Þetta er alls ekkert flókið!
bara lesa og aðeins að spá í þetta.
EVERYBODY STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND ONCE AND FOR ALL PAY ATTENTION TO THIS!!!
Unless the events of 9/11 are discussed openly and without apprehension, nothing else is real. When the people who benefited the most from the events of 9/11 were the very people responsible for preventing them, something is wrong. Since these people had ability to prevent, permit or conduct the events themselves, their collective and individual responses to the events must be examined and analyzed to the last detail. Anything less would be cowardice.
Even a rookie detective will tell you that motive and means are the keys to identifying suspects in a crime. The self-proclaimed goals of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) clearly establish a more realistic and plausible motive to create a "new Pearl Harbor" than can be attributed to any Islamic extremist. As a matter of fact, the events of 9/11 were perhaps the most counterproductive factors in the history of Islamic progress. They resulted in an overwhelming backlash against the many Islamic people around the world.
Contrast the two motives. For the neocons in PNAC, 9/11 was a dream come true. Their dormant agenda now had an excuse for being implemented. On the other hand, the motive attributed to terrorists for the events of 9/11 was the laughable "they hate our freedom,” ostensibly stemming from the teachings of Islam. In truth, such acts would have violated the teachings of their religion and exponentially added a heavy burden to the daily life of every Muslim. This is not to say that there were no Al Qaeda types involved in the events of 9/11. It merely raises unanswered questions about what Al Qaeda really is and with whom their members work. And if they were actually involved in the events, what were the real reasons for their actions? Their motives, not those attributed to them, have to become part of the public discourse.
THE RESPONSE TO 9/11: We discuss the Iraq war as if the plans to invade Iraq were suddenly thought of on 9/11. We do the same with the Patriot Act. We do the same with the war in Afghanistan. We do the same for the continual assault on our Constitution. We do the same for the unprecedented rise in government secrecy (which actually started prior to 9/11, with Cheney's secret energy policy meetings). As a matter of fact, the administration is doing just about anything it wants, in secret, using the excuse of 9/11. This unlimited power is a dream come true for the PNAC cabal. The media constantly repeat the neocon mantra that 9/11 justifies all of this unchecked power. Nothing can be further from the truth.
9/11 is not the reason the Bush/PNAC agenda took shape, it is the excuse for its implementation. It was not a response to the events of 9/11. It was waiting in the wings for an event like 9/11 to breath life into it much like the bolts of lightening that brought life to the Frankenstein monster.
The members of the Project For a New American Century had their agenda prepared and published before they propped up an uniformed, inexperienced, failed businessman named George W. Bush as their poster candidate. He had great appeal among the good ole boys and the bible thumpers who were not very likely to vote for the scowling man behind the curtain, Dick Cheney. George W. Bush had not been sitting around for the previous 10 years thinking about foreign policy. Rather, he was being coached on foreign policy by handlers who had to teach him that Africa was a continent and not a country.
The stated aims of PNAC can be followed from their war plans to their hopes of global military superiority. George W. Bush was not a factor when PNAC was writing its openly published policies. But once the 2000 election was secured, PNAC members became and remain the mainstay of the Bush administration, holding virtually every major position relating to foreign policy.
However, to this day, PNAC has not been mentioned by any of our corporate news media. Most Americans have never heard of it, and few can name its members in positions of power in their own government. As a matter of fact the chairman of PNAC, William Kristol (Editor of the PNAC publication, the Weekly Standard), is a regular pundit offering analyses of Bush policies on FOX News. Never has Kristol been identified as having any connection to PNAC despite being one of the authors of our current foreign policy. He is regularly presented to the public as an impartial journalist. In fact, not a single government spokesperson has ever been identified as a PNAC member. Talk about media deception!
When there is any discussion of Bush policy, from the Iraq War to the Patriot Act, we are told that 9/11 changed everything. This is nonsense. The most controversial acts of the Bush/PNAC administration were planned and held in abeyance prior to 9/11. The people who prepared the PNAC agenda did not think they had a chance in hell of their goals coming to fruition. Can you imagine the Patriot Act passing without 9/11 having taken place?
Reality check: The 800 + pages of the Patriot Act were written prior to 9/11. So were the plans to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq. But PNAC needed 9/11 to take place. They wanted 9/11 to take place. They wrote about 9/11 (their new Pearl Harbor) taking place. What makes you think they had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 taking place?
As a matter of fact, the book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, by Zbigniew Brzezinski, published in 1998, basically blueprints everything that is going on today as it relates to the military primacy of the US and it's domination of the world. This is not new stuff. The Bush/PNAC administration is not responding to 9/11. They are in fact carrying out a pre-planned agenda made possible by 9/11.
FACT: We have an administration built around a group of people that has drawn members from previous administrations, many of whom were involved in crimes, lies, dirty tricks and warmongering. From the dirty tricks camp of Nixon to the crop of Iran-Contra felons, our administration is comprised of people who have treated our government and military as tools for their personal use. Add to that former members of the George H. W. Bush's administration and his and circle of friends. Remember that Daddy Bush hired a PR firm to create lies that would coerce Congress into attacking Iraq even after he had given Saddam a tacit nod to invade Kuwait. (That, by the way, was an impeachable offense). All these people were assembled and ready for action before they ever invited George W. Bush to run as their front man.
FACT: These men had an agenda, which is public and was published on their own website. This agenda was so radical that it would have take a very long time to implement unless there was, in their words, "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Do you think that the lives of a few thousand strangers were too high a price for them to pay for unlimited power? Do you think they were incapable of finding some way to proceed with an agenda that was otherwise destined to remain in the "unreachable/radical policy" file?
FACT: 9/11 gave these men everything they could possibly ask for including unlimited power to implement their otherwise unacceptable plans for global domination. Nothing else would have enabled them to go ahead with their plans. 9/11 was the greatest thing that ever happened to these men. If that does not make you suspicious, nothing will. What are the odds that all of this is nothing more than a historical coincidence? Do these facts, at the very least, merit public discourse?
BELIEVABLE?: The failure of virtually every existing standard security procedure on 9/11 is so implausible that without active and wide spread interference there would be no way the events could have unfolded over the time period in question. Every agency with responsibility for our protection on the day of the events failed to follow procedure. Every one. This happening by accident is not only implausible but the mathematical odds are mind-boggling. Add in the PNAC motive factor and the odds of this being a coincidence become incalculable. Imagine having a government in place that was comprised of people who openly professed the benefits of a new Pearl Harbor on the day it actually occurred, and imagine that this has never been a topic of public discourse. No need to imagine because it it true.
THE LIBERAL/ALTERNATIVE MEDIA:
The so-called liberal media, along with a large segment of the alternative media, are playing a dangerous game. They are perpetuating a false reality in much the same way as our criminal corporate media. They claim to be the saviors of truth. They do discuss real issues that are omitted from the fairy tale reality portrayed by our corporate media. Election fraud, treason, blatant and numerous lies that led to war, convicted felons back in the White House (Iran Contra felons), and the dismantling of our Constitution are all important issues addressed in detail only by the liberal and alternative media.
While these issues are vital, they can not be discussed in isolation of the motives of the Project for a New American Century and the empowering payday they reaped from the events of 9/11. Omitting the 9/11-PNAC connection during these discussions perpetuates an incomplete reality of America and the world. Even the liberal and alternative media pretend that PNAC does not exist. PNAC is at the crux of every geopolitical event taking place today in this nation. The members of this organization have to be exposed and discussed and they have to be part of the American vernacular.
Those of you who have seen TvNewsLIES editorials regularly linked on other alternative news sites may notice a trend. Some sites, no matter how liberal, refuse to discuss 9/11 or PNAC and accordingly will not link to our editorials on these subjects. While those sites provide a great deal of information to the public and they are truly invaluable assets in our battle to preserve our democracy, they must join the discussion when it comes to the most important event of our lifetime and the controversial figures of the Bush administration.
Of course, the liberal/alternative media's version of life is much closer to reality than that of the corporate media or the right wing's mythical image of a faith based America. However, a false reality is still a false reality.
There are some people in the broadcast media who will discuss the 9/11 issue and PNAC, but they are few and far between. The truth is that the alternative media for the most part, especially the higher profile broadcasters, will not acknowledge these issues. And if they are not willing to discuss the PNAC connection to 9/11, they are ignoring reality.
The bottom line is that most issues that we are discussing and virtually every controversial topic hinge on the events of 9/11. If there had been no 9/11, the preplanned agenda of the Project for a New American Century would have stayed in remission, where it belonged. There would have been no Iraq War, no Patriot Act, no diminished civil rights, no bleeding of the nation’s resources for a fabricated war on terror, and no financial windfall for the war profiteers. And surely there would have been no way to convince the public that “9/11 changed everything!"
I am calling for an end to the inexplicable silence about 9/11 and PNAC in the media. I am calling for the independent journalists, webmasters, broadcasters and editors to engage in discussions on the topics of 9/11, and more importantly PNAC. Reality did not begin on September 11th, 2001 or on Inauguration Day of that year. It is high time that the public becomes aware of the individuals who were at the helm when "everything changed!"
A WAKE-UP CALL: Our corporate media are all but dead. We have to counter the false reality being presented to the public by this behemoth. The alternative media are our only hope. We can no longer ignore the existence of PNAC. We must open PNAC and 9/11 to public discourse because all roads may very well lead to or from 9/11.
Full Version: Um 9/11 og PNAC
Velkominn í hóp okkar vantrúuðu, but beware it comes with a price! Þú ert núna obinberlega orðinn bandaríkjahatari, rugludallur, trúir á geimverur, persona non grada ofl ofl.
Þessi grein er reyndar eins og nokkuð góð samantekt á því sem hefur komið fram hér á málefnunum. Það er einfaldlega alltof margt í frásögn stjórnvalda í USA sem heldur ekki vatni, og það hlýtur að koma að því að fjölmiðlar sem ek. máli skipta rakni úr rotinu og fari að spurja alvarlegra spunrninga. Mér dettur í hug nokkrar
1. Hvernig gat staðið á því að hefðbundnum vinnureglum var ekki beitt, þ.e.a.s. af hverju voru ekki sendar herþotur á móti flugvélunum þegar ljóst var að þeim hafði verið rænt?
2. Hvernig stóð á því að öryggisverðir foretans gera engar ráðstafanir til að tryggja öryggi forsetans þegar í ljós er komið að það er verið að ráðast á usa. Vissi einhver að hann yrði ekki í hættu?
3. Af hverju "bilaði" öruggiskerfi Pentagon. Þar eru scudflaugar sem eiga að gera slíkar árásir óhugsandi. Afhverju biluðu allar öryggismyndavélar í kringum pentagon á nákvæmlega sama tíma líka?
4. Hvernig stenur á því að að minnstakosti 3 flugræningjanna eru enn á lífi?
5. Afhverju stóðu stjórnvöld í vegi fyrir obinberri ransókn á atvikunum?
6. Afhverju blanda stjórnvöld í usa vísvitandi og ítrekað saman Alqaida - Írak og 9/11. Þarna á milli er ekkert samband eða hvað?
7. Afhverju neituðu usa að hlusta á Hans Blix og fleiri vopnaeftirlitsmenn og afhverju neituðu þeir honum um tvo mánuði í viðbót í landinu eins og hann fór fram á til að fullvissa sig um að enginn eiturvopn væru í landinu?
8. Afhverju hafa tengsl hryðjuverkamannana við Saudi Arabíu ekki verið könnuð?
9. Afhverju var búið að teikna upp stríð bæði við Afganistan og Írak fyrir 9/11
10. Getur það virkilega gerst að slíkar samhæfðar árásir sem um helst minna á hernaðaraðgerð hafi verið skipulögð og framkvæmd af nýrnabiluðum manni, fjarskiptalausum í helli í Afganistan?
11. Afhverju tilkynnti Bush að Osama skipti ekki lengur máli? Skipti hann kanski frá fyrsta degi ekki máli?
Þetta eru nú bara svona fyrstu spurningarnar sem ég vildi fá svör við en þær eru miklu, miklu fleiri.
Þessi grein er reyndar eins og nokkuð góð samantekt á því sem hefur komið fram hér á málefnunum. Það er einfaldlega alltof margt í frásögn stjórnvalda í USA sem heldur ekki vatni, og það hlýtur að koma að því að fjölmiðlar sem ek. máli skipta rakni úr rotinu og fari að spurja alvarlegra spunrninga. Mér dettur í hug nokkrar
1. Hvernig gat staðið á því að hefðbundnum vinnureglum var ekki beitt, þ.e.a.s. af hverju voru ekki sendar herþotur á móti flugvélunum þegar ljóst var að þeim hafði verið rænt?
2. Hvernig stóð á því að öryggisverðir foretans gera engar ráðstafanir til að tryggja öryggi forsetans þegar í ljós er komið að það er verið að ráðast á usa. Vissi einhver að hann yrði ekki í hættu?
3. Af hverju "bilaði" öruggiskerfi Pentagon. Þar eru scudflaugar sem eiga að gera slíkar árásir óhugsandi. Afhverju biluðu allar öryggismyndavélar í kringum pentagon á nákvæmlega sama tíma líka?
4. Hvernig stenur á því að að minnstakosti 3 flugræningjanna eru enn á lífi?
5. Afhverju stóðu stjórnvöld í vegi fyrir obinberri ransókn á atvikunum?
6. Afhverju blanda stjórnvöld í usa vísvitandi og ítrekað saman Alqaida - Írak og 9/11. Þarna á milli er ekkert samband eða hvað?
7. Afhverju neituðu usa að hlusta á Hans Blix og fleiri vopnaeftirlitsmenn og afhverju neituðu þeir honum um tvo mánuði í viðbót í landinu eins og hann fór fram á til að fullvissa sig um að enginn eiturvopn væru í landinu?
8. Afhverju hafa tengsl hryðjuverkamannana við Saudi Arabíu ekki verið könnuð?
9. Afhverju var búið að teikna upp stríð bæði við Afganistan og Írak fyrir 9/11
10. Getur það virkilega gerst að slíkar samhæfðar árásir sem um helst minna á hernaðaraðgerð hafi verið skipulögð og framkvæmd af nýrnabiluðum manni, fjarskiptalausum í helli í Afganistan?
11. Afhverju tilkynnti Bush að Osama skipti ekki lengur máli? Skipti hann kanski frá fyrsta degi ekki máli?
Þetta eru nú bara svona fyrstu spurningarnar sem ég vildi fá svör við en þær eru miklu, miklu fleiri.
Nei er ekki Blair búinn að læra af Bush Sjáið þið bara!
Búið að stilla þessu svona fínt upp; hið góða á móti hinu illa. Þetta skilja nú allir!
Búið að stilla þessu svona fínt upp; hið góða á móti hinu illa. Þetta skilja nú allir!
Ég er búinn að vera í hópnum lengi.
Ef sértúarsafnaðarmeðlimirnir sem lepja upp allar lygarnar sem uppúr meðlimum
ríkisstjórnar BNA vellur sem heilagann sannleika myndu lesa utanríkisstefnuskjal
repúblikana PNAC þá yrðu ekki mörg rifrildi um þetta hér á málefnin.com.
Megnið af því sem búið er að ske og því sem á eftir að ske stendur þar um þenslu
Bandaríkjanna á nýrri öld.
Það kermur þar skúrt fram að það þurfi "catalysmic event" on the scale of Pearl Harbour,
til þess að geta hrint áætlun sinni í framkvæmd.
Það skeði á sept .11 2001 og í það MINNSTA leyfðu þeir því að ske, en í versta falli stóðu þeir á bakvið framkvæmdina og tóku þátt í henni á beinan hátt.
Ef sértúarsafnaðarmeðlimirnir sem lepja upp allar lygarnar sem uppúr meðlimum
ríkisstjórnar BNA vellur sem heilagann sannleika myndu lesa utanríkisstefnuskjal
repúblikana PNAC þá yrðu ekki mörg rifrildi um þetta hér á málefnin.com.
Megnið af því sem búið er að ske og því sem á eftir að ske stendur þar um þenslu
Bandaríkjanna á nýrri öld.
Það kermur þar skúrt fram að það þurfi "catalysmic event" on the scale of Pearl Harbour,
til þess að geta hrint áætlun sinni í framkvæmd.
Það skeði á sept .11 2001 og í það MINNSTA leyfðu þeir því að ske, en í versta falli stóðu þeir á bakvið framkvæmdina og tóku þátt í henni á beinan hátt.
Þetta eru gríðarlegar ásakanir, hreint gríðarlegar!
Ég neita hreinlega að trúa því að svona hafi þetta gerst. Hvers vegna?
Jú.. sannanirnar yrðu til út um allt, allt of margir hlytu að tengjast málinu þegar upp væri staðið og á endanum myndi það leka út, allt of fyrirsjáanlegt og þar fyrir utan, svo gersamlega siðlaust að engu tali nær.
Nei.. ég segi, nú eru menn að missa sig!
Ef stjórnvöld í USA hafa þurft álíka ástæður til að fara í stríð, þá væri sagan full af slíkum harmleik. USA réðst inn í Víetnam vegna stjórnmálaskoðanna, réðst inn í Íraq fyrir 15 árum, vegna innanríkisdeilna osfv. osfv.
Þau hefðu alveg getað notað hvaða tilli ástæður sem var sem og þau gerðu og hefðu aldrei þurft 9/11 til að fá samþykki! Olían ein og sér, talar fyrir sig.
Ég neita hreinlega að trúa því að svona hafi þetta gerst. Hvers vegna?
Jú.. sannanirnar yrðu til út um allt, allt of margir hlytu að tengjast málinu þegar upp væri staðið og á endanum myndi það leka út, allt of fyrirsjáanlegt og þar fyrir utan, svo gersamlega siðlaust að engu tali nær.
Nei.. ég segi, nú eru menn að missa sig!
Ef stjórnvöld í USA hafa þurft álíka ástæður til að fara í stríð, þá væri sagan full af slíkum harmleik. USA réðst inn í Víetnam vegna stjórnmálaskoðanna, réðst inn í Íraq fyrir 15 árum, vegna innanríkisdeilna osfv. osfv.
Þau hefðu alveg getað notað hvaða tilli ástæður sem var sem og þau gerðu og hefðu aldrei þurft 9/11 til að fá samþykki! Olían ein og sér, talar fyrir sig.
Hefurðu kynnt þér PNAC (project for a new american century) utanríkisstefnu repúblikana.
Ef ekki, þá ættirðu að kynna þér það skjal og hverjir voru "think tanks" þar og skrifuðu undir skjalið.
Ef ekki, þá ættirðu að kynna þér það skjal og hverjir voru "think tanks" þar og skrifuðu undir skjalið.
QUOTE(Grasi @ Jul 16 2005, 13:23)
Hefurðu kynnt þér PNAC (project for a new american century) utanríkisstefnu repúblikana.
Ef ekki, þá ættirðu að kynna þér það skjal og hverjir voru "think tanks" þar og skrifuðu undir skjalið.
[right][snapback]714516[/snapback][/right]
Ef ekki, þá ættirðu að kynna þér það skjal og hverjir voru "think tanks" þar og skrifuðu undir skjalið.
[right][snapback]714516[/snapback][/right]
Hvers vegna uppfræðir þú okkur ekki hér í örfáum orðum, út á hvað PNAC gengur?
það er ekki hægt í örfáum orðum.
Best er ef þú lest þetta sjálfur í stað þess að trúa mér.
Hér er línkur á opinbera PNAC síðu repúblikana
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Hér er gagnrýnin úttekt á PNAC.
http://www.pnac.info/
Það er hreinlega ekki hægt að hafa áreiðanlega skoðun á hver framkvæmdi 9/11
án þess að vera búinn að kynna sér þetta.
Best er ef þú lest þetta sjálfur í stað þess að trúa mér.
Hér er línkur á opinbera PNAC síðu repúblikana
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Hér er gagnrýnin úttekt á PNAC.
http://www.pnac.info/
Það er hreinlega ekki hægt að hafa áreiðanlega skoðun á hver framkvæmdi 9/11
án þess að vera búinn að kynna sér þetta.
QUOTE(Grasi @ Jul 16 2005, 13:33)
það er ekki hægt í örfáum orðum.
Best er ef þú lest þetta sjálfur í stað þess að trúa mér.
Hér er línkur á opinbera PNAC síðu repúblikana
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Hér er gagnrýnin úttekt á PNAC.
http://www.pnac.info/
Það er hreinlega ekki hægt að hafa áreiðanlega skoðun á hver framkvæmdi 9/11
án þess að vera búinn að kynna sér þetta.
[right][snapback]714526[/snapback][/right]
Best er ef þú lest þetta sjálfur í stað þess að trúa mér.
Hér er línkur á opinbera PNAC síðu repúblikana
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Hér er gagnrýnin úttekt á PNAC.
http://www.pnac.info/
Það er hreinlega ekki hægt að hafa áreiðanlega skoðun á hver framkvæmdi 9/11
án þess að vera búinn að kynna sér þetta.
[right][snapback]714526[/snapback][/right]
Hmmmm... yrði í allan dag að kynna mér þetta.
Eitt hnaut ég þó strax um. Segjum að stjórnvöld "reikni með" gríðar jarðskjálfta og hafi búið til neyðarúræði sem hefur ýmislegt í för með sér fyrir almenning, síðan fyrir rest, kemur gríðar jarðskjálfti, var það þá að þeirra undirlagi?
Nei.. vissulega eru þessir menn í tindátaleik, með gríðarlegan fjölda af nýútskrifuðum doktorum í hinu og þessu sem í raun hafa ekkert að gera, nema semja skýrslur! Og ég er viss um að það eru til skýrslur, um nánast hvað sem er!
Þess vegna, hvernig bregðast skuli við innrás frá "outer space", hvernig eyða skuli halastjörnu, hvernig bregðast skuli við einhverri óskilgreindri sjúklegri smitandi geðveiki osfv. osfv. osfv.
Og svo sannanlega eru hryðjuverk miklu nær raunveruleikanum okkar, en þau atriði sem ég hef talið upp hér að framan, miklu nær og miklu fleiri fá peninga fyrir að velta sér upp í því, hvað ber að gera þegar og ef eitthvað gerðist sem mundi kalla á yellow or red alert!
Og þér að segja, þá er mér ljóst, sérstaklega eftir kaldastríðið, að snúið yrði að næsta óvini. Óvini sem er búinn að vera til lengi og er með allt aðra hugmyndafræði en vesturlönd, neita efnishyggjunni, græðgini og sýndarmennskunni. Ekki bara það, heldur hafa þeir þurft að þola kúgun og þjóðnýtingu á auðlindum þeirra, gagngert til að viðhalda því sem þeir svo aftur fyrirlíta!
Þetta er að sjálfsögðu ógn og ekkert skrítið þótt fjöldi deilda sé látinn semja skýrslur og plön um, hvernig skuli bregðast við í framtíðinni, þegar "óvinurinn" hefur eflst að þekkingu og tæknibúnaði!
Feu
Líkurnar fyrir því að usa hafi staðið fyrir árásunum eru hverfandi. Líkurnar fyrir því að þeir hafi vitað að þær stæði til en ekkert aðhafst í málinu, aðstoðað með því að kippa venjubundnu skipulagu úr sambandi, reynt að dylja það með öllum tiltækum ráðum að um árás með hernaðarlegu skipulagi sem stýrt var af og frá Saudi Arabíu (vinum Bush-júntunar) eru himinhrópandi og það er rangt hjá þér ef þú telur að einungis nokkrir hálfsturlaðir málverjar haldi þessu fram. Það hafa fyrrverandi sendiherrar usa gert, lærðir fræðimenn, the Guardian ofl. Dettur þér virkilega í hug að hægt sé að ráðast á Pentagon með þessum hætti? Að ekki þurfi nema eina/tvær farþegaflugvélar til að lama sjálft Pentagon? Þeir væru þá ekki burðugir í stríð. Bara það eitt að senda herþotur ekki á móti þessum flugvélum sem flugu á WTC geta allir flugmenn icelandair sagt þér að er undir venjulegum kringumstæðum algerlega óhugsandi.
Treystir þú þér til að svara einhverjum af þessum ellefu spurningum sem ég spurði hér áðan?
Líkurnar fyrir því að usa hafi staðið fyrir árásunum eru hverfandi. Líkurnar fyrir því að þeir hafi vitað að þær stæði til en ekkert aðhafst í málinu, aðstoðað með því að kippa venjubundnu skipulagu úr sambandi, reynt að dylja það með öllum tiltækum ráðum að um árás með hernaðarlegu skipulagi sem stýrt var af og frá Saudi Arabíu (vinum Bush-júntunar) eru himinhrópandi og það er rangt hjá þér ef þú telur að einungis nokkrir hálfsturlaðir málverjar haldi þessu fram. Það hafa fyrrverandi sendiherrar usa gert, lærðir fræðimenn, the Guardian ofl. Dettur þér virkilega í hug að hægt sé að ráðast á Pentagon með þessum hætti? Að ekki þurfi nema eina/tvær farþegaflugvélar til að lama sjálft Pentagon? Þeir væru þá ekki burðugir í stríð. Bara það eitt að senda herþotur ekki á móti þessum flugvélum sem flugu á WTC geta allir flugmenn icelandair sagt þér að er undir venjulegum kringumstæðum algerlega óhugsandi.
Treystir þú þér til að svara einhverjum af þessum ellefu spurningum sem ég spurði hér áðan?
QUOTE(doddi @ Jul 16 2005, 14:07)
Feu
Líkurnar fyrir því að usa hafi staðið fyrir árásunum eru hverfandi. Líkurnar fyrir því að þeir hafi vitað að þær stæði til en ekkert aðhafst í málinu, aðstoðað með því að kippa venjubundnu skipulagu úr sambandi, reynt að dylja það með öllum tiltækum ráðum að um árás með hernaðarlegu skipulagi sem stýrt var af og frá Saudi Arabíu (vinum Bush-júntunar) eru himinhrópandi og það er rangt hjá þér ef þú telur að einungis nokkrir hálfsturlaðir málverjar haldi þessu fram. Það hafa fyrrverandi sendiherrar usa gert, lærðir fræðimenn, the Guardian ofl. Dettur þér virkilega í hug að hægt sé að ráðast á Pentagon með þessum hætti? Að ekki þurfi nema eina/tvær farþegaflugvélar til að lama sjálft Pentagon? Þeir væru þá ekki burðugir í stríð. Bara það eitt að senda herþotur ekki á móti þessum flugvélum sem flugu á WTC geta allir flugmenn icelandair sagt þér að er undir venjulegum kringumstæðum algerlega óhugsandi.
Treystir þú þér til að svara einhverjum af þessum ellefu spurningum sem ég spurði hér áðan?
[right][snapback]714555[/snapback][/right]
Líkurnar fyrir því að usa hafi staðið fyrir árásunum eru hverfandi. Líkurnar fyrir því að þeir hafi vitað að þær stæði til en ekkert aðhafst í málinu, aðstoðað með því að kippa venjubundnu skipulagu úr sambandi, reynt að dylja það með öllum tiltækum ráðum að um árás með hernaðarlegu skipulagi sem stýrt var af og frá Saudi Arabíu (vinum Bush-júntunar) eru himinhrópandi og það er rangt hjá þér ef þú telur að einungis nokkrir hálfsturlaðir málverjar haldi þessu fram. Það hafa fyrrverandi sendiherrar usa gert, lærðir fræðimenn, the Guardian ofl. Dettur þér virkilega í hug að hægt sé að ráðast á Pentagon með þessum hætti? Að ekki þurfi nema eina/tvær farþegaflugvélar til að lama sjálft Pentagon? Þeir væru þá ekki burðugir í stríð. Bara það eitt að senda herþotur ekki á móti þessum flugvélum sem flugu á WTC geta allir flugmenn icelandair sagt þér að er undir venjulegum kringumstæðum algerlega óhugsandi.
Treystir þú þér til að svara einhverjum af þessum ellefu spurningum sem ég spurði hér áðan?
[right][snapback]714555[/snapback][/right]
Ég tel það næstum óhugsandi fyrir okkur hér á klakanum, fjarri atburðum og raunverulegum upplýsingum að segja af eða á.
Það hvað brást, hversu mikið og hvers vegna, segir mér aðeins eitt. Ef þetta var planað, þá er ljóst að gríðar fjölda hefur þurft til að taka þátt í "samsærinu"
Slíkur fjöldi þýðir í raun aðeins eitt, leki fyrr eða síðar!
Þangað til, vill ég að menn njóti vafans, því ef við gerum það ekki, þá er ljóst að við erum að stimpla þessa menn sem ennþá meiri hryðjuverkamenn en sjálfa hryðjuverkamennina sem jú... hafa "heilagar" forsendur fyrir sínu stríði!
geisp.
Málið er bara þarna kallinn að það eru ekki bara framtíðarspár, heldur kort yfir hvernig þeir ætla að framkvæma sínar áætlanir.
Þar kemur skýrt fram að þeim vanti "óvin" og að vanti að hryllileg árás yrði gerð á BNA á stærð við Pearl Harbour til þess að geta hrint áformum sínum í framkvæmd, vegna
þess að bandaríkjamenn voru meira og minna búnir að fá sig fullsadda af stríðsrekstri.
Hvað hafa þessir menn að fela sem þolir ekki gagnrýna rannsókn.
Afhverju hafa þessir menn notað alla sína aðstöðu við að kaffæra gagnrýnisraddir og þær fáu rannsóknir sem ekkert hafa verið annað en augljós hvítþvottur.
En þú mátt svosem vaða áfram í villu og svima hinnar holóttu opinberu skýringar, fyrir mér.
Þar kemur skýrt fram að þeim vanti "óvin" og að vanti að hryllileg árás yrði gerð á BNA á stærð við Pearl Harbour til þess að geta hrint áformum sínum í framkvæmd, vegna
þess að bandaríkjamenn voru meira og minna búnir að fá sig fullsadda af stríðsrekstri.
Hvað hafa þessir menn að fela sem þolir ekki gagnrýna rannsókn.
Afhverju hafa þessir menn notað alla sína aðstöðu við að kaffæra gagnrýnisraddir og þær fáu rannsóknir sem ekkert hafa verið annað en augljós hvítþvottur.
En þú mátt svosem vaða áfram í villu og svima hinnar holóttu opinberu skýringar, fyrir mér.
QUOTE(Grasi @ Jul 16 2005, 14:50)
Málið er bara þarna kallinn að það eru ekki bara framtíðarspár, heldur kort yfir hvernig þeir ætla að framkvæma sínar áætlanir.
Þar kemur skýrt fram að þeim vanti "óvin" og að vanti að hryllileg árás yrði gerð á BNA á stærð við Pearl Harbour til þess að geta hrint áformum sínum í framkvæmd, vegna
þess að bandaríkjamenn voru meira og minna búnir að fá sig fullsadda af stríðsrekstri.
Hvað hafa þessir menn að fela sem þolir ekki gagnrýna rannsókn.
Afhverju hafa þessir menn notað alla sína aðstöðu við að kaffæra gagnrýnisraddir og þær fáu rannsóknir sem ekkert hafa verið annað en augljós hvítþvottur.
En þú mátt svosem vaða áfram í villu og svima hinnar holóttu opinberu skýringar, fyrir mér.
[right][snapback]714579[/snapback][/right]
Þar kemur skýrt fram að þeim vanti "óvin" og að vanti að hryllileg árás yrði gerð á BNA á stærð við Pearl Harbour til þess að geta hrint áformum sínum í framkvæmd, vegna
þess að bandaríkjamenn voru meira og minna búnir að fá sig fullsadda af stríðsrekstri.
Hvað hafa þessir menn að fela sem þolir ekki gagnrýna rannsókn.
Afhverju hafa þessir menn notað alla sína aðstöðu við að kaffæra gagnrýnisraddir og þær fáu rannsóknir sem ekkert hafa verið annað en augljós hvítþvottur.
En þú mátt svosem vaða áfram í villu og svima hinnar holóttu opinberu skýringar, fyrir mér.
[right][snapback]714579[/snapback][/right]
Og dettur þér virkilega í hug, á tímum internets og fjölmiðla, hmmm.. "all deepthroats" að þetta muni ekki komast upp, ef satt er?
QUOTE(feu @ Jul 16 2005, 14:54)
QUOTE(Grasi @ Jul 16 2005, 14:50)
Málið er bara þarna kallinn að það eru ekki bara framtíðarspár, heldur kort yfir hvernig þeir ætla að framkvæma sínar áætlanir.
Þar kemur skýrt fram að þeim vanti "óvin" og að vanti að hryllileg árás yrði gerð á BNA á stærð við Pearl Harbour til þess að geta hrint áformum sínum í framkvæmd, vegna
þess að bandaríkjamenn voru meira og minna búnir að fá sig fullsadda af stríðsrekstri.
Hvað hafa þessir menn að fela sem þolir ekki gagnrýna rannsókn.
Afhverju hafa þessir menn notað alla sína aðstöðu við að kaffæra gagnrýnisraddir og þær fáu rannsóknir sem ekkert hafa verið annað en augljós hvítþvottur.
En þú mátt svosem vaða áfram í villu og svima hinnar holóttu opinberu skýringar, fyrir mér.
[right][snapback]714579[/snapback][/right]
Þar kemur skýrt fram að þeim vanti "óvin" og að vanti að hryllileg árás yrði gerð á BNA á stærð við Pearl Harbour til þess að geta hrint áformum sínum í framkvæmd, vegna
þess að bandaríkjamenn voru meira og minna búnir að fá sig fullsadda af stríðsrekstri.
Hvað hafa þessir menn að fela sem þolir ekki gagnrýna rannsókn.
Afhverju hafa þessir menn notað alla sína aðstöðu við að kaffæra gagnrýnisraddir og þær fáu rannsóknir sem ekkert hafa verið annað en augljós hvítþvottur.
En þú mátt svosem vaða áfram í villu og svima hinnar holóttu opinberu skýringar, fyrir mér.
[right][snapback]714579[/snapback][/right]
Og dettur þér virkilega í hug, á tímum internets og fjölmiðla, hmmm.. "all deepthroats" að þetta muni ekki komast upp, ef satt er?
[right][snapback]714586[/snapback][/right]
Það fer eftir því hversu sterkt tak þeir hafa á fjölmiðlunum og hversu langt þetta nær.
Ég vona það allavega en er alls ekkert viss, hvort að þeir eigi eftir að vera dregnir
fyrir dómstóla vegna þessa eður ei.
Eins og er hafa þeir allt í heljargreipum sínum og gera allt sem þeir geta til þess að taka frelsi frá fólki í nafni hryðjuverka sem þeirra eigin stefna er búin að skapa.
Hefurðu kynnt þér það að búið var að ákveða að ráðast á Afghanistan sumarið 2000 vegna gasleiðslna frá Kaspíahafinu sem Talibanarnir höfnuðu eftir samningaviðræður við Unocal.
Unocal skilaði inn skýrslu til öldungadeildarinnar nokkrum árum seinna um að þessi leiðsla væri ómöguleg framkvæmd meðan Talibanar væru við völd.
Eina leiðin væri "regime change"
Hentug "ástæða" til að ráðast á þá kom bara svona upp í hendurnar á þeim vegna einhverra vondra "Sauda" sem eiga að hafa ráðist á bandaríkin með farþegaflugvélum og foringi þeirra í helli í Afghanistan.
FBI hefur ekki enn komið með skýringu á því hvernig 7 af þessum snilldarflugmönnum fóru að því að lifa þetta af og það sem meira er, koma sér frá Bandaríkjunum til síns heimalands.
sæll feu, alltaf gaman þegar einhver þorir að ræða málin án þess að afskrifa þau strax. Þeir sem eitthvað hafa fylgst með sjá að sama hvaða upplýsingar eru aðgengilegar þá mun meirirhlutinn afskrifa þær án nokkurrar frekari íhugunar. Getur varla verið önnur skýring á því að cheney og félagar gerðust eins hreinskilnir og þeir voru á bls. 51 í skjalinu Rebuilding Americas Defenses (gefið út ári á undan 11. sept) þegar þeir skrifa
en sú að fólk einfaldlega nennir ekki að lesa. Þeir viðurkenna motive á prenti!!
Þú veltir fyrir þér nokkrum atriðum, með þeim mikilvægustu að mínu mati, varðandi þennan glæp.
Fólk fer oft í afneitun á þessum möguleika, nennir ekki að lesa og afskrifar allt, það er gaman að heyra í einhverjum sem spyr alvöru spurninga án þess að smíða strámanninn "bandaríkjahatari"
kv geek
QUOTE
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.
en sú að fólk einfaldlega nennir ekki að lesa. Þeir viðurkenna motive á prenti!!
Þú veltir fyrir þér nokkrum atriðum, með þeim mikilvægustu að mínu mati, varðandi þennan glæp.
- Hvers vegna? - Eins og stendur í greininni (ertu með link Grasi?) skrifar þá voru hópar í BNA búnir að tala lengi um mikilvægi þess að ná völdum yfir auðlindir mið austurlanda, til að varðveita og auka á yfirburðastöðu BNA eftir hrun sovétsins. Hér er ekki bara um að ræða valdgræðgi heldur einnig örvæntingu, BNA hafa flutt inn sífellt meir af olíu í c.a. 30 ár og framleiðsla að flytja úr landi, heimsveldi hafa oft fæðst vegna auðlindaþurftar. Það er ekki orðum ofaukið að segja að stefna PNAC séu heimsyfirráð, eða eins og þeir kalla það í stefnulýsingu sinni: "American global leadership". lykilorðin til að skilja ástæðuna eru: olía, binding olíu við dollars (ekki minna mikilvægt fyrir BNA en olían sjálf) lögregluríki og heimsveldi.
- Væri þetta ekki of umfangsmikið til að það væri hægt að komast upp með það? Einhver myndi á endanum kjafta frá
Í fyrsta lagi þá er ekki sjálfgefið að mikinn fjölda fólks þurfi til að taka þátt í svona, t.d. var árásin vel tímasett upp á það að á sama tíma voru heræfingar þar sem æfð voru viðbrögð við flugránum (þingkonan cynthia mckinney fékk í mars síðastliðun tækifæri til að spyrja donald rumsfeld og myers úti þetta, áhugaverð svör sem hún fékk, að æfingarnar hefðu átt að auka viðbrögð hersins!! er her BNA gersamlega getulaus? eða féll hann fyrir blekkingum? sjá vídjóið hér
(erlent, spólaðu fram á 6 mínútu til að sjá 11. sept spurninguna (fyrst spyr hún um aðra hluti sem í sjálfu sér eru líka áhugaverðir))).
Í öðru lagi þá hefur slatti af innherjum þegar kjaftað frá, vandinn er að mainstream fjölmiðlar hafa ekki haft þor til að upplýsa fólk nægjanlega (sennilega af ótta við að vera kallaðir bandaríkjahatarar, hver ætli áhrif á áhorf myndu vera?) minntist á þetta áður sjá nánar á þessum þræði - Of vont til að vera satt Gersamlega siðlaust segiru, vissulega held að engi dragi það í efa. Er þessi árás eitthvað minni siðlaus ef 19 saudi arabar gerðu þetta? Við getum verið sammálu um illsku þessa hóps en ekki rugla því saman hversu mikil illskan er og hversu nálæg hún er okku.
- Og dettur þér virkilega í hug, á tímum internets og fjölmiðla, hmmm.. "all deepthroats" að þetta muni ekki komast upp, ef satt er? Fleiri og fleiri eru að átta sig á því hve mikil vitleysa kemur frá yfirvöldum varðandi 11. sept. T.d. þá hafa yfirvöld enn ekki breyt listanum yfir flugræningjana þó sumir þeirra séu enn á lífi, ansi er ég hræddur um að Waleed Al Shehri sé spældur yfir því að vera enn á lista FBI yfir flugræningjana þó hann sé, að eigin sögn a.m.k, ekki dauður (bbc)
Engin þörf heldur á að uppfæra listan þar sem fjölmiðlar eru löngu búnir að gefast upp á því að kryfja málið til mergjar, ætli bbc hafi fengið hate-mail eftir þessa frétt?
Þótt ekki hafa verið gerðar margar kannanir á því hversu margir eru farnir að sjá í gegnum vitleysuna þá var gerð ein könnun í ágúst í fyrra af Zogby Internationl þar sem kom í ljós að c.a. helmingur í íbúa new york borgar telur yfirvöld samsek með því að leyfa árásunum að gerast (hér) og umræðu um þetta má frá því fyrir áramót finna hér
11. sept er að mínu mati örvæntingarfullt ráð ákveðins valdahóps í BNA við óhjákvæmilegri hnignun heimsveldisis og ef vakning fólks um þessa hluti er í anda niðustaðna þessarar könnunar þá verða þeir enn örvæntingafyllri, við getum átt von á árás sem er þannig að öll umræða um 11. sept gleymist.
Fólk fer oft í afneitun á þessum möguleika, nennir ekki að lesa og afskrifar allt, það er gaman að heyra í einhverjum sem spyr alvöru spurninga án þess að smíða strámanninn "bandaríkjahatari"
kv geek
Vissulega kveikna grunsemdir um að óhreint mjöl sé í pokahorninu hjá mér og fleirum, oft þurft minna til!
Kannski er þessi uppákoma fyrsta alvöru einkennið um hnignun USA, örvæntinguna sem kraumar djúpt niðri, m.a. vegna gríðar mannauðs sem er kominn í startholurnar þarna fyrir austan. Auðlindir eru í raun stærstu og mestu verðmætin.
En alvara glæpsins eins og honum er lýst, að menn hafi vitað hvað stóð til með tilheyrandi augljósu manntjóni er slíku að jafna, hvað þá að jafna stöðu hryðjuverkamanna sem trúa á heilagt stríð við svellkalda og yfirvegaða morðárás eigin stjórnvalda á eigin þjóð er slíkur hroða gerningur, að mér mun seint hugnast hann, verð nú bara að segja það!
Ef það er niðurstaðan, þá er ljóst að heimurinn er í miklu, miklu mun verri málum en svartsýnustu menn þorðu að vona. Sé þá í raun aðeins fram á enn eina heimstyrjöldina sem hreinsar svo til og færir völdin, þangað sem þau í raun eiga heima!
Kannski er þessi uppákoma fyrsta alvöru einkennið um hnignun USA, örvæntinguna sem kraumar djúpt niðri, m.a. vegna gríðar mannauðs sem er kominn í startholurnar þarna fyrir austan. Auðlindir eru í raun stærstu og mestu verðmætin.
En alvara glæpsins eins og honum er lýst, að menn hafi vitað hvað stóð til með tilheyrandi augljósu manntjóni er slíku að jafna, hvað þá að jafna stöðu hryðjuverkamanna sem trúa á heilagt stríð við svellkalda og yfirvegaða morðárás eigin stjórnvalda á eigin þjóð er slíkur hroða gerningur, að mér mun seint hugnast hann, verð nú bara að segja það!
Ef það er niðurstaðan, þá er ljóst að heimurinn er í miklu, miklu mun verri málum en svartsýnustu menn þorðu að vona. Sé þá í raun aðeins fram á enn eina heimstyrjöldina sem hreinsar svo til og færir völdin, þangað sem þau í raun eiga heima!
QUOTE(feu @ Jul 16 2005, 16:35)
...
Ef það er niðurstaðan, þá er ljóst að heimurinn er í miklu, miklu mun verri málum en svartsýnustu menn þorðu að vona. Sé þá í raun aðeins fram á enn eina heimstyrjöldina sem hreinsar svo til og færir völdin, þangað sem þau í raun eiga heima!
[right][snapback]714680[/snapback][/right]
Ef það er niðurstaðan, þá er ljóst að heimurinn er í miklu, miklu mun verri málum en svartsýnustu menn þorðu að vona. Sé þá í raun aðeins fram á enn eina heimstyrjöldina sem hreinsar svo til og færir völdin, þangað sem þau í raun eiga heima!
[right][snapback]714680[/snapback][/right]
(feitletrun mín)
Hræddur um að þangað stefni þetta.
Ég hef séð nokkrar fréttir (t.d á guardian og hér) sem gefa vísbendingu um að rússar og kínverjar séu að mynda með sér bandalag gegn heimsvaldaútþenslu BNA og sérstaklega veru þeirra í mið-austurlöndum. Slík bandalagspólitík er oft fyrirboði stórra átaka, ef ég man söguna rétt.
Þetta er mikil framför, Doddi lýsir því yfir áður en hann byrjar að bulla að hann sé bullari. Þetta er dáldið eins og á öskudaginn í gamla daga þegar við krakkarnir reyndum að hengja spjöld á fólk niðir í bæ með "sparka hér".
Segjum svo ekki að ég hafi ekki haft áhrif, hér er fólk í stórum stíl að skoða sinn eiginn nafla og finna sannleikann, Doddi hefur fundið sinn (sannleikann, ekki naflan) um sig, að hann er helvítis Bandaríkjahatari.
Doddi, ekki gefast upp, ekki þér að kenna, búið að fylla þig af þessu í áratugi, fyrsta lækningin auðvitað að sjá það.
Doddi minn, þú ert þegar farinn að læknast, með hverjum deginum munt þú sjá heiminn í skýrari ljósi.
En Doddi sagði:
Velkominn í hóp okkar vantrúuðu, but beware it comes with a price! Þú ert núna obinberlega orðinn bandaríkjahatari, rugludallur, trúir á geimverur, persona non grada ofl ofl.
Segjum svo ekki að ég hafi ekki haft áhrif, hér er fólk í stórum stíl að skoða sinn eiginn nafla og finna sannleikann, Doddi hefur fundið sinn (sannleikann, ekki naflan) um sig, að hann er helvítis Bandaríkjahatari.
Doddi, ekki gefast upp, ekki þér að kenna, búið að fylla þig af þessu í áratugi, fyrsta lækningin auðvitað að sjá það.
Doddi minn, þú ert þegar farinn að læknast, með hverjum deginum munt þú sjá heiminn í skýrari ljósi.
En Doddi sagði:
Velkominn í hóp okkar vantrúuðu, but beware it comes with a price! Þú ert núna obinberlega orðinn bandaríkjahatari, rugludallur, trúir á geimverur, persona non grada ofl ofl.
QUOTE(Ingimundur Kjarval @ Jul 16 2005, 17:24)
Þetta er mikil framför, Doddi lýsir því yfir áður en hann byrjar að bulla að hann sé bullari. Þetta er dáldið eins og á öskudaginn í gamla daga þegar við krakkarnir reyndum að hengja spjöld á fólk niðir í bæ með "sparka hér".
Segjum svo ekki að ég hafi ekki haft áhrif, hér er fólk í stórum stíl að skoða sinn eiginn nafla og finna sannleikann, Doddi hefur fundið sinn (sannleikann, ekki naflan) um sig, að hann er helvítis Bandaríkjahatari.
Doddi, ekki gefast upp, ekki þér að kenna, búið að fylla þig af þessu í áratugi, fyrsta lækningin auðvitað að sjá það.
Doddi minn, þú ert þegar farinn að læknast, með hverjum deginum munt þú sjá heiminn í skýrari ljósi.
En Doddi sagði:
Velkominn í hóp okkar vantrúuðu, but beware it comes with a price! Þú ert núna obinberlega orðinn bandaríkjahatari, rugludallur, trúir á geimverur, persona non grada ofl ofl.
[right][snapback]714740[/snapback][/right]
Segjum svo ekki að ég hafi ekki haft áhrif, hér er fólk í stórum stíl að skoða sinn eiginn nafla og finna sannleikann, Doddi hefur fundið sinn (sannleikann, ekki naflan) um sig, að hann er helvítis Bandaríkjahatari.
Doddi, ekki gefast upp, ekki þér að kenna, búið að fylla þig af þessu í áratugi, fyrsta lækningin auðvitað að sjá það.
Doddi minn, þú ert þegar farinn að læknast, með hverjum deginum munt þú sjá heiminn í skýrari ljósi.
En Doddi sagði:
Velkominn í hóp okkar vantrúuðu, but beware it comes with a price! Þú ert núna obinberlega orðinn bandaríkjahatari, rugludallur, trúir á geimverur, persona non grada ofl ofl.
[right][snapback]714740[/snapback][/right]
07/16/05 BBC: At least 58 people have been killed in a suicide bomb attack in the town of Musayyib, some 60 km (40 miles) south of Baghdad.
07/16/05 MacombDaily: Concert to benefit wounded soldier
On June 17, John Chrzanowski's Humvee was hit by a remote controlled bomb, rendering the entire vehicle one large fireball. He was burned over 80 percent of his body.
07/16/05 Media General: Marine on the mend
Josh Cooley is recovering from wounds he suffered last week when an amphibious assault vehicle was blown up while he was inside. There is still shrapnel embedded in Josh's brain and he sleeps in a medically-induced coma.
07/16/05 M&C: Iraq foils assassination attempt
An independent Iraqi newspaper Saturday said Iraq`s Interior Minister Bayan Soulagh escaped an assassination attempt. The attacker, dressed in an Iraqi police uniform, had sneaked into the Convention Center, located in the high security Green Zone.
07/16/05 Reuters: Two Policemen Killed Near Hilla
Gunmen killed two policemen and wounded three on the highway between Hilla and Mahaweel, south of Baghdad, a police source said.
07/16/05 AFP: Bombers hit Iraqi Shia mosque
At least eight Iraqis have been killed after two bombers blew themselves up inside a mosque near al-Hilla city, south of Baghdad, while afternoon prayers were under way.
07/16/05 AFP: Truck Driver Killed from IED Near Dhuluiyah
A rebel was killed in clashes with US forces in Balad, while a foreign truck driver, whose nationality was not specified, was killed when a US-protected convoy in which he was travelling hit a roadside bomb close to the nearby town of Dhuluiyah.
07/16/05 AFP: Former Major General Killed While in Custody
A former Major general, Akram Ahmed Rasul al-Bayati, in Saddam Hussein’s army and his son were shot dead in Baghdad after being detained by police commandos, raising new question marks over the discipline of the elite force.
07/16/05 AFP: Iraqi Judge Shot Dead
In the normally quiet southern city of Nasiriyah, judge Nurredin Ahmed, a Kurd from the northern oil centre of Kirkuk, was shot dead at his home on Friday evening, police said.
07/16/05 AFP: Second Baghdad Blast Kills One
A second Baghdad suicide bomber blew up a car in an attack targeting a passing US military convoy. One civilian was killed, the interior ministry said. There was no immediate word on any US casualties.
07/16/05 CENTCOM: TFL SOLDIERS ENGAGE TERRORISTS, CIVILIAN KILLED IN CROSSFIRE
An Iraqi civilian was killed by crossfire between terrorists and Coalition Forces in Samarra about 12:00 p.m. July 15. The vehicle the civilian was in passed between the terrorists and TFL Soldiers, who were responding to a RPG and small-arms attack.
07/16/05 AP: Police arrest would-be suicide bomber In Baghdad
Police arrested a would-be suicide bomber Saturday before he could detonate an explosive belt among a crowd of people mourning those who died in a suicide attack that killed 27 people, mostly children, this week, an official said.
07/16/05 KUNA: Six Iraqis wounded in southern Baghdad
Six Iraqis were wounded in Jibla town in Babylon, south of here on Saturday, when policemen surrounded and killed a suicide bomber wearing an explosive belt.
07/16/05 AFP: 8 dead in new Iraq suicide bombings
In Mosul, a bomber walked into a police station and detonated his charge, killing four policemen. In Baghdad's district of Dura, a second bomber attacked police commandos with a vehicle packed with explosives. One commando and three civilians were killed
07/16/05 The Daily Item: Valley Marine wounded by land mine
Marine Lance Cpl. Todd Bucher, of Northumberland, was injured by a land mine blast in Iraq on Sunday, his father said Friday. He suffered 18 or 19 shrapnel wounds, and include nerve damage that limits his ability to use one of his hands.
07/16/05 AP: 11 American soldiers charged with abuse
The U.S. command on Saturday announced charges against 11 U.S. soldiers for assaulting detainees but provided few details of what happened other than to say the soldiers served in the Baghdad area but are now off duty pending the investigation.
07/16/05 AP: Nebraska National Guard member killed in Iraq
Staff Sgt. Tricia L. Jameson, 34, of Omaha was killed near Trebil, Iraq, when a roadside bomb exploded near her ambulance, the guard said. Another Nebraska National Guard medic who was driving the ambulance was injured and evacuated to Germany.
07/16/05 MOD: Death of British soldiers in Iraq
It is with deep regret that the Ministry of Defence can confirm that three soldiers from Task Force Maysan have died from injuries sustained in hostile action in the early hours of Saturday morning, 16 July 2005, in Al-Amara, Maysan province, Iraq.
07/15/05 AFP: At least 28 die in 12 suicide bombings in Iraq
At least 28 people died and more than 100 were wounded, including seven US soldiers, as 12 suicide bombers blew themselves up in separate attacks in Baghdad and northern Iraq, Iraqi and US forces said.
07/15/05 WKRG: Local Marine Killed In Iraq
Gayle Williams says her son was the kind of guy you would never forget. But Lance Corporal Christopher Winchester was killed in Iraq just a few days later by a roadside bomb.
07/15/05 MCB: Wounded OIF vet gets new lease on leadership
Col. Larry D. Nicholson is taking his second stab at leading a regiment, even though his first stint lasted less than a day -- and almost killed him. on Sept. 14, 2004, when Iraqi insurgents blasted his command post with a 122 mm rocket.
07/15/05 Ridgway Record: Local airman injured in Iraq now at Walter Reed
Technical Sgt. Jamie Himes Dana, 26, a native of Hazel Hurst, suffered serious injuries when an explosive device went off as her armored vehicle was traveling on a road near Baghdad. Three others were injured in the explosion.
07/15/05 Gannett: Contractor killed working in Iraq
Benjamin K. "Ben" Hodges, 52, of Niceville died July 6 while working as an unexploded ordinance quality control specialist with USA Environmental Inc.
07/15/05 Reuters: Security incidents in Iraq, July 15
A U.S tank was hit in New Baghdad district to the east of the capital, an Interior ministry source said. Also, a U.S patrol was hit by a car bomb near Amana garage in eastern Baghdad.
07/15/05 Reuters: Two Police Killed Near Baquba
Two Iraqi policemen were killed and a third was critically injured when anonymous gunmen attacked their checkpoint south of Baquba in the town of Buhriz, a police source said.
07/15/05 arabicnews: Suspected killer of Egyptian ambassador arrested
The US army in Iraq announced the detention of one persons suspected to be involved in kidnapping and killing of the head of the Egyptian diplomatic mission in Baghdad Eyhab al-Sharif.
07/15/05 news-sentinel: City man among hurt in Baghdad
20-year-old Army Pfc. Andrew Arnett, a member of the 3rd Infantry Division and a Humvee driver, suffered a broken leg and expected to be taken to Germany for medical treatment.
07/15/05 wftv: Marine Accused Of Staging Shooting To Avoid Return To Iraq
A young Marine is accused of staging his own shooting so he wouldn't have to go back to Iraq. Moises Hernandez, 19, faces a felony charge of filing a false police report. Authorities say he persuaded his cousin to shoot him in the leg...
07/15/05 AP: Three of Iraqi president's guards killed
A suicide car bomb exploded Friday on a bridge overlooking the home of President Jalal Talabani, killing three of his guards, a spokesman for Iraq's largest Shiite Muslim group said.
07/15/05 KUNA: Unknown gunmen clash with US patrols north of Baghdad
Unknown gunmen attacked two US military patrols in Samara city, north of Baghdad, an official of the Multi-National Forces (MNF) said here on Friday
07/15/05 AFP: Three Iraqis Killed in Latifiyah
Three people were killed and three wounded when gunmen opened fire on their car in Latifiyah, in the so-called Triangle of Death south of Baghdad, police added.
07/15/05 AFP: Four Civilians Wounded in Baiji
In the key refinery town of Baiji, four civilians were wounded when their car hit a roadside bomb, police said.
07/15/05 CNN: Other developments in Iraq
Two Iraqi civilians were killed in separate incidents Thursday. One died in an insurgent mortar attack near a military checkpoint in Tal Afar. Another Iraqi civilian was killed after failing to slow his car as he approached a patrol in Mosul.
07/15/05 Bloomberg: Suicide Bombings Kill 15 Civilians, 5 Iraqi Soldiers (update)
At least 20 people were killed, including five Iraqi soldiers, when suicide car bombers detonated explosives in Baghdad today, the U.S. military said. A total of 17 civilians and six Iraqi soldiers were wounded.
07/15/05 Reuters: Five blasts reported in Baghdad suicide bomb spate
Five suicide car bombs blew up in different locations across Baghdad within hours of each other, including two attacks on Iraqi military patrols that police sources said killed six people and wounded more than 20.
07/15/05 IBS: Local Soldier Wounded In Iraq Dies
Timothy Hines, 21, lost his leg on Father's Day when his convoy hit a land mine. Hines was a gunner on the back of a tank. He died Thursday after emergency surgery at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.
Hér er nefnilega ljóti ormurinn í epli okkar framtíðar.
Við vitum að ekkert er að marka ruslið í Washington,
þe. aðrir en þessir venjulegu vanvitar gera sér grein
fyrir því. Líkurnar á að eitthvað sé að marka útgáfu
þessa lygasjúka rusls á atburðunum 11. sept. eru því
engar. Eins og svo oft áður tek ég fram að hér er um
ofurflókið konsept að ræða sem ekki er á allra færi
að skilja, sérstaklega ef þeir eru ofurtrúgjarnir.
þe. aðrir en þessir venjulegu vanvitar gera sér grein
fyrir því. Líkurnar á að eitthvað sé að marka útgáfu
þessa lygasjúka rusls á atburðunum 11. sept. eru því
engar. Eins og svo oft áður tek ég fram að hér er um
ofurflókið konsept að ræða sem ekki er á allra færi
að skilja, sérstaklega ef þeir eru ofurtrúgjarnir.
Annars sýndi skoðanakönnun í New York í fyrra
að tveir þriðju borgarbúa töldu nauðsynlegt að fá
almennilega rannsókn á atburðunum 11. sept. og
helmingur taldi stjórnvöldin hafa verið meira eða minna
með puttana í þeim eða látið árásirnar hreinlega viðgangast.
Það er því hlægilegt þegar einhverjir bjöllusauðir hérna,
sem ekkert vita um málið, reyna að drepa því á dreif.
að tveir þriðju borgarbúa töldu nauðsynlegt að fá
almennilega rannsókn á atburðunum 11. sept. og
helmingur taldi stjórnvöldin hafa verið meira eða minna
með puttana í þeim eða látið árásirnar hreinlega viðgangast.
Það er því hlægilegt þegar einhverjir bjöllusauðir hérna,
sem ekkert vita um málið, reyna að drepa því á dreif.
QUOTE(Skynsemin ræður @ Jul 16 2005, 14:49)
geisp.
[right][snapback]714578[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]714578[/snapback][/right]
Ég viðurkenni það nú að ég hef sennilega haft rangt fyrir mér. Rökfesta þessa manns er með ólíkindum og við mannlegu og dauðlegu finnum til mikillar minnimáttarkenndar við hlið þesssarar mannvitsbrekku. Nei rökum þínum verður seint mótmælt og mælskulist þinni er viðbrugðið. Það er gott til þess að vita að þegar við þessir minni spámenn förum út af sporinu þá eru andans menn og vitringar rétt handann við hornið okkur til bjargar. Kærar þakkir.
Ætli greyið hafi ekki bara verið að geispa golunni!
Væri hægt að fá þetta flutt í 11. sept. hólfið?
"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the [DoD] must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs.
...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." - Sept. 2000
(PNAC)
...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." - Sept. 2000
(PNAC)
Exercises drills"" hófust að morgni 9/11.
Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect
Official version of events a conspiracy theory, says drills were cover for attacks
The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney.
Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security.
Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect
Official version of events a conspiracy theory, says drills were cover for attacks
The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney.
Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security.
komið þessum vef á sitt heimili, þetta á ekki heima í stjórnmálaumræðunni. Cesil, geturðu græjað þetta? Það eru allir komnir með upp í kok af þessu bulli í kringum 9/11
Rebuilding America's Defenses er mjög athyglisvert plagg. Þar kemur bersýnilega fram hversu sjúkt þetta Neo-Con lið er. Það eina sem skiptir máli í þeirra augum eru hagsmunir bandarískra stjórnvalda, sama hver mörg líf þeir taka í leiðinni.
Þeir sem eru læsir hljóta að sjá að ég var að biðja um
að þetta yrði flutt í 11. sept. hólfið.
Það er óþarfi fyrir alhæfingasjúkt fólk að telja sig tala
fyrir "alla" hér á þráðunum, sérstaklega þegar það
hefur engan hljómgrunn hérna.
að þetta yrði flutt í 11. sept. hólfið.
Það er óþarfi fyrir alhæfingasjúkt fólk að telja sig tala
fyrir "alla" hér á þráðunum, sérstaklega þegar það
hefur engan hljómgrunn hérna.
Það er sjálfsagt að ræða um PNAC klíkuna.
Þeir sem vilja vera í fýlu yfir þeirri umræðu
verða bara að hafa það eins og þeir vilja.
Þeir sem vilja vera í fýlu yfir þeirri umræðu
verða bara að hafa það eins og þeir vilja.
QUOTE(Brodd-Helgi @ Apr 29 2006, 19:46) [snapback]931744[/snapback]
Former German Minister Says Building 7 Used To Run 9/11 Attack
Von Bülow referenced the command bunker in Building 7, calling it the "optimal place" to run the attacks using remote control technology to guide the planes in and then destroying the crime scene by imploding the building.
"There were two procedures, one was flying in the aircraft the second was the explosions," he said.
When asked precisely which parties carried out the attack Von Bülow said it must have been a "very small group" within the CIA with the help of Saudi Arabian and Pakistani secret service intelligence.
Von Bülow outlined his view that one reason for the execution of 9/11 was to provide the justification for US military bases in the near and Middle East to be built in anticipation for a future confrontation with China, whom the Neo-Cons believe have grown too powerful and need to have their geopolitical wings clipped.
Prisonplanet
Jæja, þá er hægt að hefjast handa um að grafa upp eitthvað misjafnt um Buelow.
PNAC er fasistadrasl fyrst og fremst.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
Hvar er Stalín ? Moved!
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
Hvar er Stalín ?
Moved!
Bill Kristol, einn helsti rugludallurinn í PNAC
roðnaði og var heldur vandræðalegur þegar
hann var spurður út í PNAC og stefnu þeirrar
klíku á dögunum í bandar. sjónvarpi:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/04/bill-kri...confronted.html
Furðulegt að heyra þetta lygasjúka glæpahyski enn vera
að reyna að klína 11. sept. á Írakana.
roðnaði og var heldur vandræðalegur þegar
hann var spurður út í PNAC og stefnu þeirrar
klíku á dögunum í bandar. sjónvarpi:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/04/bill-kri...confronted.html
Furðulegt að heyra þetta lygasjúka glæpahyski enn vera
að reyna að klína 11. sept. á Írakana.
QUOTE(satan @ May 1 2006, 15:43) [snapback]933507[/snapback]
Bill Kristol, einn helsti rugludallurinn í PNAC
roðnaði og var heldur vandræðalegur þegar
hann var spurður út í PNAC og stefnu þeirrar
klíku á dögunum í bandar. sjónvarpi:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/04/bill-kri...confronted.html
Furðulegt að heyra þetta lygasjúka glæpahyski enn vera
að reyna að klína 11. sept. á Írakana.
Ekki skrýtið að maðurinn hafi roðnað.
Þó það nú væri eftir allt sem þeir hafa gert, sérstaklega það sem þeir komu til leiðar 11. september 2001.
Kveðja
Grasi
Segðu.
Velkominn í hóp okkar vantrúuðu, but beware it comes with a price! Þú ert núna obinberlega orðinn bandaríkjahatari, rugludallur, trúir á geimverur, persona non grada ofl ofl.
Þessi grein er reyndar eins og nokkuð góð samantekt á því sem hefur komið fram hér á málefnunum. Það er einfaldlega alltof margt í frásögn stjórnvalda í USA sem heldur ekki vatni, og það hlýtur að koma að því að fjölmiðlar sem ek. máli skipta rakni úr rotinu og fari að spurja alvarlegra spunrninga. Mér dettur í hug nokkrar
1. Hvernig gat staðið á því að hefðbundnum vinnureglum var ekki beitt, þ.e.a.s. af hverju voru ekki sendar herþotur á móti flugvélunum þegar ljóst var að þeim hafði verið rænt?
2. Hvernig stóð á því að öryggisverðir foretans gera engar ráðstafanir til að tryggja öryggi forsetans þegar í ljós er komið að það er verið að ráðast á usa. Vissi einhver að hann yrði ekki í hættu?
3. Af hverju "bilaði" öruggiskerfi Pentagon. Þar eru scudflaugar sem eiga að gera slíkar árásir óhugsandi. Afhverju biluðu allar öryggismyndavélar í kringum pentagon á nákvæmlega sama tíma líka?
4. Hvernig stenur á því að að minnstakosti 3 flugræningjanna eru enn á lífi?
5. Afhverju stóðu stjórnvöld í vegi fyrir obinberri ransókn á atvikunum?
6. Afhverju blanda stjórnvöld í usa vísvitandi og ítrekað saman Alqaida - Írak og 9/11. Þarna á milli er ekkert samband eða hvað?
7. Afhverju neituðu usa að hlusta á Hans Blix og fleiri vopnaeftirlitsmenn og afhverju neituðu þeir honum um tvo mánuði í viðbót í landinu eins og hann fór fram á til að fullvissa sig um að enginn eiturvopn væru í landinu?
8. Afhverju hafa tengsl hryðjuverkamannana við Saudi Arabíu ekki verið könnuð?
9. Afhverju var búið að teikna upp stríð bæði við Afganistan og Írak fyrir 9/11
10. Getur það virkilega gerst að slíkar samhæfðar árásir sem um helst minna á hernaðaraðgerð hafi verið skipulögð og framkvæmd af nýrnabiluðum manni, fjarskiptalausum í helli í Afganistan?
11. Afhverju tilkynnti Bush að Osama skipti ekki lengur máli? Skipti hann kanski frá fyrsta degi ekki máli?
Þetta eru nú bara svona fyrstu spurningarnar sem ég vildi fá svör við en þær eru miklu, miklu fleiri.
Hér er einn af þeim al skynsömustu á málefnunum að tjá sig
árið 2003.
QUOTE(doddi @ Jul 16 2005, 12:21) [snapback]714473[/snapback]
Velkominn í hóp okkar vantrúuðu, but beware it comes with a price! Þú ert núna obinberlega orðinn bandaríkjahatari, rugludallur, trúir á geimverur, persona non grada ofl ofl.
Þessi grein er reyndar eins og nokkuð góð samantekt á því sem hefur komið fram hér á málefnunum. Það er einfaldlega alltof margt í frásögn stjórnvalda í USA sem heldur ekki vatni, og það hlýtur að koma að því að fjölmiðlar sem ek. máli skipta rakni úr rotinu og fari að spurja alvarlegra spunrninga. Mér dettur í hug nokkrar
1. Hvernig gat staðið á því að hefðbundnum vinnureglum var ekki beitt, þ.e.a.s. af hverju voru ekki sendar herþotur á móti flugvélunum þegar ljóst var að þeim hafði verið rænt?
2. Hvernig stóð á því að öryggisverðir foretans gera engar ráðstafanir til að tryggja öryggi forsetans þegar í ljós er komið að það er verið að ráðast á usa. Vissi einhver að hann yrði ekki í hættu?
3. Af hverju "bilaði" öruggiskerfi Pentagon. Þar eru scudflaugar sem eiga að gera slíkar árásir óhugsandi. Afhverju biluðu allar öryggismyndavélar í kringum pentagon á nákvæmlega sama tíma líka?
4. Hvernig stenur á því að að minnstakosti 3 flugræningjanna eru enn á lífi?
5. Afhverju stóðu stjórnvöld í vegi fyrir obinberri ransókn á atvikunum?
6. Afhverju blanda stjórnvöld í usa vísvitandi og ítrekað saman Alqaida - Írak og 9/11. Þarna á milli er ekkert samband eða hvað?
7. Afhverju neituðu usa að hlusta á Hans Blix og fleiri vopnaeftirlitsmenn og afhverju neituðu þeir honum um tvo mánuði í viðbót í landinu eins og hann fór fram á til að fullvissa sig um að enginn eiturvopn væru í landinu?
8. Afhverju hafa tengsl hryðjuverkamannana við Saudi Arabíu ekki verið könnuð?
9. Afhverju var búið að teikna upp stríð bæði við Afganistan og Írak fyrir 9/11
10. Getur það virkilega gerst að slíkar samhæfðar árásir sem um helst minna á hernaðaraðgerð hafi verið skipulögð og framkvæmd af nýrnabiluðum manni, fjarskiptalausum í helli í Afganistan?
11. Afhverju tilkynnti Bush að Osama skipti ekki lengur máli? Skipti hann kanski frá fyrsta degi ekki máli?
Þetta eru nú bara svona fyrstu spurningarnar sem ég vildi fá svör við en þær eru miklu, miklu fleiri.
Hér er einn af þeim al skynsömustu á málefnunum að tjá sig
árið 2003.
QUOTE(satan @ May 1 2006, 18:00) [snapback]933638[/snapback]
Segðu.
Hér er einn af þeim al skynsömustu á málefnunum að tjá sig
árið 2003.
Þetta eru góðar og gildar spurningar hjá honum.
Grasi, þetta er orðið svo þunnt hjá kunningjaklíkunni
hérna og aftaníossum hennar að þeir eru farnir að reyna
að búa til sögur um að ég skrifi hérna undir mörgum
nikkum. Það er einhver örviti eða klón af einhverjum
hálfvita í klíkunni að bulla um þetta á þræðinum um
þessa misheppnuðu skoðanakönnun gabblers.
Ég býst við að stíllinn hjá mér blasi við hérna út um allt
í hinum ýmsu nikkum og þetta lið dragi ályktanir út frá
því án þess að ég geri nú ráð fyrir miklu samhengi í
hugsun þess.
Hvað skyldi það sjálft vera með mörg nikk annars?
hérna og aftaníossum hennar að þeir eru farnir að reyna
að búa til sögur um að ég skrifi hérna undir mörgum
nikkum. Það er einhver örviti eða klón af einhverjum
hálfvita í klíkunni að bulla um þetta á þræðinum um
þessa misheppnuðu skoðanakönnun gabblers.
Ég býst við að stíllinn hjá mér blasi við hérna út um allt
í hinum ýmsu nikkum og þetta lið dragi ályktanir út frá
því án þess að ég geri nú ráð fyrir miklu samhengi í
hugsun þess.
Hvað skyldi það sjálft vera með mörg nikk annars?
Neocon Scaife and the Nose Cone Blob Ruse
Friday May 19th 2006, 7:31 am
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=370
Friday May 19th 2006, 7:31 am
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=370
QUOTE
As noted by the blogger Xymphora—upon reading a post on the Smirking Chimp site—Judicial Watch, the organization responsible for filing a FOIA request and thus bringing us earlier this week the eminently ignorable Pentagon crash video, is hooked up with Richard Mellon Scaife, billionaire bankroller of fascist neocon outfits such the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Marxist turned neocon David Horowitz’s various smear operations.
Judicial Watch was created to harass and snap at the heels of Bill Clinton, a favorite pastime for the likes of Scaife and the lunatic Republican fringe now in control of Congress. “Judicial Watch, which recently released video supposedly showing a plane hitting the Pentagon, is essentially a tool of Richard Mellon Scaife, who has given 8.5 million dollars, at least, to support this organization. Though officially a watchdog group, Judicial Watch got its start by filing over 50 nuisance lawsuits against the Clintons,” the post on Smirking Chimp explains.
Regardless of the fact the latest video—so rapturously embraced by the corporate media as evidence to put the “conspiracy theorists” out to pasture—is a less than worthless distraction, the connection between Judicial Watch and Scaife, who is a documented CIA asset, puts the whole affair in context.
“In 2002, Judicial Watch received $1.1 million from The Carthage Foundation and a further $400,000 from The Sarah Scaife Foundation. The year before the Scaife Foundation had given $1.35 million and Carthage $500,000,” reports SourceWatch. “In all, between 1997 and 2002, Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 (unadjusted for inflation) in 19 grants from a handful of foundations…. The bulk of this funding came from just three foundations … the Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Carthage Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.”
Moreover, Judicial Watch, according to David Corn on his Klayman Watch blog (Larry Klayman is a trade lawyer heading up Judicial Watch), is connected to Richard Viguerie, “the direct-mail titan” of the neocon movement. In short, Judicial Watch is nothing less than a shill for neocons, who have a vested interest—lest the truth emerge and they be arrested and prosecuted for treason and murder—in promoting the nine eleven fairy tale and discrediting researchers interested in getting at the truth.
As noted here previously, Scaife is connected to the CIA. “In 1973, he became the owner of Kern House Enterprises, a U.S.-registered company,” writes the Columbia Journalism Review. “Kern House ran Forum World Features, a London-based news agency that supplied feature material to a large number of papers around the world, including at one time about thirty in the U.S. Scaife abruptly closed down Forum in 1975, shortly before Time Out, a British weekly, published a purported 1968 CIA memorandum, addressed to then-director Richard Helms, which described Forum as a CIA-sponsored operation providing ‘a significant means to counter Communist propaganda.’ The Forum-CIA tie, which lasted into the seventies, has been confirmed by various British and American publications over the years, and it was confirmed independently by a source in connection with this article.”
It now appears Scaife is providing “significant means” to counter and minimize the nine eleven truth movement, an urgent task as increasing numbers of Americans are beginning to question the official Brothers Grimm version of events.
Of course, even without Judicial Watch’s connection to Scaife, and Scaife’s connection to the CIA and the neocons, the Pentagon video, probably better called the nose cone (or con) blob ruse, is an obvious and entirely ineffectual attempt to derail the truth movement. If anything, the latest video, released after nearly five years, is simply more evidence the government is obfuscating the truth and enlisting the likes of Scaife and his minions in an ill-conceived effort to throw us off track.
Finally, if you doubt the government has fabricated bogus (and wholly sloppy) evidence, simply compare the blob video still supposedly showing the nose cone of Flight 77 with this photo of a real United Airline plane. Question: what the heck happened to the paint stripe on Flight 77 in the Pentagon video? I guess we are supposed to believe that not only did Osama’s cave-dwellers miraculously defy the laws on physics on nine eleven, they also removed the paint from the plane before crashing it into the Pentagon.
Judicial Watch was created to harass and snap at the heels of Bill Clinton, a favorite pastime for the likes of Scaife and the lunatic Republican fringe now in control of Congress. “Judicial Watch, which recently released video supposedly showing a plane hitting the Pentagon, is essentially a tool of Richard Mellon Scaife, who has given 8.5 million dollars, at least, to support this organization. Though officially a watchdog group, Judicial Watch got its start by filing over 50 nuisance lawsuits against the Clintons,” the post on Smirking Chimp explains.
Regardless of the fact the latest video—so rapturously embraced by the corporate media as evidence to put the “conspiracy theorists” out to pasture—is a less than worthless distraction, the connection between Judicial Watch and Scaife, who is a documented CIA asset, puts the whole affair in context.
“In 2002, Judicial Watch received $1.1 million from The Carthage Foundation and a further $400,000 from The Sarah Scaife Foundation. The year before the Scaife Foundation had given $1.35 million and Carthage $500,000,” reports SourceWatch. “In all, between 1997 and 2002, Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 (unadjusted for inflation) in 19 grants from a handful of foundations…. The bulk of this funding came from just three foundations … the Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Carthage Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.”
Moreover, Judicial Watch, according to David Corn on his Klayman Watch blog (Larry Klayman is a trade lawyer heading up Judicial Watch), is connected to Richard Viguerie, “the direct-mail titan” of the neocon movement. In short, Judicial Watch is nothing less than a shill for neocons, who have a vested interest—lest the truth emerge and they be arrested and prosecuted for treason and murder—in promoting the nine eleven fairy tale and discrediting researchers interested in getting at the truth.
As noted here previously, Scaife is connected to the CIA. “In 1973, he became the owner of Kern House Enterprises, a U.S.-registered company,” writes the Columbia Journalism Review. “Kern House ran Forum World Features, a London-based news agency that supplied feature material to a large number of papers around the world, including at one time about thirty in the U.S. Scaife abruptly closed down Forum in 1975, shortly before Time Out, a British weekly, published a purported 1968 CIA memorandum, addressed to then-director Richard Helms, which described Forum as a CIA-sponsored operation providing ‘a significant means to counter Communist propaganda.’ The Forum-CIA tie, which lasted into the seventies, has been confirmed by various British and American publications over the years, and it was confirmed independently by a source in connection with this article.”
It now appears Scaife is providing “significant means” to counter and minimize the nine eleven truth movement, an urgent task as increasing numbers of Americans are beginning to question the official Brothers Grimm version of events.
Of course, even without Judicial Watch’s connection to Scaife, and Scaife’s connection to the CIA and the neocons, the Pentagon video, probably better called the nose cone (or con) blob ruse, is an obvious and entirely ineffectual attempt to derail the truth movement. If anything, the latest video, released after nearly five years, is simply more evidence the government is obfuscating the truth and enlisting the likes of Scaife and his minions in an ill-conceived effort to throw us off track.
Finally, if you doubt the government has fabricated bogus (and wholly sloppy) evidence, simply compare the blob video still supposedly showing the nose cone of Flight 77 with this photo of a real United Airline plane. Question: what the heck happened to the paint stripe on Flight 77 in the Pentagon video? I guess we are supposed to believe that not only did Osama’s cave-dwellers miraculously defy the laws on physics on nine eleven, they also removed the paint from the plane before crashing it into the Pentagon.
QUOTE
The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
For those who buy the story, the argument for coincidence.
Happy coincidenting!
That intelligence agencies, politicians and terrorists have conducted criminal business together is well established, but BCCI and Iran/Contra were a long time ago, so there’s no need to rehash all that.
That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a record setting $25 million is embarrassing, surely, but to draw sinister conclusions is foolish.
That Marvin Bush sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing.
That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and Osama’s brother-in-law and al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just a one-in-a-million fluke.
That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is. That al Qaeda was active in Kosovo on the same side as NATO merely demonstrates that nothing is black and white.
The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members to receive training in the United States, are merely sour grapes because he was fired for making such wild accusations.
That so many in the Bush White House had expressed the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" before their militarist ambitions could be fulfilled means nothing more than being in the right place at the right time.
That in May of 2001, Dick Cheney took upon himself the job of co-ordinating a response to domestic terror attacks even as he was crafting the administration’s energy policy, circumventing the established infrastructure and ignoring the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, merely shows the VP to be a “can do” sort of guy.
That the standing order for shooting down hijacked aircraft was altered on June 1, 2001, taking discretion away from field commanders and placing it solely in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, is simply poor planning and unfortunate timing. Fortunately the error has been corrected, since the order was reversed shortly after 9/11.
That Dave Frasca of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit received a promotion after quashing multiple, urgent requests for investigations into al Qaeda assets training at flight schools in the summer of 2001 does appear odd, but I’m sure there must have been a good reason for it.
That over the summer of 2001 Washington received many urgent, senior-level warnings from foreign intelligence agencies of impending terror attacks using hijacked aircraft and did nothing, demonstrates the pressing need for a new Intelligence Czar.
That former lead counsel for the House David Schippers says he’d taken to John Ashcroft’s office specific warnings he’d learned from FBI agents in New York of an impending attack – even naming the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and the targets – and that the investigations had been stymied and the agents threatened, proves nothing but David Schipper’s need for attention.
That George Bush had plans to invade Afghanistan on his desk before 9/11 demonstrates only the value of being prepared.
The suggestion that securing a pipeline across Afghanistan figured into the White House’s calculations is as ludicrous as the assertion that oil played a part in determining war in Iraq.
That Afghanistan is once again the world’s principal heroin producer is an unfortunate reality, but to claim the CIA is still actively involved in the narcotics trade is to presume bad faith on the part of the agency.
Mahmood Ahmed, chief of Pakistan’s ISI, must not have authorized an al Qaeda payment of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta days before the attacks, and was not meeting with senior Washington officials over the week of 9/11, because I didn’t read anything about it in the official report.
George HW Bush and Dick Cheney spent the evening of September 10 in the Oval Office, it’s true, but they were just old colleagues catching up.
That FEMA arrived in New York on Sept 10 to prepare for a scheduled biowarfare drill is a lucky twist of fate.
Newsweek’s report that senior Pentagon officials cancelled flights on Sept 10 for the following day on account of security concerns is only newsworthy because of what happened the following morning.
That Mohamed Atta attended the International Officer's School at Maxwell Air Force Base, that Abdulaziz Alomari attended Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School, that Saeed Alghamdi attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey merely shows it’s a small world, after all.
That Mohammed Atta dressed like a Mafioso, had a stripper girlfriend, smuggled drugs, was already a licensed pilot when he entered the US, enjoyed pork chops, drank to excess and did cocaine, was closer to Europeans than Arabs in Florida, and included the names of defence contractors on his email list, proves how dangerous the radical fundamentalist Muslim can be.
That 43 lbs of heroin was found on board the Lear Jet owned by Wally Hilliard, the owner of Atta’s flight school, just three weeks after Atta enrolled – the biggest seizure ever in Central Florida – was just one of those things.
That Hilliard’s plane had made 30-round trips to Venezuela with the same passengers who always paid cash, that the plane had been supplied by a pair of drug smugglers who had also outfitted CIA drug runner Barry Seal, and that 9/11 commissioner Richard ben-Veniste had been Seal’s attorney before Seal’s murder, shows nothing but the lengths to which conspiracists will go to draw sinister conclusions.
Reports of insider trading on 9/11 are false, because the SEC investigated and found only respectable investors who will remain nameless involved, and no terrorists, so any profit-taking was merely coincidental.
That Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77, was so incompetent he could not fly a Cessna in August, but in September managed to fly a 757 at excessive speed into a spiraling, 270-degree descent and a level impact of the first floor of the Pentagon, on the only side that was virtually empty and had been hardened to withstand a terrorist attack, merely demonstrates that people can do almost anything once they set their minds to it.
That Mohammed Atta left a uniform, a will, his driver's license and a video "how to fly planes" in his rental car at the airport means he had other things on his mind.
The very mention of Israelis with links to military-intelligence having been arrested on Sept 11 videotaping and celebrating the attacks, and of a warning of impending attacks delivered to the Israeli company Odigo two hours before the first plane hit, is the vilest kind of anti-Semitism and should not be dignified with a response. That the stories were also reported in the Israeli media is a sad display of self-hatred among certain elements of the Jewish Left.
That multiple military wargames and simulations were underway the morning of 9/11 – one simulating the crash of a plane into a building; another, a life-fly simulation of multiple hijackings – and took many interceptors away from the eastern seaboard and confused field commanders as to which was a real hijacked aircraft and which was a hoax, was a tragic coincidence, but no less a coincidence.
That the National Military Command Center ops director asked a newly-qualified substitute to stand his watch at 8:30 am on Sept. 11 is nothing more than bad timing.
That the black boxes were either never found or were unrecoverable was a first for these particular boxes, but there's a first time for everything.
That a recording made Sept 11 of air traffic controllers’ detailing the events of the day, was destroyed by an FAA official who crushed it in his hand, cut the tape into little pieces and dropped them in different trash cans around the building, is just one of those things.
That the FBI knew precisely which Florida flight schools to descend upon hours after the attacks should make every American safer to know their federal agents are on the ball.
To insinuate evil motive from the mercy flights of bin Laden family members and Saudi royals after 9/11 shows the sickness of the conspiratorial mindset.
Le Figaro’s report in October 2001, known to have originated with French intelligence, that two CIA agents met Osama bin Laden in a Dubai hospital in July 2001, proves again the perfidy of the French.
That the tape in which bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks was released by the State Department after having been found providentially by US forces in Afghanistan, and depicts a fattened Osama with a broader face and a flatter nose, proves Osama masterminded 9/11.
That the White House went on Cipro September 11 shows the foresightedness of America’s emergency response.
That the anthrax was mailed to perceived liberal media and the Democratic leadership demonstrates only the perversity of the terrorist psyche.
That the anthrax attacks appeared to silence opponents of the Patriot Act only shows that appearances can be deceiving.
That the Ames-strain anthrax was found to have originated at Fort Detrick, and was beyond the capability of all but a few labs to refine, underscores the importance of allowing the investigation to continue without the distraction of absurd conspiracy theories.
Sibel Edmonds is an attention-seeking nutcase. And since John Ashcroft has gagged her and classified her public testimony, we should speak no more of her.
But most of all, remember: there are no secrets, governments would never accept civilian casualties for geostrategic gain, and conspiracies are for the weak-minded and gullible.
QUOTE(satan @ May 20 2006, 14:43) [snapback]949159[/snapback]
Grasi, þetta er orðið svo þunnt hjá kunningjaklíkunni
hérna og aftaníossum hennar að þeir eru farnir að reyna
að búa til sögur um að ég skrifi hérna undir mörgum
nikkum.
En þegar menn ljúga upp á aðra notendur að þeir séu að svindla í könnunum með öðrum nikkum?
The 9/11 Truth Movement Is Not Anti-Semitic And Neither is Ray McGovern
By Jon Gold
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthrea...60086#post60086
By Jon Gold
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthrea...60086#post60086
...
Hér er massi af efni fyrir þá sem nenna að afla sér fræðslu
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/index.htm
Neo-Conservative Ascendancy in the George W. Bush Administration
Jihad Al Khazen; Al-Hayat
http://www.philosophynotes.com/politics/ne..._ascendancy.htm
Jihad Al Khazen; Al-Hayat
http://www.philosophynotes.com/politics/ne..._ascendancy.htm
Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet
Posted on May 19, 2003, Printed on May 21, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
Jim Lobe writes on foreign policy for Alternet. His work has also appeared on Foreign Policy In Focus and TomPaine.com.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet
Posted on May 19, 2003, Printed on May 21, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
QUOTE
What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?
A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done – people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.
The "right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) – an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Like Wolfowitz, Shulsky is a student of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher named Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky's alma mater, the University of Chicago, before his death in 1973.
Strauss is a popular figure among the neoconservatives. Adherents of his ideas include prominent figures both within and outside the administration. They include 'Weekly Standard' editor William Kristol; his father and indeed the godfather of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol; the new Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, a number of senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (home to former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney), and Gary Schmitt, the director of the influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which is chaired by Kristol the Younger.
Strauss' philosophy is hardly incidental to the strategy and mindset adopted by these men – as is obvious in Shulsky's 1999 essay titled "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)" (in Greek philosophy the term nous denotes the highest form of rationality). As Hersh notes in his article, Shulsky and his co-author Schmitt "criticize America's intelligence community for its failure to appreciate the duplicitous nature of the regimes it deals with, its susceptibility to social-science notions of proof, and its inability to cope with deliberate concealment." They argued that Strauss's idea of hidden meaning, "alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception."
Rule One: Deception
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).
Second Principle: Power of Religion
According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.
At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."
"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.
Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism
Like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people."
Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."
"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars – not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny" – as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983 – that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a " myopic national security."
As to what a Straussian world order might look like, the analogy was best captured by the philosopher himself in one of his – and student Allen Bloom's – many allusions to Gulliver's Travels. In Drury's words, "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."
The image encapsulates the neoconservative vision of the United States' relationship with the rest of the world – as well as the relationship between their relationship as a ruling elite with the masses. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," Drury says.
A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done – people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.
The "right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) – an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Like Wolfowitz, Shulsky is a student of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher named Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky's alma mater, the University of Chicago, before his death in 1973.
Strauss is a popular figure among the neoconservatives. Adherents of his ideas include prominent figures both within and outside the administration. They include 'Weekly Standard' editor William Kristol; his father and indeed the godfather of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol; the new Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, a number of senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (home to former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney), and Gary Schmitt, the director of the influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which is chaired by Kristol the Younger.
Strauss' philosophy is hardly incidental to the strategy and mindset adopted by these men – as is obvious in Shulsky's 1999 essay titled "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)" (in Greek philosophy the term nous denotes the highest form of rationality). As Hersh notes in his article, Shulsky and his co-author Schmitt "criticize America's intelligence community for its failure to appreciate the duplicitous nature of the regimes it deals with, its susceptibility to social-science notions of proof, and its inability to cope with deliberate concealment." They argued that Strauss's idea of hidden meaning, "alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception."
Rule One: Deception
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).
Second Principle: Power of Religion
According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.
At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."
"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.
Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism
Like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people."
Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."
"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars – not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny" – as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983 – that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a " myopic national security."
As to what a Straussian world order might look like, the analogy was best captured by the philosopher himself in one of his – and student Allen Bloom's – many allusions to Gulliver's Travels. In Drury's words, "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."
The image encapsulates the neoconservative vision of the United States' relationship with the rest of the world – as well as the relationship between their relationship as a ruling elite with the masses. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," Drury says.
Jim Lobe writes on foreign policy for Alternet. His work has also appeared on Foreign Policy In Focus and TomPaine.com.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
QUOTE
Bush administration in crisis
.....The most fascinating indication of a sea-change within the US political establishment toward the Bush Doctrine and those who are behind it is the developing debate around the 83-page paper, first published on the official website of Harvard University, criticizing the dominant role of Israel in shaping US foreign policy.
The paper was initially trashed by the B'nai Brith and select neo-conservative writers as "anti-Semitic", which it is not, and one commentator tried to smear it as "echoing the views of former KKK [Ku Klux Klan] leader and white-power advocate David Duke", who has also attacked the Israel lobby.
However, profoundly significant is the fact that this time leading mainstream media, including Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, have come to the defense of authors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Even certain sections of the Israeli press have done so. The taboo of speaking publicly of the pro-Israel agenda of neo-conservatives has apparently been broken. That suggests that the old-guard foreign-policy establishment, types such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft and their allies, are stepping up to retake foreign-policy leadership. The neo-cons have proved a colossal failure in their defense of America's strategic interests as the realists see it.
The paper, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", was written by two highly respected US foreign-policy realists and consultants to the State Department. The authors are neither neo-Nazi skinheads nor anti-Semites. Mearsheimer is political-science professor and co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago. Walt is academic dean and a chaired professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Both are members of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. They are so-called "realists", along with Henry Kissinger, Scowcroft and Brzezinski.
# Some of their conclusions about the Israel lobby's goals: "No lobby has managed to divert foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are essentially identical."
# US supporters of Israel promoted the war against Iraq. The senior administration officials who spearheaded the campaign were also in the vanguard of the pro-Israel lobby, eg Wolfowitz; under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith; Elliott Abrams, Mideast affairs at the White House; David Wurmser, Mideast affairs for Cheney; Richard Perle, first among neo-con equals, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential advisory body of strategic experts.
# A similar effort is now under way to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
# The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is fighting registering as foreign agents because this would place severe limitations on its congressional activities, particularly in the legislative electoral arena. American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of political pressure and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.
It's useful to quote the official goals of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, of which Walt and Mearsheimer are members, to have a better indication of their factional lineup in the current factional battle inside the US elite. The website of that coalition states:
Against the backdrop of an ever-bloodier conflict in Iraq, American foreign policy is moving in a dangerous direction toward empire. Worrisome imperial trends are apparent in the Bush administration's National Security Strategy. That document pledges to maintain America's military dominance in the world, and it does so in a way that encourages other nations to form countervailing coalitions and alliances. We can expect, and are seeing now, multiple balances of power forming against us. People resent and resist domination, no matter how benign. ....
.....The most fascinating indication of a sea-change within the US political establishment toward the Bush Doctrine and those who are behind it is the developing debate around the 83-page paper, first published on the official website of Harvard University, criticizing the dominant role of Israel in shaping US foreign policy.
The paper was initially trashed by the B'nai Brith and select neo-conservative writers as "anti-Semitic", which it is not, and one commentator tried to smear it as "echoing the views of former KKK [Ku Klux Klan] leader and white-power advocate David Duke", who has also attacked the Israel lobby.
However, profoundly significant is the fact that this time leading mainstream media, including Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, have come to the defense of authors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Even certain sections of the Israeli press have done so. The taboo of speaking publicly of the pro-Israel agenda of neo-conservatives has apparently been broken. That suggests that the old-guard foreign-policy establishment, types such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft and their allies, are stepping up to retake foreign-policy leadership. The neo-cons have proved a colossal failure in their defense of America's strategic interests as the realists see it.
The paper, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", was written by two highly respected US foreign-policy realists and consultants to the State Department. The authors are neither neo-Nazi skinheads nor anti-Semites. Mearsheimer is political-science professor and co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago. Walt is academic dean and a chaired professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Both are members of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. They are so-called "realists", along with Henry Kissinger, Scowcroft and Brzezinski.
# Some of their conclusions about the Israel lobby's goals: "No lobby has managed to divert foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are essentially identical."
# US supporters of Israel promoted the war against Iraq. The senior administration officials who spearheaded the campaign were also in the vanguard of the pro-Israel lobby, eg Wolfowitz; under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith; Elliott Abrams, Mideast affairs at the White House; David Wurmser, Mideast affairs for Cheney; Richard Perle, first among neo-con equals, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential advisory body of strategic experts.
# A similar effort is now under way to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
# The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is fighting registering as foreign agents because this would place severe limitations on its congressional activities, particularly in the legislative electoral arena. American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of political pressure and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.
It's useful to quote the official goals of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, of which Walt and Mearsheimer are members, to have a better indication of their factional lineup in the current factional battle inside the US elite. The website of that coalition states:
Against the backdrop of an ever-bloodier conflict in Iraq, American foreign policy is moving in a dangerous direction toward empire. Worrisome imperial trends are apparent in the Bush administration's National Security Strategy. That document pledges to maintain America's military dominance in the world, and it does so in a way that encourages other nations to form countervailing coalitions and alliances. We can expect, and are seeing now, multiple balances of power forming against us. People resent and resist domination, no matter how benign. ....
The US's geopolitical nightmare
By F William Engdahl
http://atimes.com/atimes/China/HE09Ad01.html
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.