed, strictly speaking, to say that what they were talking about was a new PH, is not completely accurate, since the term "new PH" is used in a comparative clause. The direct clause is "a catastrophic and catalysing event".

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

**********

And the latter:

the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years. I think that ordinarily would be obvious, but we can argue it here on the basis that:
a) The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.
b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.
c) A revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape, creating, in the eyes of the authors, stability, peace, security and democracy for the world, is preferable, certainly to power hungry politicians, sooner, rather than later. If anyone is going to argue why this is not the case, I will be very interested to read it.

******

Now PLEASE address these points. Also, the LC guide riposte delivered very early on, has not been touched by any of you "truth seekers". Please don't be evasive. Address the points, and we will all make some progress.