War Drums Pounding, Same old culprits

35 posts / 0 new

Unless anybody here can explain why China and Russia are going to continue to sit idly by while American/Israeli military backed energy corporations swallow up Middle Eastern resources on China’s and Russia’s borders to sell on the world market then perhaps it time to get focused on what really matters right now, the World’s Survival!

CNN reports Israel is forwarding air bases into Azerbaijan for imminent attack on Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pp6HRoYank

It may or may not be about paranoia of Iran’s nuclear ambitions:

“Given the grim state of Arab-Israeli relations, where does Israel get its oil? From Russia and former Soviet republics. Israel produces only a couple thousand barrels of oil a day, which means it relies on the global market for more than 99 percent of its consumption. It's difficult to name all of the country's suppliers—in 2004, Israel's minister of national infrastructures admitted that "Israel's situation is complicated.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/07/where_does_israel_get_oil.html

Have you ever heard of our news media mention Israel’s oil problem? Hey Wolf Blitzer, I’m talking to you!

Makes one wonder how or why Azerbaijan would let Israel in their country. Here’s the answer:

The US Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce. Look at the “About US” tab; look at Leadership and then look at the Membership lists.

http://www.usacc.org/leadership

Take special note of Baker Botts. James Baker III is the Bush family lawyer who intervened in the Florida recount. He is the lawyer who defended the Saudis including Bin Ladens against lawsuits of the victims of 9-11. Also note Zbeigniew Brezinski and remember he and David Rockefeller founded the Trilateral Commission and Brezinski is a big backer of our current president. Of course the other members are big oil, military and the NeoCons, all big Republican backers. Of course both sides are controlled by the same corporate interests. And of course there’s always Mr. Kissinger’s bloody hands in everything except actual battles.

Look at Unocal VP John J. Maresca’s plea to Congress in 1998 to remove the Taliban from power so the CENTGAS pipeline can be built. It is under construction now and our bases guard it. Maresca outlines the possible oil and gas routes from the Caspian and chooses the TAPI route now being built.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wsap212982.htm

This is Maresca’s closing plea to Congress to ask the US Taxpayers to pay for the infrastructure in Azerbaijan so the transnational oil companies like those listed above can get their stolen oil and gas out to world markets. Support the Troops! WTF?

“U.S. assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to business' success. We encourage strong technical assistance programs throughout the region. We also urge repeal or removal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. This section unfairly restricts U.S. government assistance to the government of Azerbaijan and limits U.S. influence in the region.”

Section 907: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Section 907 of the United StatesFreedom Support Act bans any kind of direct United States aid to the Azerbaijani government. This ban makes Azerbaijan the only exception to the countries of the former Soviet Union, to receive direct aid from United States government under the Freedom Support Act to facilitate economic and political stability.

The Act was strongly lobbied for by the Armenian American community in the US[2], and was passed in response to Azerbaijan's blockade of Armenia. which was at full scale war with Azerbaijan over the predominantly Armenian populated Nagorno Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. Since 1994 cease-fire agreement Nagorno Karabakh has established a de-facto independent republic, which is not recognized by any country.

On October 24, 2001, the Senate adopted a waiver of section 907 that would provide the President with ability to waiver the Section 907[3]. He has done so since then.”

The US installed puppet dictator Hamid Karzi who’s brother was a CIA drug lord, but that’s another story.

http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2008/06/12/zalmay-khalilzad-and-hamid-karzai

Zalmay Khalilzad and Hamid Karzai

"Jeremy R. Hammond
June 12, 2008

Amid a growing number of reports that the US is increasingly unhappy with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, the Independent reports that Zalmay Khalilzad is being considered as a replacement for the job.

Zalmay Khalilzad is, like Karzai, an ethnic Pashtun and native of Afghanistan. He is currently the US ambassador to the UN. Prior to that he was US Ambassador to Iraq, US Ambassador to Afghanistan, and Special Presidential Envoy Afghanistan after the overthrow of the Taliban. His work in the private sector includes conducting a risk analysis for a proposed Trans-Afghanistan pipeline project for the oil company Unocal. He acted as Unocal’s special liaison to the Taliban regime when the company was trying to woo the regime into agreeing to the project.

Hamid Karzai was a member of the mujahedeen during the Soviet-Afghan war and was reportedly a top contact for the CIA, which was financing, arming, and training them together with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). When the Taliban came to power, he supported them at first, but later campaigned against them. The Taliban assassinated his father, Abdul Ahad Karzai, and he has himself been the target of several assassination attempts. Karzai also reportedly worked for Unocal, although both Unocal and Karzai spokesmen have denied this."

Now look at the PNAC NeoCon members list and document:

Look at the document Rebuilding America’s Defenses, published BEFORE 9-11. Go to page 50/51.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

"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."

Zbigniew Brezenski said much the same thing in his book The Grand Chessboard in 1998. Here Michael Ruppert reads a few choice passages from his book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0HjVMSBai0&feature=related

Here’s is the pdf version of Chessboard:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/brzezinsk_thegrandchessboard.pdf

“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived directexternal threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War. Itwas rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were beingThreatened . . . “

This TAPI pipeline is also slated to go into India, hence the I. It was destined to service Enron’s power plant in Dabhol, India. Built by Bechtel and GE. GE owns MSNBC and NBC and creates nuclear waste that is difficult to dispose of. Their ingenious method of disposal was to tip their tank busting GE Gatling guns with depleted uranium now causing massive birth defects wherever the American war machine has paved the way with a blood/asphalt mix for big oil and their international Wall St. investors. Here is the consummate guide to pipeline politics.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=pipelinePolitics

Finally, I beg you all to watch this video below. It will all be very clear. Every point made in this documentary is sourced in the closing credits. Send this video and this document with the links to all your progressive and conservative friends. This is very important and the closing minutes will leave you sad and ashamed that we as a nation have failed each other in not providing oversight of our corporate government. Another failure to reign in our military/Wall St./big oil, Israel interest government could lead to WWIII. Russia and China have been quietly increasing their militaries with money from our trade deficits, China and other countries are beginning to reject the US dollar as the World’s reserve currency so we will no longer be able to print our way out of crisis. So many people don’t know the players, the real stories and how they interconnect. Read this, click the links and watch the video below for sure. And note, this material is the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.911docs.net/new_american_century.php

As our news media concentrates on cult personalities and issues that really don’t affect us other than fomenting racism, distrust, division and continual fear, they overlook the malicious influences of people like this guy who is at the forefront of the push to invade Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen

Have a great day folks.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

BAM! Knock em' dead, kid!

I love free speech!

"I've Got One That Can See!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBY6pF421-c

That one's dedicated from Fletcher Christian to Choco... awake, and loving it!

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm
Quote Fletcher Christian:

BAM! Knock em' dead, kid!

I love free speech!

"I've Got One That Can See!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBY6pF421-c

That one's dedicated from Fletcher Christian to Choco... awake, and loving it!

Darn, linky no worky.

Anybody else going to review the material and comment. It is very important stuff, really!

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Hamid Karzai, Unocal consultant, brother is CIA asset and drug lord, New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1

Global Research article connecting US invasion of Afghanistan to increase opium production to CIA to Hamid Karzai to Unocal. Above articles and video connect Unocal to Centgas pipeline and Bin Laden Saudi Arabia, back to James Baker, NeoCons, et al ad infinitum

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Time to start contacting senators and reps to remind them to exercise their Constitutional duty to make war, not the president, or at least to take his toys away by defunding his actions.

By the way, remind them if they do, we replace them with someone who won't. That's the one leg of power we still have some little something to say about every couple of years. Mine hear from me. They know I'm one of those squeaky wheels that cause trouble in the community that votes for them.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

I've Got One That Can See!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBY6pF42I-c

Now you should get your proper "props"!

Knock em' dead, kid! (KNOCK EM' DEAD!)

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm
Quote .ren:

Time to start contacting senators and reps to remind them to exercise their Constitutional duty to make war, not the president, or at least to take his toys away by defunding his actions.

By the way, remind them if they do, we replace them with someone who won't. That's the one leg of power we still have some little something to say about every couple of years. Mine hear from me. They know I'm one of those squeaky wheels that cause trouble in the community that votes for them.

I fear the corruption has gone to far, Ren. We can try to contact congress critters but when you try you only get to talk to an aid who is, just like his boss, only looking out for himself and his position. We are going down collectively because too many people don't understand that we are all in this together and everything is connected. Did you review the links and did you watch the video? I'm waiting for some comments on all of this, especially the video. Most everything else I put in the post just validates the wealth of information in the video. Watch it and send it around to everyone and urge them to watch it. Know the enemy and know what they are after.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Excellent work here.

On my thread you asked "What's more insane that these megalomanics are about to destroy the world or that most people in the US and even here on TH don't seem to be very interested?"

Well, I think people know the "truth" only through fiction and thus deal with it only in those situations allowed by this fact. People don't know the facts of the situation. They are only vaguely aware that Obama is suppossed to represent some "better angels" type option. There's a distancing from the truth that is effected by the media dichotomy of news and fiction. Unless you share or at least understand my somewhat peculiar though likely not entirely unique view of human psychology you probably don't get what I'm saying.

But basically its pretty simple. Think of Joseph Conrad's work "Heart of Darkness" where the "truth" is referred to by Kurtz's exclamation "the horror, the horror." Now make an analogy to the Icarus fable; get to close to the truth and you quickly find the limits of human endurance. Yet we must know the truth, as well we can, through a means which simultaneously acts as a defence against it. The news gives us enough actual truth in the form of facts to allow some semblance of an understanding of reality. Fiction gives us the opportunity to approach, while simultaneously denying (as an act of self-defence), the full depth of the truth. Lies, assassinations, organized crime, terrorism, kidnappings, torture, Machiavellan politics on the world stage, etc. These just aren't dinner-table conversation topics. Thus, while we can "enjoy" movies which lay these things bare, vicariously enjoying the utterly unrealistic heros of various stripes who defy the odds in "escaping" this truth, we are left unprepared to deal with the real thing.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Choco:

I fear the corruption has gone to far, Ren. We can try to contact congress critters but when you try you only get to talk to an aid who is, just like his boss, only looking out for himself and his position. We are going down collectively because too many people don't understand that we are all in this together and everything is connected. Did you review the links and did you watch the video? I'm waiting for some comments on all of this, especially the video. Most everything else I put in the post just validates the wealth of information in the video. Watch it and send it around to everyone and urge them to watch it. Know the enemy and know what they are after.

I've already gone there, Choco. You haven't presented anything here I haven't already worked through in similar forms. I don't mean that to be in any way disparaging, I think this is extremely important information and I'm glad you are posting it. I once upon a time took it upon myself to post these kinds of things here, so I know the extent of the effort you have made and I applaud you for it and hope you don't lose your energy. I'll help if I can. When I came to this board in early Feb., 2004, no one even knew what the term "neoconservative" applied to, much less its relationship with the Bush Administration. Only a very few even recognized the term, and they were generally the right wing trolls who were trying desperately to find ways to counter everything I posted. Wow did a learn a lot about that! I was extremely naive about the internet coming in.

I'd been following neocons since the days they became neocons early in the Reagan Administration after being Democrats and war mongers hating communism during Vietnam. I watched their frustration when the Soviet Union collapsed and I watched as they switched from evil communism to evil terrorism during the Clinton era. And I don't even consider myself a very politically interested person, it's just stuff that filters in and I notice. At the time when I first started posting at Thom's, the PNAC site was up and I posted pretty much the same thing you did relating to page 50-51 and 911, which I assumed coming in everyone would know about.

Eventually the term "neoconservative" took hold because it was taking hold all over the place finally. The neocons themselves were on a high horse riding the crest of their self endowed hubris. I don't claim any responsibility for anything, but I suspect I may have helped somewhat. Lots of people horribly confused its meaning and I worked to point out their Leo Straussian cult roots with it's Machiavellian component. The trolls worked diligently to counter everything. Eventually my war with them got me banned. Amusingly for something I supposedly did on a site calling itself PNOC as a counter to the PNAC.

Yet, sadly, I find many people today are still in the formative stages of recognizing what's in place, many still think we are in some sort of democracy. Few recognize that what exactly were the same exact policies that the Bush Administration fathered we now see being followed and expanded upon with the Obama Administration, stuff that some of us were going nuts about back during the Bush Era. A lot of political talk is just gibberish from many people who think in gross terms of black and white political parties. I would love to see more responses on this thread, but this is a very difficult climate for a left leaning critic.

I actually consider what's happened to be far worse than corruption. I think the system itself is basically flawed and unfixable and it's now working out to its logical conclusion. That's why I'm doing everything I can at the local level now. But while I could easily counteract any of my own hopes for a grass roots democracy to evolve, I also keep noting in my more Pollyannaish moments that on the larger scale, we can vote our individual Representatives out of office every two years, and they do recognize that. I've been on the phone in virtual Town Hall meetings with Jamie Herrera Beutler, and I've been to the local restaurant in town when she comes here for meeting; she does respond to what's said, haven't tracked everything she does.

I was more dubious than I'd normally be with her, given that she came in on the 2010 Republican wave, but she does do some things that are related to issues in this area, some are environmentally sensitive issues, so party may not be the largest criteria for deciding to press our Representatives in the House. The Senate is another matter, and we have a lot less influence there. But she's only one very new and learning Representative with a degree in communications, not law, and I know that. I figure eventually she will run out of gas and become one of the ones that have their aides answer the phone.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

By the way, I've tried to present the neoliberally imposed polyarchic democracy version of imperialism that Top Gun geostratigist Zbignew Brezinski has been part of for most of his political adviser life, which stretches back to the end of the Eisenhower era when he was an adviser to Candidate John F. Kennedy. Neoliberalism is one of the many confusions with neoconservatism, and they are not in so many ways the same, but the latter certainly bridges political parties more than the neocons. For those who see Carter as some sort of movement in a more democratic direction, I point out that he was an avid devotee of Brezinski's expertise in international geostrategics planning, and he went so far as to make him his National Security Adviser. Brezinski basically wrote the Carter Doctrine which remains the geostrategic policy that we are following in the Strategic Ellipse (where we remain at pretty much constant war). I have also called attention to his Trilateral Commission connections and how they are connected to all this.

Ruppert (whose ego rubs me the wrong way though I have friends who really love him) just skims the surface in his video. All my extensive efforts are buried in the software of the next to the last board Thom hopscotched from, and it's now finally lost somewhere in the vapor of the internet since I can find no more links to that board. in searching for the perfect board software, Thom has thus inadvertently but successfully killed off the interests of people like Antifascist's and my own in bringing a lot of our research to the board so we can use it in some sort of integrated way to present our discussions. It's so much easier to not start from scratch every single time but rather to have a catalog of links filled with research to work from. Hopefully he'll be staying with this software, problematic as it is.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

I may try downloading that video some other time; my connection was too slow when I tried it last. However, I have I think pretty much gotten most of the information about that topic already from other sources.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Great responses by both of you. To sum up, Israel is staging in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is allowing this primarily because of the influence of money and power from the US Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce. This is a lobby group aimed at getting us the US taxpayers to fund for the infrastructure development in Azerbaijan so the trans-national companies can move their ill gotten natural resource booty to world markets. Thanks US taxpayers.

The problem gets worse when you consider the information in the other posts on this site about Russia's opposition to yet another Crusade by the US/Israel juggernaut. This could escalate very fast and when it does it will be the dominating topic discussed and it won't be a rational discussion I suspect. We will have let them destroy everything that is good, mainly because we did not comprehend the depths of their short-sighted evil and greed. Or if we did, far too many lacked the courage to illuminate them and stop them. Careerism=materialism. A lot of the Gnostic sects were dualists in that they believed the material world was evil. I never went that far but now I'm wondering if they were onto something. What good does it do a man to inherit the earth and all its splendid treasures only to lose his soul? I paraphrase a well known Gnostic sage.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes, I agree. With a little translation between different modes of expression, I could use Weber's criticisms of the potential threat of bureaucracy, which must have spun off some of Kafka's novels, and my recent efforts to bring some of Jacques Ellul's The Technological Society to some thread discussions.

Carreerism is part of the technique he refers to as coming to dominate us and destroy our humanity. So yes, Carreerism=materialism.

I love this 1 hr video of Ellul in the early 90s, just before his death in 1994, where he talks about The Treachery of Technology. I think this is also a commentary on careerism.

These are his parting words:

So we can ask ourselves whether there is really any sense in all this to be investigated. But the search for it cannot be a strictly intellectual activity. The search for sense implies that we must have a radical discussion of modern life. In order to rediscover sense we must discuss everything which has no sense. We are surrounded by objects which are, it is true, efficient but are absolutely pointless.

A work of art, on the other hand, has sense in various ways, or it calls up in me a feeling or an emotion whereby my life acquires sense. That is not the case with a technological product.

And on the other hand we have the obligation to discover certain fundamental truths which have disappeared because of technology. We can also call these truths values, important actual values, which ensure that people experience their lives as having sense.

In other words, as soon as that moment arrives when I think that the situation is really dangerous, I can't make do any more with purely technological means. Then I must employ all my human and intellectual capacities and all my relationships with others to create a counterbalance.

That means that when I think that a disaster threatens and that developments threaten to lead to a destiny for mankind as I wrote concerning the development of technology, I, as a member of mankind, must resist and must refuse to accept that destiny.

And at that moment we do what mankind has always done at a moment when destiny threatens. Just think of all those Greek tragedies in which mankind stands up against destiny and says: No, I want mankind to survive and I want freedom to survive.

At such a moment you must continue to cherish hope, but not the hope that you will achieve a quick victory, and even less hope that we face an easy struggle. We must be convinced that we will carry on fulfilling our role as people.

In fact it is not an insuperable situation. There is no destiny that we cannot overcome. You must simply have valid reasons for joining the struggle. You need a strong conviction.

You must really want people to remain, ultimately, people.

This struggle against the destiny of technology has been undertaken by us by a means of small scale actions. We must continue with small groups of people who know one another. It will not be by any big mass of people. Or any big unions or big political parties who will manage to stop this development.

What I have just said doesn't sound very efficient, of course. When we oppose things which are too efficient we mustn't try to be even more efficient. For that will not turn out to be the most efficient way. But we must continue to hope that mankind will not die out and will go on passing on truths from generation to generation.

(The Treachery of Technology starting at around 46:30 with a scene in a subway where people are rushing to get on their subway trains while a musician with the traditional open box filled with a few coins in front of him sits and plays a trumpet which he holds up to his mouth with his right hand while he plays an accordion with his left, managing to use his fingers on each hand accurately for each to create music.)

(my bold in that one paragraph, by the way)

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

I started watching Choco's video, but I didn't get very far. I've seen and heard that stuff before. I don't have much doubt that the PNAC folks did not deter an attack, and even welcomed it. I think the likes of Cheney are sociopathic. But the ones faking videos and photographs are the conspiracy theorists. The video al-Jazeera broadcast of bin Laden (in the gold robe with the brown background) detailing his reasons (attacks on the Lebanese, Palestinians and others over a period of several decades) for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks shows a very clear image of bin Laden. The videos you see in various "documentaries" and those shown by Alex Jones have been altered and blurred to help promote grand conspiracy theories.

Quote Stan Goff:The belief in a conspiratorial view of history seems to me to be a psychological reaction to the fear of chaos. If the world is not as one would like it, at least a conspiratorial view of history suggests that history as a process is still subject to human control, and that once we wrest control from the unjust conspirators, the world can be made right again.

This unpredictability, this sense of instability that compels some of us to reach for order in chaos with a history of conspiracy, ironically, has been produced by the current political milieu, one wherein neoliberalism has disembedded economies from local control and re-embedded them in national and transnational institutions, and those institutions are themselves now experiencing a loss of control in the face of unanticipated changes.

http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/05/the-roles-of-finance-food-and-force-in-us-foreign-policy/

The notion that no plane struck the Pentagon is, quite frankly, insane. Eyewitness accounts, numerous photos of plane wreckage found inside and near the Pentagon (including the one on the cover of Thierry Meyssan's Pentagate book), and identification of the bodies of those who were on AA Flight 77 all make it pretty clear that, yes, AA Flight 77 went into the Pentagon - after first striking the ground - and was largely engulfed in flames.

Choco, while the video you want everyone to watch may contain some facts (i.e., there is an institution known as PNAC), the grand conspiracies that surround those facts do a disservice to the all-important effort to make sense of the world. People who might otherwise be interested in learning about geopolitical causes and effects will be turned off by the conspiratorial denial of certain realities. Furthermore, such videos are just as guilty of fear-mongering as those they condemn.

I'd suggest that the Adam Curtis film, The Power of Nightmares, is far more useful. Curtis does not deny realities, such as the occurence of AA Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. Rather, he deals with the incredible embellishment of this thing referred to by neocons and neolibs alike as a "terrorist network." He deals with the promotion of nightmares, be they the ones promoted by the likes of Dick Cheney or the likes of Alex Jones.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am

Good points, Garrett, and I appreciate those Stan Goff points about the psychology behind conspiracy theorists. As well as to Adam Curtis' documentaries. The Power of Nightmares was specifically about the Neoconservatives. I believe Michael Ruppert himself suffers a bit from that conspiracy theory psychology you quoted from Goff.

However, the geopolitics that he's speaking of in the video is a vast field of international academics that falls under a general heading called "international relations". I have a good friend who teaches in, and for a time headed, that department at Berkeley, and I've had a lot of chances to hear about all this in a much more academic framework from her. It includes a number of types of theories, and a number of different proponents of those theories. So I echo your concern that conspiracy psychology can hinder a broader understanding of what's going on at the upper echelons of government. Their descriptions (and I include The Grand Chessboard in that category of description, while Ruppert does the usual conspiracy theory style nit pickery -- oooh! look at that detail!!! in the video) apply to their various theories of how international relations work in the real world. I emphasize "theories". The descriptions that Ruppert chose from the text can also be found in many Realist theories, none of which are necessarily made as part of a conspiracy to control the world or make events like 911 happen. Same would be true I'd say of Chalmers Johnson's Blowback which finally gained some popularity after the blowback event that was 911. Chalmers, I might note, was on my friend's dissertation committee and remained her friend until he died.

This is where we have to apply the psychology of conspiracy theorizing to the the situation to help us understand who these people are and their motives. Neoconservative are not so much members of the "objective" academia, like Zbigniew Brezinski, who do international relations theory to help politicians (Brezinski was also one of Obama's early advisers in his campaign, helping him formulate his foreign policy arguments for debate) as they tend to be more ideologically-oriented as a group. They evolved, originally from a Trotskyite perspective way back before some of them were Democrats, into a kind of Machiavellian-oriented cult with very deep-seated scorn for common people (who need to be directed for their own good, even if it means lying to them through propaganda), and while their interests in the Bush Administration in particular were similarly advisory like those of Brezinski's ilk in previous administrations, they are much more cause-oriented. Which of course, knowing that, as many people do, leads to suppositions like: they knew what was brewing with these flipped off radical Islamic fundamentalist and they either encouraged (and possibly assisted them), used them as a front (while they planted bombs in the buildings that came down) or simply turned their backs and let catastrophe occur for the good of the U.S. which the entire world needs to be the Imperial superpower for the good of all.

By virtue of tautological definition, the U.S. is benevolent in all this.

I've looked hard at Brezinski's work and I don't see him coming from that perspective. And I don't see the neoconservatives all that interested in where the money comes from, so they aren't interested in the neoliberal focus, which is a kind of implied belief in the need for organizing the world as one vast corporate colonized structure with no real government to get in their way. Their ignorance in the environmental devestation is beyond my comprehension, but that's another matter. Their point of commonality is in the need for a military to enforce things, but the neoliberals would much rather have enforcement occur through international banking and rules that favor corporate profit making through resource exgtraction and all that makes corporations efficient. That includes access to cheap labor when they need labor.

Neocons like to have a strong military. That's been the story of their entire history since I began tracking them. Before they switched from the Democrats to the Republicans about the time of the Reagan era they were affiliated with Scoop Jackson, a pro military Democrat here in Washington State who was behind all the legislated government funding that put bases here and made Boeing the focus of Seattle's economy before it diversified. He had enormous political power in this state as a result. That ended after Vietnam, and the anti communist group around him became the neocons we know and love today. It is a way of thinking that is certainly a part of our government, sometimes more influential, as in the Bush era, sometimes less. I think they figure, without thinking too hard about it or its consequences to people who like to imagine they are in a democracy, they can get the money for their military when they need it. They certainly burned through the nation's funds in a hurry during the Bush Administration.

Geostrategists like Brezinski are concerned more with the protection of resources for the economic engines they plot into their theories. Their view of the world and the need for a hegemon is a "realist' foreign policy perspective. Those economic engines are of course the capitalist corporations in their minds. What we ordinary people do is irrelevant to their grand theories, like his 1998 book The Grand Chessboard. I found Ruppert's nit picking of Brezinski's book both childish and humorous. I think that video was done in 2004, he refers to Brezinski's thoughts as being four years before. But I am just as aghast at the attitudes of a Brezinski and all the influence he has had on this nation since Carter, as I am those of the various neoconservatives who wrote that PNAC document at their site, and all the influence they had during the Bush years.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

I don't have any trouble with any of that, Ren. And I think you've given a good explanation of the distinction that can be drawn between the neolibs and the neocons. Also, your point about neoliberalism bridging political parties - more so than neoconservatism does - helps to explain the adherence to lesser evilism. For whatever reason, the tactics (and perhaps the personalities) of neoliberals don't turn people off in quite the same way as those of the neocons.

But I do take issue with the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy theories that distract well-meaning people and provide ammo for not-so-well-meaning people. Yes, bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11. Yes, planes full of fuel can bring down tall buildings demolition-style. Yes, the hijackers did have flight training. Yes, AA Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. And so on.

It's tough enough making sense of the world without the input of grand conspiracies, organized religion, mainstream media, and various other distractions.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am

I need to do some editing on my previous post but I won't. I was thinking the video was done in 2002, but I had four in my mind as I remembered what Ruppert said, so 2004 apparently came off my keyboard. And I see some other misspellings at a glance. But I'll let it go. Be nice if I didn't have to turn on spellcheck, I forget a lot.

Well, looking for blame is part of that psychology of making a chaotic world less chaotic. And it does keep the plebes busy. If it merely served to wake people up, I wouldn't be quite so concerned, but it seems to be more like one of those shiny reflective things that sort of hypnotizes people into an obsessive focus.

The broad problem is that these academics like Brezinski do create a kind of view of the world that overrides our potential for democratic participation. They are also those "experts" I hear about on Sunday morning talk television many people watch. Altogether in a sort of unintended cooperative process, the "experts" help to direct actions that create consequences which become that world they analyze (Only an Expert). It's kind of like a grand tautology -- but so much more "objective" than a conspiracy, lol.

And then, in an effort to make sense of it, many people try to find conspiracies to rationally explain with blame, which take up huge amounts of attention and related energy and are immensely distracting while "they" -- as Karl Rove once told a journalist to this effect -- in their Machiavellian way make the "real" world with their actions while telling everyone who will believe them (which turns out to be enough to keep them elected) through the twistings of propaganda that it's something else. Nightmare might be a better description for what they keep creating, after yet another decade of their wars passes.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

[quote=Garrett78]

But I do take issue with the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy theories that distract well-meaning people and provide ammo for not-so-well-meaning people. This is jibberish. What distractions? Searching for the truth is not a distraction. You have it backwards, the false claim that Al Qaeda pilots, and I use that word generously, were barely able to fly cessna's according to their instructors, yet flew two jets into two buildings, the Twin Towers, and managed to drop three buildings at free fall rate into their own footprints suggest that you have no grasp of physics. You might also want to explain how those pilots were able to coordinate their attack the same day that Cheney and Rumsfeld had four Airforce War games going on simultaneously and Rudy Guiliani had Tripod Fema excercise going on in Manhattan, and why standard operating procedure was not followed? Why was the last plane allowed to attack the Pentagon, as you suggest, forty minutes after the first plane hit the north tower? Too many coincidences already and we're just getting started. Why did FBI head Robert Mueller, under orders from Attorney General John Aschcroft, call off three seperate FBI investigations of those pilots? To preserve the patsies, of course. Why did John O'Neal FBI counter terrorism agent in charge of tracking Bin Laden quit the FBI in disgust because he was upset at his superior's continual interference in his efforts to track down and aprehend Bin Laden?

Bin Laden, brother of Bush's oil partner Salem Bin Laden, was a CIA asset durining the Mujhadeen days against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Read your history. George HW Bush was sitting with the Bin Laden family at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in DC as members of the Carlyle Group during 9/11. Another coincidence. Baker Botts, the Bush family lawyer who stopped the Florida recount and who defended the Saudi's against lawsuits of the families of the victims of 9/11, brokered a deal between Hunt Oil of Texas, Bush's buddy, and the Kurds in Iraq. Do you know about all the US, BP oil companies working in Iraq now. How about the Halliburton and KBR contracts for the oil giants ongoing in Iraq?

Yes, bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11. According to whom? Do you know there are many inteligence agents in the 9/11 Truth Movement? The CIA says he claimed responsibility so you believe the CIA? For whom do you think the CIA works? Do you know how many democratically elected socialist governments in South American and elswhere the CIA has overthrown and installed violent military dictatorships friendly to US resource extraction corporations?

Yes, planes full of fuel can bring down tall buildings demolition-style. No they can't. They can do considerable damage, but they can't collapse the buildings in systematic free fall, through the path of most resistance into their own footprint. Again, you have no grasp of physics. No plane hit Building No. 7 did it? Yet it collapsed exactly as a controlled demolition would because it was a controlled demolition. Here's a challenge for you and all other "official Dick Cheney consipiracy theorists" or as we say, coincidence theorists: Go find a steel framed building that is going to be taken down and try to collapse it like any of the three buildings with fuel. Why do you think they spend weeks setting charges in buildings at certain places and rigging them up with a computer sequence? Why bother if you can just spread some jet or diesel fuel around. It's ridiculous to believe the buildings were not brought down with a controlled demolition. Just for a kicker, go find eyewitness testimonies of the firefighters, police and people who witnessed, saw and testified before cameras that they heard synchronized explosions floor by floor. There are a lot of them but I'm not doing your homework for you. Oh, and Larry Silverstein, who bought the World Trade Center only months before and had it insured against terrorist attacks said on PBS that they made the decision to "Pull the Building." He didn't say pull the firefighters out of the building and the fires were small and the building would not have collapsed without pre-set demolitions. He goofed up saying that. By the way, building 5 and 6 were hit much harder by the debris of the Twin Towers and suffered considerable damage, neither collapsed. In fact, when they went in after to clean up, the had to "pull" these buildings and this is what you can hear them saying.

Yes, the hijackers did have flight training. How many had flight training in military flight schools?

Yes, AA Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. And so on. Why did Flight 77 pull a 270 degree turn bypassing a chance to hit Rumsfeld's office only to hit the portion of the Pentagon that was being renovated and that held the records of the missing $2.3 Trillion dollars from the Pentagon that Rumsfeld is on camera talking about on Sept. 10, 2001? Another coincidence? Why does the most heavily guarded building in the world, the Pentagon, not have one clear picture of any jet? Produce a picture for us will you? Nobody else can. Why were people in suits filmed shoulder to shoulder immedaitely after the crash combing the ground picking up debris. I thought it was a federal crime to remove evidence. Another coincidence?

Why are there over 1,600 licensed architects and engineers on record with their full professional credibility at stake making statements that the buildings could not have collapsed as the official story would have us believe? Do you know how many Ph.d Scholars, and people with masters degrees are on record with statements in the Truth movement? Do you know how many professional airline pilots with their credibility on the line are in the truth movement? Do you know how many firefighters and statesman from the US, from the Bush administration, from the inteligence agencies, from Underwriters Labortories, and from other countries are in the truth movement?

It's tough enough making sense of the world without the input of grand conspiracies, It's not that tough if you have a basic understanding of physics, mainly that the only way a steel framed building can collapse at free fall rate or anything close to it is to have the resistance removed.

Grand conspiracies is an attempt to disparage the person and the subject by giving it a label and dismissing it as unprofessional, non-academic. That doesn't work anymore than saying you can't criticise Israel's policy unless you're anti-semitic. Both are forms of censorship and cowardly because they avoid the raw facts and devolve into a veiled ad hominen attack.

mainstream media, and various other distractions. Yet it is the mainstream media that gave us the false story so you contradict yourself here.

So do you believe the TAPI is finally going in now after we have established bases along the route or is that a conspiracy? Do you believe that Enron had Bechtel and GE build a power plant in Dabhol, India in the mid 90s and needed gas from the proposed Centgas pipeline from, you guessed it, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (TAPI). Do you think it just another coincidence that the Enron executive in charge of the Dabhol project, Clifford Baxter, a multi-millionaire just suddenly decided to put a gun to his head and kill himself in a rich Houston suburb? Do you recall our esteemed media investigating the Enron Dabhol power plant? Hmm, why are they so silent on this? Just a coincidence. But wait, you don't trust the media you said, but they got it right about the 9/11 attacks and about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq too. Oops, nope that lie only cost a million or so lives and counting.

Go do your research, I'm not going to play tit for tat this subject. Believe what you will or won't.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This article deals with why that particular wing of the Pentagon was attacked. I'm still evaluating the information here so am not totally sold on this but there is that first rule of investigation: follow the money: http://www.citizensforgovernmentaccountability.org/?p=1489

If anyone is actually paying attention, the 9/11 Truth movement doesn't spend so much time on the Pentagon because it's more difficult to prove, however, there is that question of why no photographs of the jet? Why no videos of the building and jet that is the heart of DOD?

http://www.jesseventura.net/conspiracy-theory/s02e08-pentagon/

To really get going, you must search and find the very first pictures of the Pentagon before the walls collapsed. You will not see any sign of where the wings or tail hit, only a hole in the wall.

http://911proof.com/13.html

War Games on 9/11 http://911proof.com/9.html

Doubts about the 9/11 Commission: http://911proof.com/6.html

More doubts: http://911proof.com/7.html

First responders reporting bombs: http://911proof.com/11.html

Even Geraldo believes Building No. 7 was a controlled demolition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP0H

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPEj2Pa1Y2gs-v-uJ0

BBC, the people who put out Power of Nightmares that you cite, also provided this before the fact report on the collapse of the Soloman Building, aka, World Trade Center Building No. 7 Jane Stanley reports while the building is standing behind her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

Here is a patriot talking about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CR5139AXnE&feature=related

Finally the motive vs the motive. The official motive, they hate us for our freedoms, they were pissed at us for leaving bases in their holy land. That's it.

Problem with that is didn't they think ahead that attacking us would invite a much greater American and British presence in Muslim countries? People believe they can plot this attack from a cave but didn't have the foresight to predict the consequences to Muslim countries? That makes no sense at all. These so called Muslim perpetrators were willing to trade three or four buildings and 3,000 people for two countries and over a million people and the theft of their natural resources? What brilliant minds can believe that?

Motive for the inside job theory: talks with the Taliban were breaking down over the proposed Centgas pipelines from the Caspian Sea Basin. Contingents of Taliban were flown to Houston and DC, even Mt. Rushmore several times in an attempt to win their approval for the pipelines. They refused and were warned to accept a "carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs." The Taliban had largely eradicated the opium fields and now after our occupation Aghanistan opium is the largest producer in the world and Hamid Karzai, Unocal consultant and US appointed president of Aghanistan, his brother is controlled by the CIA. I alreadly linked the NY Times article to that and he is (was) a top drug lord. Also Dick Cheney held a secret energy meeting in the White House before 9/11 and the oil tycoons, Enron and others were looking at maps and dividing up the spoils of the Iraq oil fields yet we had no pretext to invade Iraq. Follow the money. Motive vs. Motive, it's not even close.

Finally, I can't believe liberals who constantaly champion for equal rights, women, minorities, other religions, ethnicities, are so willing to believe that a radical group of Muslims can be devious enough to attack on 9/11 but white people could never be so devious. Hmm. How about Hitler and his ovens and six million Jews? How about Stalin and his gulags? How about the Catholic Church and the crusades and 605 year-long inquisition? Are you kidding me? How about the lies that led to Vietnam, how about the lies that led to Iraq by the same people in charge during 9/11? Obviously these people know they have full control of the media and obviously they would lie in order to seize oil and gas fields because that is what they did. Iraq is open for business now and Iraq is no longer threatening to sell oil on the Eurodollar or oil bourse negating the value of the US dollar as the World's reserve currency. Get real people.

The 2004 election was between Skull and Bones GW Bush and Skull and Bones John Kerry. Neither would talk about it on Tim Russerts Meet the Press. Coincidence theorists enable tyranny. Our taxdollars are paying Cheney's and his gang's pension and health care while 50 million go uninsured. Karl Rove continues to undermine democracy when he should be in jail too. Two more radical Supreme justices were seated because people didn't call BS to the 9/11 farce and we suffer the results of that namely with Citizens United. FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The argument over 911 should have been dealt with. It's not been.

Will it ever get resolved?

Will there ever actually be a real investigation that comes to a satisfying conclusion for everyone?

Count on it. No.

Wil there then always be lingering, serious doubts?

You betcha.

So what's the real issue in wasting one's time attempting to comprehend all that goes into geostrategic politics?

Ask Garrett what his politics is really about, and what he's doing about it. Does he doubt that power in the United States is corrupt? Is that not the real issue? Does it matter exactly what route one takes to finally recognize that corruption is rampantly out of control in this governing facade people keep pretending is a democracy?

Knowing the system is horribly corrupted, can we fix it?

What about the planet that makes life possible? What about that while we bicker?

These arguments about which version of what horrendous act frightens us serve the powerful well. Do they serve us? They keep everyone fully distracted soaking up what little positive life forces we have to actually live our lives while the same incredibly selfish and powerful forces that know perfectly well what they do go on plundering the planet.

The natural life forces around us are withering, withdrawing from us into a few cells, which may or may not survive, while we distract ourselves with abstractions about how things rationally happen, delude ourselves with fantasies about our holy, wonderful selves, while we humans are all responsible until the process causing the rapid destruction of our planet is reversed. The arrogant hubris, the utterly blind selfishness, the horror, the horror of the "light" of civilization shining in the vastness of infinite space...

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

The point is that they overreached with 9/11 and were so arrogant and obvious that they dared the American people to call them out on it. Had the people done so we would have had an overhaul of our political system and media. We wouldn't still be dealing with the Oliver Norths and Karl Roves and the imminent invasion of Iran that may lead to WWIII. I think life is worth preserving and a higher quality of life is worth fighting for for everybody.

There can be no democracy without justice and no justice without truth

Apathy supports the status quo

I thought I'd reconstitute my old tag lines. They are not meant for you ren I know your head and heart are just fine.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'm asking questions now along the lines of: is it ever going to be possible with what's in place to have enough people aware enough to overcome the status quo before we actually destroy our capacity to live on this planet?

What if it is not going to be possible to awaken enough people because so many pro corporate systems control the message so well that not nearly enough people can get a solid fix on what's really happening?

Agreed, they are arrogant. But did they go too far? What's changed if they actually went to far in their reach? The only changes I'm seeing are an acceleration of their mindless attempts to destroy life on this planet.

I suspect there's a point where, if this system could be transformed in a positive way should enough people understand what that might be, we could do it... up to that point. If there is indeed such a point, and we know many scientifically knowledgeable people have been warning us for years that there is, and going beyond that means the inevitable triggering of a different kind of change than the intentional one we could plan -- call it a collapse for want of anything better -- without the serious catastrophic effects any 10 year old can imagine, then the question might be: when and where is that point?

Personally, I believe we needed to begin somewhere about the time Rachael Carson drew attention to the devastating effects of the industrial agricultural system on the entire planet. All we got was a feeble EPA here in the U.S., signed by Nixon, which did little to curb any of the really massive effects even here, and now the same forces that exported everything the EPA tried to regulate here to the the developing nations in places like Africa, India and so forth, causing such catastrophes as Bhopal in the early eighties, are busily turning back the regulations in every direction with the help of some of the most ignorant people on this planet, a slew of which have begun once again to invade Thom's as we move further into this election spectacle, the results of which will be either a bad President on these issues or a worse one.

By the way, the root of "ignorant" is "ignore" in case anyone thinks I'm being any more than simply descriptive.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

There's enough actual conspiring taking place in this world without resorting to nonsense that has been thouroughly debunked.

I'll give a few links and then just let it go, as I don't think this is a good use of time.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments8.htm

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

I refer once again to the Stan Goff quote as to why some have a tendency to take disparate facts and meld them into some unsupportable grand conspiracy that would require the involvement of a massive number of insiders.

Live simply, and build community. I'll leave you with a link to an Earth Day poem: http://serenityunicorn.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/joe-miller.jpg

Have a good day.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am

Garrett, and those debunkings have been debunked and on and on it goes. I've seen it go for thousands of posts here at Thom's alone.

Some people wake up, more people close their eyes, put their hands over their ears and scream.

This cannot be resolved this way.

The corporations own too many of the sources of truth. We have to recognize what we are up against. Living simply and building community is something we can actually do. Getting 300 million people to manage the corporations most of them work for is not going to happen. The proverbial 1% own too much for now.

David Holmgren: The Reverse Of Globalization

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote .ren:Garrett, and those debunkings have been debunked and on and on it goes.

I don't think they have. Denied or ignored, sure. But not debunked. No more than the poster, ABCee, has debunked all of the debunkings of his chemtrail insanity. No more than deniers of climate change have debunked the debunkers of their theories. No more than creationists have debunked evolution. No more than people who believe "quotes" about a New World Order (http://amtruth.com/NWOquotes1) have debunked those who think they're a few slices short of a loaf.

Unless you count (false) claims that grand conspiracy theorists desperately reach for in their attempt to - as Goff suggests - gain some control over the chaos. That's not debunking. That's sticking one's head further and further into the abyss. Ex: An editor at Popular Mechanics is related to a former head of Homeland Security. I, mean, they have the same last name, so it's gotta be true. And, therefore, everything in the article in question must be false.

But I agree with everything else you said, and everything else is what matters most.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am

Like choco said, do your own research, believe what you want. You want to trust people that's your choice. I do an end around trust when my gut tells me not to trust. And when I can't confirm something that requires my mistrust to be absolved first hand, with my own senses, then it's out of my hands.

Personally, this isn't the issue. I hate to see it take center stage once again.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Ren,

The conspiracy theorists are trusting people, too. The "Truthers" have their trusted sources. Everyone does (you and I, for instance, frequently turn to the same sources time and time again...you don't have to call that trust, but it's close enough). So, trust is not the issue. Skepticism and a search for evidence is healthy. Critical thought is healthy. Research is healthy. Denying realities is not. Seriously, stuff like "AA Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon" (and "the passengers might still be alive and working for the government" and "it was a cruise missile that did the damage") is crazy. Yes, do research. You'll find eyewitness accounts, photographs of plane wreckage, and dna evidence that the passengers named in the flight registry were found dead inside the Pentagon, etc., etc., etc. You can distrust all of that, and more, if you like. But I would suggest going to those lengths is unhealthy and not at all constructive.

And those crazy (for lack of a more sensitive term) claims are not totally unimportant, because, as I said, they can deter people from considering the valid points made by what are likely well-intentioned people.

But we agree that this shouldn't take center stage. Fortunately, it no longer gets much play on this site. Like you, I've witnessed very lengthy discussions on the topic. I have no intention of dragging this out.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am

Quite simply, the structure below the impact could not possibly have been weakened to the point that the weight of the structure above the impact was sufficient to cause the collapses to happen in the way they did. Garrett, you always have such thoughful things to say otherwise. Its sad to see you leave posts only to support a completely untenable theory of the events that happened that day. The "psychological" theory merely adds insult to injury and is simply the rhetoric of one who has abandoned rational discussion in favor of a thinly-veiled ad-hominem. As though there were no psychological need to maintain the simplistic nationalist frame by those who do so.

Incidentally, the U.S. gov. has again declined to declassify the documents relating to the final phase of the Bay of Pigs fiasco because it would "confuse" the public.

I skimmed this article, but it looks like a good source of information about what's been going on in the Balkans region. http://eurodialogue.org/Caucasus-The-War-That-Was-The-World-War-That-Might-Have-Been No way I can keep track of all this. Still, it is important to know the range of opinions on interpretation. Without that, how can you have a conversation about anything?

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote nimblecivet:

Quite simply, the structure below the impact could not possibly have been weakened to the point that the weight of the structure above the impact was sufficient to cause the collapses to happen in the way they did.

That's a tautology. I don't believe it's being suggested that it was "weight" that caused the collapse.

But, truth be told, I don't really take that much issue with the theory that the collapses were aided by something other than the thousands upon thousands of gallons of jet fuel. I'm skeptical that explosive devices were planted, but I have less issue with that than most of the other conspiratorial claims (such as there being no plane in Pennsylvania or at the site of the Pentagon). I'm less skeptical concerning the theory that the attacks could have been prevented, and that they were welcomed (on the latter point, I'm quite sure the PNAC folks were rather thrilled by what they perceived to be a golden opportunity).

Anyway, I'm not sure what is meant by the "nationalist frame." If you're including the idea that "we" were attacked because "they hate our freedoms" or the notion that the US is engaged in some legitimate "war on terror" or the propaganda about a vast "terrorist network," that of course is all bull shit. We all see that. Believe me, I'm right with you on that score. But people being pissed off at a particular country's policies doing what little they can (relative to the death and destruction wrought by the Western World) to strike back here and there (what the CIA calls "blowback") is not unheard of. It had been done prior to 9/11/01, it was done on 9/11/01, and it's been done since.

You have to ask yourself why Alex Jones and his ilk keep pushing these fuzzy, altered images of bin Laden or of the 9/11 sites in question when perfectly clear images are abundant (like my earlier example of the blurry image of bin Laden shown in Choco's film, implying that that's the image that was shown by al-Jazeera and others--it wasn't, so why is Alex Jones wanting you to believe those were the clearest images ever broadcast?). Follow the money, indeed. Ratings mean fame and money.

That said, I do appreciate Choco's reminder that the war drums are continually being beaten by the same folks for the same reasons, be they the neolibs and their reasons or the neocons and their reasons.

I also appreciate Ren's posting of the David Holmgren video. I'd seen it before, but it's worth watching again. I "trust" Carolyn Baker and those she interviews. :)

My point is that I think the points of agreement are great, and far outweigh differing views on the conspiracy theories.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am

I was tempted to start a new thread for this_week_at_war_the_generals_dystopia , but it has a place here, too.

On April 12, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussed what he called the "security paradox" at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. The good news in the world today, according to Dempsey, is that interstate conflict is currently minimal, human violence is at an all-time low, and the United States faces "no obvious existential threat." Yet Dempsey insisted that "I'm chairman at a time that seems less dangerous but it's actually more dangerous." Why?

Although geopolitical trends are ushering in greater levels of peace and stability worldwide, destructive technologies are available to a wider and more disparate pool of adversaries.... What truly concerns me as chairman is that these lethal and destructive technologies are proliferating in two directions. They're proliferating horizontally across advanced militaries in the world, and they're proliferating vertically, down to non-state actors, especially insurgents, terrorist groups and even transnational organized crime. As a result, more people have the ability to harm us or deny us the ability to act than at any point in my life. And that's the security paradox.

As examples, Dempsey noted that dozens of "middleweight militaries" now possess the kind of precision-guided missiles and bombs that were the monopoly of the United States and a few of its allies a decade or so ago. Adversaries now have easy access to the components needed to assemble electronic warfare systems that can confuse U.S. sensors and weapons. Cyberattacks, mounted by both states and lone actors, routinely penetrate supposedly secure networks and could potentially cripple government and private sector command and control systems. "As a result," Dempsey concluded, "anyone with the motivation and the money can design, assemble and field highly advanced, sophisticated weapon systems."

With this ominous report, Dempsey defended the Obama administration's new defense strategy, which, he explained, will create a military force "that can deter and defeat threats at every point along the spectrum of conflict, from lone individuals or terrorist groups to middleweight militaries packing a new punch, and all the way up to near-peer competitors." While Dempsey's diagnosis of the current threat environment feels both accurate and insightful, the strategy he's touting seems deficient in both vision and scale in the face of the threats he described.

Meanwhile Romney and Ryan want to increase dod budget for stuff the pentagon doesn't need or want. Without investment, r&d, and smart planning, Iraq becomes the model. The successes of the lose nukes task force get no mention at all, because they were accomplished without bombs and warships, and missiles. Red state ignoramuses will always think the solution is 'nuke 'em', while the safety of a well functioning economy, infrastucture, and social cohesion is ignored. The Trayvon effect, where the armed seek out confrontation when non exists, and justify the force exerted merely because they could, applies to Iraq. I think romney has some chicken hawks that would like to start another war, and justification is now not even sought. Justification? We don't need no stinkin justification, we're 'merican

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Your post describes a known recipe for collapse, doug. Tainter identifies it as the spiralling effect of problem creation out of problem solving. Eventually this insane methodology runs out of energy. That says nothing for the destruction it may cause in the process of getting there.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Todays (April 29, 2012) NY Times report links Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak with the early hours of 9/11. Same old culprits.

JERUSALEM — The recently retired chief of Israel’s internal security agency accused the government of “misleading the public” about the likely effectiveness of an aerial strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, ratcheting up the criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak from the country’s security establishment.Yuval Diskin, who retired last year as the director of Shin Bet, the Israeli equivalent of the F.B.I., said at a public forum on Friday night that he had “no faith” in the ability of the current leadership to handle the Iranian nuclear threat. “I don’t believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings,” he told a gathering in Kfar Saba, a central Israeli city of 80,000. “I have observed them from up close,” he added, broadening his critique to include the handling of the Palestinian conflict as well. “I fear very much that these are not the people I’d want at the wheel."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/world/middleeast/yuval-diskin-criticizes-israel-government-on-iran-nuclear-threat.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=jodirudoren

So lets follow this backwards in time. Present, the recently retired Israel security chief thinks Netanyahu and Ehud Barak are a little to religiously zealous "messianic" in their desire to attack Iran. Cut to the morning of 9/11 even before Flight 93 was down. Barak seems to have all the answers as to whom the attackers were, where they were from and that the US, Israel and other nations should immediately launch a comprehensive terrorist interdiction campaign lasting upwards of 10 years against Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, et al. Watch and listen for yourselves. At 7:04 he accuses Bin Laden and says he is harbored in Afghanistan. This is before flight 93 hit the ground! He says we should take preemptive action against these rogue states! I repeat, this is before flight 93 even hit the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFC94AI-rzw&feature=related

You may recall the Dancing Israels incident on 9/11 when several Israelis were observed filming and celebrating the attacks on the Twin Towers. They were cheering and "lighting lighters like at a rock concert." They eventually were arrested by the FBI and held in confinement for some time. Later they were giving an interview back in Israel. Listen closely at the 3:00 minute mark when they comment about being members of the Mossad, and "our purpose was to document the event."

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dancing+israels&mid=95B0E6471A22A2468B2F95B0E6471A22A2468B2F&view=detail&FORM=VIRE7

Some people wonder why some other people are still seeking the truth about 9/11. Same old culprits are still with us and still making plans for wholesale death and destruction.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So many distractions from the mainstream media and from the "mainstream alternative media" that people don't have time or the intelligence to focus on the crucial news and connections that we suffer from. http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml

This is a flow chart, it connects the Rothschilds' dynasty to JP Morgan to our Federal (private Reserve) debt as money system, to BP oil to wars and false flag operations that trick us into wars for oil and for the sake of . . . .

Here's the Federal Reserve story in easy to digest chapters. http://www.whale.to/b/m_ch7.html

And you think things don't connect, watch this and I'm awaiting your comments. Be careful the CIA might be monitoring this, or the Mossad. Be afraid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFC94AI-rzw&feature=related

Land of the Free Home of the Brave, not so much.

Here's to modern day Americans, despite the information revolution and the vast increase of knowledge, most still choose to remain cowering to fat assed sociopathetic businessmen.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I wonder who's behind the terrorism in Syria.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Britain.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Currently Chatting

Largest Climate March Ever!

On Sunday, the world's largest climate march took over New York City. In addition to the 400,000 people who showed up to demand change in the Big Apple, hundreds of thousands more joined events in at least 156 counties. From London to Rio to Melbourne to New York, people around the world joined together to demand action on climate change.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system