TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 [142] 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Read Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley if you want to begin to understand the bigger picture.

I was talking to one of my professors recently who has written a fairly important book in the field of International Development, and he commented that discussing his book in class is increasingly more frustrating every year, as the students in the class seem to misunderstand his conclusions by a greater margin every year. The culprit, in his opinion, is the internet, where many students go to find summaries written by unknown authors with a specific agenda - in lieu of actually taking the time to read the book. This is an endemic problem, and it's actually amusing to witness as students and would-be academics across the country reference things they've never actually read but "understand" only by way of reputation or third party.

The professor went on to say that certain topics seem to register immediately with particular works or authors - and that students will often make the right connection for the wrong reason. For instance, many associate Paul Collier's "The Bottom Billion" with the most extreme forms of poverty - it's easy to assume that he has specific policy recommendations for reaching the poorest component of the world's population, no? Well, in reality, Collier seems to suggest that we should focus on the moderately poor, or those most near "turning points" toward prosperity. Though he does deal with the poor, to cite Collier as a fundamental source on the world's poorest is something of a mistake (other people have written on that topic more exclusively).

I'm not saying you haven't read the book. I'm just saying that your inability to discuss anything that lies therein gives me a lot of skepticism as to whether it actually says what you think it says. Especially since that book in particular is oft-quoted by disreputable sources that use it to draw conclusions not actually propagated by said book.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I believe that question was directed by you to ogvh5150, I am guessing from how mixed up you sound that you are the one who has no idea what the fuk you are talking about.

I'v asked your dumb ass too. To show some real evidence. Who the fuck is in charge of this grand conspiracy you bitch and moan about??

quote:

Originally posted by culorut It's reality not fantasy, I am just stating the obvious but as always you choose to be an ignorant prick on the matter because you cannot deny the truth about it. You should keep clear of the internet, it seems you cannot handle the facts when they are laid out in front of you. http://www.skullandcrossbones.org/a...ullandbones.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain576332.shtml http://www.bilderberg.org/skulbone.htm http://www.time.com/time/nation/art...1881172,00.html http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/ http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/i...5/notebook.html

lol, look at you. This is a religion for you. You'r absolutely pathetic. Nobody gives a fuck about a skull in a college fraternity. It says absolutely nothing about your out-of-this-world conspiracy theories.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Ask Bush. He does not have a problem mentioning it on air apparently.

He's talking about the end of the Cold War. A new world order in the fact that there is no USA versus Soviet Union. God, you'r an idiot...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I'm not saying you haven't read the book. I'm just saying that your inability to discuss anything that lies therein gives me a lot of skepticism as to whether it actually says what you think it says. Especially since that book in particular is oft-quoted by disreputable sources that use it to draw conclusions not actually propagated by said book.

I sure as hell know these idiots haven't read half the shit they post.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton He's talking about the end of the Cold War. A new world order in the fact that there is no USA versus Soviet Union. God, you'r an idiot...

I would venture further that he was explicitly talking about political orders in the sense of international systems theory. There is an entire field devoted to the study of the "order" of the world, and it is self-evident that the end of the Cold War brought about a radical shift in that order. i.e. a bi-polar international system to a unipolar one - what's more is that we are now experiencing a shift from unipolarity to multi-polarity. So in that sense, we're actually shifting to another "new world order" right now.

All that would be well and good aside from the fact that it's abundantly clear that b.s.e. and colurot don't know their IR Theory and seem to see the "new world order" as some nefarious institution and not a structural explanation of shifting polarity at the systems level.

I Wonder if these fellas are talking still talking about the cold war also, you fuking idiots.


Prime Minister Gordon Brown NWO Speech




Henry Kissinger NWO




New World Order is the Endgame:Glenn Beck




Henry Kissinger New World Order 2007




Ron Paul Bashes the New World Order at Rally in Nashville

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I Wonder if these fellas are talking still talking about the cold war also, you fuking idiots. Prime Minister Gordon Brown NWO Speech

Do you always assume when someone says "New World Order" they are always talking about a secret group bent on world domination? Did you even listen to what he said? Did you even read Lebez's comments on the new economic world order unfolding before us? Do you even know there is such thing as a world order? 1990 was a new political world order. 2009 is a new economic world order.

Your ignorance reaches epic new lows everytime you post...

This is what you get when you've got a bachelor of youtube.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov what's more is that we are now experiencing a shift from unipolarity to multi-polarity. So in that sense, we're actually shifting to another "new world order" right now.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I Wonder if these fellas are talking still talking about the cold war also, you fuking idiots.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov All that would be well and good aside from the fact that it's abundantly clear that b.s.e. and colurot don't know their IR Theory and seem to see the "new world order" as some nefarious institution and not a structural explanation of shifting polarity at the systems level.

Dear me.

Colurot, I will say again that I am willing to read your opinion if you can back it up. Spamming videos and simply dropping in the names of books you haven't read is not going to impress anyone, much less motivate them to take you seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN This is what you get when you've got a bachelor of youtube.

That's mighty generous of you.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Do you always assume when someone says "New World Order" they are always talking about a secret group bent on world domination? Did you even listen to what he said? Did you even read Lebez's comments on the new economic world order unfolding before us? Do you even know there is such thing as a world order? 1990 was a new political world order. 2009 is a new economic world order. Your ignorance reaches epic new lows everytime you post...

Do you always ignore that slowly many countries like China, France, England and the USA are moving towards a one world order. Which I might add is about nothing more than control. Never mind the fact that most of you ridiculed the North American Union when it was first brought up and it is now on the very near horizon. Chalk up Canada and Mexico to the list. Amero's anyone?

Global control is upon us, 9/11 and the Iraq (non) WMD's was just a small taste of this control/order (oil in this case). These are the two finest examples to achieving global control using their excuses and your innocent blood. Deny it and I will gladly laugh in your face, it's all laid out for everyone to read.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf


I do not expect you to see the big picture, other wise you would not be arguing what has been placed right in front of you all along. But to say these things which are occurring right in front of every ones eyes is not occurring is the most ignorant thing of all.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN This is what you get when you've got a bachelor of youtube.

Coming from a troll who posts their video game scores on a political forum I find this very amusing. I think someone forgot to play with you as a child and that's why you never grew up.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Do you always ignore that slowly many countries like China, France, England and the USA are moving towards a one world order. Which I might add is about nothing more than control. Never mind the fact that most of you ridiculed the North American Union when it was first brought up and it is now on the very near horizon. Chalk up Canada and Mexico to the list. Amero's anyone? Global control is upon us, 9/11 and the Iraq (non) WMD's was just a small taste of this control/order (oil in this case). These are the two finest examples to achieving global control using their excuses and your innocent blood. Deny it and I will gladly laugh in your face, it's all laid out for everyone to read. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf

LOL, why did you post PNAC links? Am I supposed to connect dots which shouldn't be connected?

Ever heard of globalization?

quote:

I do not expect you to see the big picture, other wise you would not be arguing what has been placed right in front of you all along. But to say these things which are occurring right in front of every ones eyes is not occurring is the most ignorant thing of all.

Yea, right. Your religious belief in any and all conspiracy theories is laughable. Really does show in how narrow your focus is in this forum. You'r a one issue poster. LOL! I will happily continue to criticize and answer to the endless garbage you post. If you think you have the absolute truth, you actually have nothing. Read Socrates.

quote:

LOL, why did you post PNAC links? Am I supposed to connect dots which shouldn't be connected? Ever heard of globalization?

I don't know about you but calling for another Pearl Harbor on that very same web page in order to go to war does not sound like globalization to me, it's control. Maybe you should wake up, read and connect the dots idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I don't know about you but calling for another Pearl Harbor on that very same web page in order to go to war does not sound like globalization to me, it's control. Maybe you should wake up, read and connect the dots idiot.

Do you want to quote that passage, or do you just want to throw a bunch of websites at me with absolutely no context? Oh, I get it. I'm supposed to make up my own context. Connect those dots which shouldn't be connected. Your investigative skills astound me!

You can read (I'm not sure of this anymore) but you choose not to and ignore as always. The website is up for every one, don't want to read it?

Your ignorance and problem, not mine.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Do you always ignore that slowly many countries like China, France, England and the USA are moving towards a one world order. Which I might add is about nothing more than control. Never mind the fact that most of you ridiculed the North American Union when it was first brought up and it is now on the very near horizon. Chalk up Canada and Mexico to the list. Amero's anyone? Global control is upon us, 9/11 and the Iraq (non) WMD's was just a small taste of this control/order (oil in this case). These are the two finest examples to achieving global control using their excuses and your innocent blood. Deny it and I will gladly laugh in your face, it's all laid out for everyone to read. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf I do not expect you to see the big picture, other wise you would not be arguing what has been placed right in front of you all along. But to say these things which are occurring right in front of every ones eyes is not occurring is the most ignorant thing of all.

PNAC is a defunct (and disgraced) organization that even its original members disavow.

China is as closed a society to Western influence as any in the world, and certainly would never kowtow to centralized control outside its borders.

You're going to have to do a far sight better than that to convince me of anything.

I know, I know, you cannot read. I just feel like spoon feeding the children today.


PNAC

According to their own document, Rebuilding America�s Defenses ( .pdf format ) their stated goals would never be realized �absent some catastrophic catalyzing event �like a new Pearl Harbor�.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf

^^
PAGE 63


Their Goal: The neoconservative agenda

Established in the spring of 1997 and funded largely by the energy and arms industries, the Project for the New American Century was founded as the neoconservative think tank whose stated goal was to usher in a �new American century�. Having won the cold war and no military threat to speak of, this group of ideologues created a blueprint for the future whose agenda was to capitalize upon our surplus of military forces and funds and forcing American hegemony and corporate privatization throughout the world. In their statement of principles they outline a fourfold agenda:

1) Increase an already enormous military budget at the expense of domestic social programs

2) Toppling of regimes resistant to our corporate interests

3) Forcing democracy at the barrel of a gun in regions that have no history of the democratic process

4) Replacing the UN�s role of preserving and extending international order


George W Bush, whose political career has been nearly fully funded by the energy and defense industries was appointed by the Supreme Court after the disputed election of 2000. Immediately he appointed signatories of PNAC documents to the top levels of the White House and Pentagon.

It has now been proven that once Bush had all of his top levels filled by the PNAC, that our guard against terrorist attacks was let down.

Richard Clarke, whose position as terrorism czar was promoted to a cabinet level position under Clinton, was subsequently demoted from the cabinet and reassigned by Bush to other projects. Dick Cheney himself, has said that Clarke was kept �out of the loop�.

Paul O�Neil, former Secretary of Treasury, has stated that the Bush administration did not treat Al-qaeda as an imminent threat.

The Bush administration ignored and denied the existence of a presidential briefing entitled �Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United Sates� until it was revealed to the public. Testifying before the 9-11 commission, Rice referred to this as an "historical document'. We were led to believe that this was the only warning. It has since come out to the public, that she was lying. Lying 52 times over. It has now been learned that Condi didn't disclose that they had, in fact, received 52 warnings in the months leading up to September 11th.

The Bush administration needed a �new Pearl Harbor� to implement the PNAC agenda and they let down their guard until it occurred.

Knowing what we know today, the invasion of Iraq was based on falsehoods and was an unnecessary and dangerous diversion from the effort to reduce terrorist attacks on the United States. Muslim anger at the United States is at an all time high. Iraq posed no threat to us and the process of containment was working. Most importantly, Iraq is in chaos, on the brink of civil war, and now a breeding ground for a hundred new Bin Ladens.

The PNAC members of our government told us that it would be �a cake walk�. That we would be greeted as �liberators�. That we�d see parades in the streets. Terribly undermanned, our military is in the middle of a quagmire where only the best case scenario was planned for.

The museums, the hospitals, the munitions depots, the nuclear facilities were left unprotected at the onset of the invasion. The ministry of oil was securely guarded.

Who has benefited from all of this at the expense of over a thousand US soldiers lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives? The very arms and energy industries that funded the PNAC:

� Halliburton, once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney

� Bechtel, once headed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

� [/B]Trireme[/B], a defense company started by Deputy Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle shortly before the invasion

And finally, one last question:

Where did the first oil tanker to leave Iraq after the invasion go?

Answer: Texas

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov PNAC is a defunct (and disgraced) organization that even its original members disavow.

Yes defunct as every one now sees it for exactly what it was. I do not how ever hear Cheney complaining from the billions he made while being an active member and running Halliburton. This is not to say the newly formed Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is not on the same path. Different name, same bull shit.

Mission Statement

In 2009 the United States--and its democratic allies--face many foreign policy challenges. They come from rising and resurgent powers, including China and Russia. They come from other autocracies that violate the rights of their citizens. They come from rogue states that work with each other in ways inimical to our interests and principles, and that sponsor terrorism and pursue weapons of mass destruction. They come from Al Qaeda and its affiliates who continue to plot attacks against the United States and our allies. They come from failed states that serve as havens for terrorists and criminals and spread instability to their neighbors.

The United States faces these challenges while engaged in military operations across the globe, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. The sacrifice of American lives and significant economic expenditure in these conflicts has led to warnings of U.S. strategic overreach, and calls for American retrenchment. There are those who hope we can just return to normalcy--to pre-9/11 levels of defense spending and pre-9/11 tactics. They argue for a retreat from America�s global commitments and a renewed focus on problems at home, an understandable if mistaken response to these difficult economic times.

In fact, strategic overreach is not the problem and retrenchment is not the solution. The United States cannot afford to turn its back on its international commitments and allies--the allies that helped us defeat fascism and communism in the 20th century, and the alliances we have forged more recently, including with the newly liberated citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. Our economic difficulties will not be solved by retreat from the international arena. They will be made worse.

In this new era, the consequences of failure and the risks of retreat would be even greater than before. The challenges we face require 21st century strategies and tactics based on a renewed commitment to American leadership. The United States remains the world�s indispensable nation -- indispensable to international peace, security, and stability, and indispensable to safe-guarding and advancing the ideals and principles we hold dear.

The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is a newly formed, non-profit, non-partisan organization intending to qualify as a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code that promotes:

* continued U.S. engagement--diplomatic, economic, and military�in the world and rejection of policies that would lead us down the path to isolationism;
* robust support for America�s democratic allies and opposition to rogue regimes that threaten American interests;
* the human rights of those oppressed by their governments, and U.S. leadership in working to spread political and economic freedom;
* a strong military with the defense budget needed to ensure that America is ready to confront the threats of the 21st century;
* international economic engagement as a key element of U.S. foreign policy in this time of great economic dislocation.

FPI looks forward to working with all who share these objectives, irrespective of political party, so that the United States successfully confronts its challenges and make progress toward a freer and more secure future.

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/

A little more background on PNAC 2.0, oops I mean the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI)

NATIONAL SECURITY Introducing FPI March 31, 2009


Today in Washington D.C., neoconservatives William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Dan Senor will officially launch their new war incubator -- The Foreign Policy Initiative -- with a half-day conference on "the path to success in Afghanistan" (never mind the fact that Kagan and Kristol declared that "the endgame seems to be in sight in Afghanistan" almost seven years ago). Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, and Kagan, Carnegie Endowment fellow and Washington Post columnist, have long histories of advocating policies that rely heavily on the United States exerting its influence throughout the world by using military force. Senor, who has stayed relatively under the radar, served as Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman in Iraq under L. Paul Bremer. But as the New Yorker's George Packer noted, Senor "slowly lost his credibility in the daily press briefings he gave...during the first year of the occupation of Baghdad." In its initial focus on the war in Afghanistan, FPI chose heavy representation of Iraq war advocates for its panelists and guest speakers. As the Wonk Room's Matt Duss recently wrote, "a far better title" for FPI's maiden voyage would be "Afghanistan: Dealing With The Huge Problems Created By Many Of The People On This Very Stage."

'PNAC=MISSION ACCOMPLISHED': Kristol and Kagan -- with support from Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld -- co-founded the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in the late 1990s with the mission "to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire." Military force was always an option, and often the preferred one. Indeed, the group led the charge to get President Clinton to sign the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, and it served as a key lobby for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. But with neoconservatism now all but dead and its principles soundly rejected in the 2006 and 2008 elections, the face of PNAC 2.0 -- The Foreign Policy Initiative -- is less bellicose. Indeed, as Duss recently noted, "this new very innocuous sounding Foreign Policy Institute" indicates that neoconservatives "understand that they have something of an image problem," adding that it is "encouraging" that they "have some relation to reality." Yet there is no reason to believe there will be much of an ideological shift from its its predecessor, as its main founders -- especially Kristol -- are still deeply wedded to neoconservatism. Indeed, Michael Goldfarb, PNAC alum and editor of The Weekly Standard, wrote on Twitter yesterday: "PNAC=Mission Accomplished; New mission begins tomorrow morning with the launch of FPI."

ALREADY AT ODDS: Senor told Foreign Policy magazine last week that part of the group's mission is to build "consensus" on major international issues that challenge the current thinking of those who currently hold power in the U.S. government. "We think there needs to be consensus on the other side of these issues," he said. Yet even before the organization's first event, it appears that FPI is having trouble building that "consensus." Kristol called President Obama's recent "historic" message to Iran "an embarrassment" and a "message of weakness," claiming Obama has "no sense of urgency about Iran's nuclear program" and is "kowtowing" to its leaders. However, it appears that Kagan did not get Senor's "consensus" memo. Days later, commenting on Obama's message, Kagan offered a relatively more sensible view. "[T]here is logic to the administration's approach. After all, if the White House is going to give diplomacy and engagement a chance, it might as well do so thoroughly and aggressively," he wrote in the Washington Post. "I honestly can't see the harm in the Obama administration's efforts. I hope they succeed," he said.

EXPECT NO ACCOUNTABILITY: Despite the fact that the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq has been regarded as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history, expect no remorse from the PNAC/FPI crowd. In fact, Kristol has been declaring victory in Iraq at every step of the way, from saying in April 2003 that the "battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably," to claiming last December, "We've won the war" in Iraq. Just last week, a caller on C-SPAN's Washington Journal asked Kristol if he would apologize for hyping the threat from Saddam Hussein before the war, given that no WMD existed and "the fact that there are 4,500 American lives lost there." "No. I think the war was right, and I think we've succeeded in the war," Kristol replied. While Senor thinks the war has been a huge defeat for Iran (it hasn't), Packer noted that Kagan has "written many words about the war, but has never been able to acknowledge his own intellectual failures on Iraq." Despite the failures of neoconservatism, FPI's mission statement contains the neo-neocon buzz words: military engagement in the world, "rogue regimes," "rogue states," "spread...freedom," "strong military" (with a "defense budget" to back it up), "fascism," "communism," and "pre-9/11 tactics." Discussing FPI with Duss last week, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow asked, "Why is it that people who are catastrophically wrong about big important things like foreign policy and war never, like, flunk out of that as a subject? "There seems to be this special dispensation in American foreign policy that, as long as you are wrong on the side of more military force, then all is forgiven," Duss replied. He added that "the way it works in Washington, if you're arguing for more military intervention which necessitates more military expenditures, you're always going to find someone to fund your think-tank."

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You can read (I'm not sure of this anymore) but you choose not to and ignore as always. The website is up for every one, don't want to read it? Your ignorance and problem, not mine.

Nobody has time to read all the shit you post in which 99% of it has nothing to do with whatever you'r trying to say. A little bit of advice...when someone asks you to provide some proof, don't just throw out websites and expect us to do your research for you. K?

Apparently we have a new non-reader who has just joined the forum. Welcome and if you can read (properly) it only takes a few minutes of your time.

If you choose not to then don't complain about it.

Eisenhower Warns Us of the Military Industrial Complex

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I know, I know, you cannot read. I just feel like spoon feeding the children today.

Yeah, except children will eat bullshit if you feed it to them while rational adults will choose to separate the shit from shinola and not live in some fantasy alternative universe.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.