NationStates Jolt Archive

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

In 1962, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff drafted a paper, stating that they wanted to manipulate the media, intelligence, and the military, to create a false case for Cuba. People leaked information on it, but it had been regarded as mere conspiracy-theory. But in 2001, the documents on it were released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Their plans involved:

Using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba.
Start false rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
Stage mock attacks, sabotages and riots and blame it on Cuban forces
Sink an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base - reminiscent of the USS Maine incident at Havana in 1898, which started the Spanish-American War - or destroy American aircraft and blame it on Cuban forces. (The document refers to unmanned drones, fake funerals etc.)
"Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
Destroy a fake commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday" (really an unmanned drone)
Stage a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees:
"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."

Now to clarify, I find it ridiculous to claim that 9\11 was faked, for a number of reasons, such as:
Why the Secretary of Defense would be in the Pentagon when it hit (if it was pre-planned)
It's impossible to fake the deaths of so many people
Staging an attack would not require so many deaths
A well-known man claimed responsibility, with a clear motivation
Attacks had been attempted before
There was intelligence to support that the attack would occur
However, I do believe that there is a great deal they aren't telling us. Such as why many videos of the event have been confiscated. It's understandable why they would do this for the Pentagon, but not security cameras of the WTC. In addition, there was a Middle-Eastern man who had gone into the WTC basement the day of the attack, working for a false plumbing company, with the address of a Russian man's apartment. Many firefighters who were at the seen and architectural experts have said there also must've been explosives. A Federal gag-order prevents them from speaking on the issue. There's also a mildly interesting man named, "Delmart Vreeland." However, the only person who has reported on him is Michael C. Rupert, who is not a credible reporter, so none of his stories can be regarded as true. Ruppert also never reported that Delmart was on Michigan's most-wanted list and has since been arrested, and extradited to America. After this happened, Ruppert's reporting on Vreeland "mysteriously" stopped (lending it even less credibility).

So, historically, the United States has tried to use unethical tactics to start a pre-emptive war, with absolutely no justification, whatsoever. With the Downing Street memos as further evidence of the Iraqi intelligence, along with the historical evidence of how we'd tried to do the same thing with Cuba, it is not impossible or even unreasonable to assume that this time, we had been successful in generating false intelligence.

During the Iraqi war, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld accused Al-Jazeera of telling lies. Interestingly enough, Hussein's Minister of Information accused Al-Jazeera of spreading lies as well, before the United States had ever even attacked. On a side-note, Al-Jazeera is a Liberal Arab news station, which supports women's rights and democracy. Because of this, a number of Arab countries have banned their station. And, there was one bizarre event, during the Iraq War, where the army bombed Al-Jazeera's offices in Baghdad and several other Arab news stations "accidentally", as well as "accidentally" shooting an Arab reporter. All in the same day. Rumsfeld also accused Al-Jazeera of taking women and children to bombed sites, pretending that its their home, and that the crying and screaming about Bush being Godless was merely staged. Recently, the new Iraqi government passed a law stating that Al-Jazeera must leave Baghdad (temporarily, anyway), setting a political-precedent that Iraq will have no freedom of the press. Oh, also.. look into "The Office of Strategical Influence", America's propaganda-machine in the Middle East.

And finally, Al-Jazeera and many Arab news stations who historically opposed Hussein have said that the video of Iraqis "celebrating" around Hussein's statue was staged. For example, the owner of Al-Jazeera was born and raised in Iraq, saying that the individuals gathering around Hussein's statue were not speaking with Iraqi accents. They also noted that it was a very small gathering of people (only dozen or two) running towards it from one direction, not from all sides within the streets, and they were surrounded by a military convoy. Furthermore, they were all adult men, no women, no children.

In the 1962 "Operation: Northwoods", it was clarified that a special organization would need to be created, in order to oversee all of the current actions that were going on. Luckily, President Kennedy rejected the plan. Well, for the war in Iraq, the Bush administration created "The Office For Special Plans", which was an incredibly small organization run under the Zionist, anti-Arab Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Now, that is no exaggeration, when I say Zionist or anti-Arab. Feith was involved in writing a controversial paper, claiming that Israel should abandon the current "comprehensive peace" stance and instead move towards "a balance of power." He has stated and implied that he wishes all Arabs to be out of Israel and for Israel to give up no land, whatsoever. Interestingly-enough, there was a news report a couple of years ago, mentioning that there was an investigation for an Israeli spy "in an Undersecretary's office." The evidence seems to point towards Douglas Feith or someone working under him. Being the Undersecretary of Defense, he has practically unlimited access to intelligence. However, he has since resigned "for family reasons."

With the Office For Special Plans being under the authority of the Secretary and Undersecretary of Defense, the organization had authority over all intelligence and military operations, concievably, being able to direct all operations, and revise or censor any intelligence reports.

Lol

Fixed the nasty typo.

In 1962... ...in CUBA. Not Iraq.

Why would America hate Cuba, because they are commies. The west doesn't like commies too much, now do they? They probably used the Maine to start the Spanish-American war.

It will always be a pain in America's ass to have an active, populated, and armed anti-American outpost just 90 miles from the American mainland. It could stop at nothing to get rid of it and make the entire Latin America the United States' backyard.

Ooooookaaaaayyyy.....

Everything seems to be one huge conspiracy.

Even God has his own conspiracy. Probably to take over the world.

Why would America hate Cuba, because they are commies. The west doesn't like commies too much, now do they? They probably used the Maine to start the Spanish-American war.
Oh, and by the way. I would like to mention something.

Hussein was, in many respects, like Hitler. But it'd be better to characterize him as a benevolent, mafia leader. Since 1979, under Hussein's leadership, every Iraqi citizen had free healthcare and free education, including college, which is more than a number of western countries can say.

And yes, he used chemical weapons, which was extremely barbaric. What Chemical Ali did was fucked up. But in the Iraq-Iran war, he used WMDs while Iran was using suicide-bombers. In the Iran-Iraq war, there were no heroes and no villains. In fact, at one point, Reagan was giving military support to both countries at the same time and gave Hussein the materials to make WMDs. We also didn't oppose him until after he'd tried to make nukes, started threatening Israel, and invaded Kuwait (screwing with our oil prices). Basically, the Saudis, China, and various South American countries are ruled by dictators.

But unless they're a "bad dictator", that screws with our economy or military allies, we generally don't give a shit. The Saudis have millions in their slave trade, but the White House says it needs to be dealt with "delicately", being completely silent on the issue since it was reported on.

And then, politicians like Hugo Chavez, who actually have the support of the people and govern well--we spread propaganda and lies about him, because he opposes the free trade that's going to destroy his country.

Pro-American China = Good.
Pro-American Saudi Arabia = Good.
Pro-American Israel = Good.
Pro-American Iraq = Good.
Pro-American Afghanistan = Good.
Pro-American Shah of Iran = Good.

Anti-American North Korea = Bad.
Anti-American Venezula = Bad.
Anti-American Cuba = Bad.
Anti-American Iraq = Bad.
Anti-American Afghanistan = Bad.
Anti-American Republic of Iran = Bad.

How we judge human rights abuses and evil governments doesn't depend on how bad they actually are, but how much economic and military influence they have on our country. For example, we criticize Hussein's genocide, but what has the U.S. done to stop genocide in Africa or other parts of the Middle East?

Why would America hate Cuba, because they are commies. The west doesn't like commies too much, now do they? They probably used the Maine to start the Spanish-American war.

Actualy they did. They blamed it on a spanish mine even though spanish investigators said improperly stored ammo exploded. Turned out the Spanish was right. :D

Do you think there is anything Richard Perle would not lie about in order to re-write the entire Middle East?

Wow...what a suprise! America used dirty tactics during the Cold War! I didnt know this.

On a lighter note, 9/11 was planned on a Saturday in 1947 as a provocation for war with the Soviet Union.

How we judge human rights abuses and evil governments doesn't depend on how bad they actually are, but how much economic and military influence they have on our country. For example, we criticize Hussein's genocide, but what has the U.S. done to stop genocide in Africa or other parts of the Middle East?

Nice job of blaming the US for their troubles. Who was the last nations in Africa? Oh yea, Britain, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, France. Who was the last nations in the middle east? Britain and France. Why blame the US when these nations pulled out before sufficient governments were establed?

Do you think there is anything Richard Perle would not lie about in order to re-write the entire Middle East?
I dunno. But, with all of the Jews in the White House, I would like to see JUST ONE ARAB. JUST ONE.

And not so many fucking wacko Christians. Like Ashcroft, who was a fucking joke. When in office, he paid several thousand dollars for them to put an expensive blue cover over the naked "Lady of Justice" statue in Washington D.C. After he got out of office, they took it down, of course.

Nice job of blaming the US for their troubles. Who was the last nations in Africa? Oh yea, Britain, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, France. Who was the last nations in the middle east? Britain and France. Why blame the US when these nations pulled out before sufficient governments were establed?
Oh! You're right!

Because several hundred years of Europe exploiting Africa and South America under mercantilism, then, leaving their countries in shambles (creating power vaccuums all over) doesn't make us responsible, whatsoever. And furthermore, the best thing, to help poor countries like that, is free trade.

That way, large American corporations can set up shop, making all local businesses bankrupt. And in the end, generates revenue for two groups: American companies and the corrupt foreign government that taxes them. Meanwhile, the foreign small-business owners are plotting terrorism.

I dunno. But, with all of the Jews in the White House, I would like to see JUST ONE ARAB. JUST ONE.

OMG! This has got to be the most idiotic statement shrub has made. How do you know that the white house has all jews? I'm sure there are arabs inside the white house too. You sir need to grow up.

And not so many fucking wacko Christians. Like Ashcroft, who was a fucking joke. When in office, he paid several thousand dollars for them to put an expensive blue cover over the naked "Lady of Justice" statue in Washington D.C. After he got out of office, they took it down, of course.

Boy, someone needs to down the hatred a little bit. Somehere, to me, is a bigot. Ok I'll admit that covering up those statues was insane but hey, his department his way of running it.

They probably used the Maine to start the Spanish-American war.
REALLY!?!?!?! That's the entire reason we started the war. Except your statement's a little ambiguous...maybe by used you mean "staged."

OMG! This has got to be the most idiotic statement shrub has made. How do you know that the white house has all jews? I'm sure there are arabs inside the white house too. You sir need to grow up.
None. There's Zalmay Khalilzad, but he's just an ambassador. And he doesn't really count, because he used to be part of the PNAC, the Neoconservative group that wants to instill Judeo-Christian values and American world domination through propaganda and unethical political tactics.

I dunno. But, with all of the Jews in the White House, I would like to see JUST ONE ARAB. JUST ONE.


Countdown to this becoming a Nazi face-off thread... 3... 2... 1...

(for the record, I'm Jewish, and statements like that just help to further display your ignorance. Please stop.)

None. There's Zalmay Khalilzad, but he's just an ambassador. And he doesn't really count, because he used to be part of the PNAC, the Neoconservative group that wants to instill Judeo-Christian values and American world domination through propaganda and unethical political tactics.

Thanks for not proving your statement. You don't know what you stated but thats ok. There are arabs working at the white house just like there are arabs working in the judiciary and legislature too. Alwell... I guess you really don't know as much as you think.

OMG! This has got to be the most idiotic statement shrub has made. How do you know that the white house has all jews? I'm sure there are arabs inside the white house too. You sir need to grow up.
OMG! The Government is stained all over with fiercly zionist Jews. It has always been. Why do you think we've been so blatantly supporting Israel instead of trying to make peace? Sure it may seem like we're trying to make peace with the Palestinians, but in fact we're just putting on a show.

Boy, someone needs to down the hatred a little bit. Somehere, to me, is a bigot. Ok I'll admit that covering up those statues was insane but hey, his department his way of running it.
uh huh, so when I'm Prez and I put up a giant penis over the Washington Monument and I say "it's my way of running my place," no one should object?

Countdown to this becoming a Nazi face-off thread... 3... 2... 1...

(for the record, I'm Jewish, and statements like that just help to further display your ignorance. Please stop.)
I'm not anti-Semitic. But there is a pro-white, pro-Christian, and pro-Jewish bias in our government. If you take the statistics of all people in all aspects of the government (including state and local), it's about equal. But if you take statistics of Congress, it is especially true. The higher up in power you go, the stronger this bias is.

Now, you could claim that this is merely SOCIETY which is biased. But why, then, are there so few women on the Supreme Court and in Presidential cabinets? These positions are appointed by the President, not the people. Throughout history, and even now, the cabinet and other top positions are all white, Christian, and Jewish. There's been a couple of blacks and females appointed, but those are few and far-between.

Appointing an Arab to a high political position would also be good politics. Because, having a White House with so many Jews in it (particularly in the Department of Defense) and not a single Arab, gives the Middle East even more reason to believe there's a Jewish Conspiracy. They hate Bush, but they liked Clinton. During the Iraqi War, the Department of Defense was headed by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, both Jews. Understanding the political climate of the Middle East, as well as Douglas Feith's rude, ignorant statements, it's understandable why they'd be so suspicious.

If you understand the Middle Eastern culture, they believe everything is Israel out to get them. I read that some even ignorantly thought that the Clinton impeachment was a Jewish conspiracy, because of Monica's last name, "Lewinsky." (Apparently, they liked Clinton. Thought he was Pro-Arab.)

And my statements aren't racism, because I don't believe any race is superior. White supremacy, Zionism, Arab nationalism, and Black Nationalism are all equally fucking ignorant. And it's quite clear that there's a great deal of White Supremacy and Zionism in the American government.

BTW Shrub, read up on the Bay of Pigs!

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

BTW Shrub, read up on the Bay of Pigs!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
I already know about it.

I already know about it.

After reading that, it is eirly similiar to what we tried to do in 1961 that failed.

lol! why do you do this to yourself? the Bay of Pigs was a huge disaster, where the American Government tried not to get involved, but the weapons were supplied by the U.S. and I didn't see it in the article but I didn't read the whole thing cuz I know it all already, U.S. pilots were involved. Several got shot down, and the government fed their families utter lies to their dissappearance. Sure JFK okayed the invasion, it was a gigantic mistake on his part, but the military was so anxious to get involved in something, they talked him into it. I'm not saying the blame was lifted, but it's not like he thought it up at advocated it himself...he thought it would work and reluctantly agreed.

That was precisely my point Achtung. It was a complete and utter disaster. This plan that shrub mentioned probably would've ended up the same way. It wasn't going to work and that was why it was never implemented. I wasn't about to prove a point but I brought up bay of pigs to remind him what happened the last time some people decided to try and take the island. Also, JFK didn't bring the support he promised to the exiles if they did this. JFK hung them out to dry.

Also if he thought it would work then why didn't he send in support that he promised?

Pro-American China = Good.
Pro-American Saudi Arabia = Good.
Pro-American Israel = Good.
Pro-American Iraq = Good.
Pro-American Afghanistan = Good.
Pro-American Shah of Iran = Good.

Anti-American North Korea = Bad.
Anti-American Venezula = Bad.
Anti-American Cuba = Bad.
Anti-American Iraq = Bad.
Anti-American Afghanistan = Bad.
Anti-American Republic of Iran = Bad.

Ah yes, that notorious Israeli dictatorship. Why do we support that tyrant, anyway? What's his name, again? You know, the one who's been oppressing the Israeli people for decades now.

Okay, having dispensed with the heavy-handed sarcasm, let me move right along to some sputtering outrage. Shrub, your characterization of Hussein as a "benevolent mafia" type of guy is ignorant at best, and arrant foolishness at worst. Don't give me that "back in 1979, the people had free education" crap. You know better than that; a gilded cage is still a prison. There are people out there who will use anything to justify dictatorship. Don't be one of them

Let's not forget Ari Fleischer, the voice and face of the US during the first several years of the war. Brilliant casting if you want to inflame the middle east.

Let's not forget Ari Fleischer, the voice and face of the US during the first several years of the war. Brilliant casting if you want to inflame the middle east.

The mid-east isn't the center of the universe. If they've still got problems with the Jews, fuck 'em.

That was precisely my point Achtung. It was a complete and utter disaster. This plan that shrub mentioned probably would've ended up the same way. It wasn't going to work and that was why it was never implemented. I wasn't about to prove a point but I brought up bay of pigs to remind him what happened the last time some people decided to try and take the island. Also, JFK didn't bring the support he promised to the exiles if they did this. JFK hung them out to dry.

Also if he thought it would work then why didn't he send in support that he promised?

You're correct there. Except JFK never promised support. He agreed to a plan the military generals thought would work. They were all wrong. Maybe I should've read all the posts.

The mid-east isn't the center of the universe. If they've still got problems with the Jews, fuck 'em.

Do you want to win the war, or not?

You're correct there. Except JFK never promised support. He agreed to a plan the military generals thought would work. They were all wrong. Maybe I should've read all the posts.

Actually, he did agree to back up but then decided to not provide it for reasons unknown.

Actually, he did agree to back up but then decided to not provide it for reasons unknown.
He called off the additional air strikes because it "would tilt international opinion too far against the U.S.," as advised by U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk to Kennedy.

He called off the additional air strikes because it "would tilt international opinion too far against the U.S.," as advised by U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk to Kennedy.

Thanks for proving my point that he called off the support.

How we judge human rights abuses and evil governments doesn't depend on how bad they actually are, but how much economic and military influence they have on our country.
Congrats, you've just described every nation of the world...that has ever existed.

Do you want to win the war, or not?

Yes. Yes I do. But you don't win wars by pandering to the Arabs' medieval prejudices.

Yes. Yes I do. But you don't win wars by pandering to the Arabs' medieval prejudices.

Granted, but you also don't soothe insurgents to stop them from blowing up troops and civilians alike by needlessly putting a Jewish face onto every aspect of your war effort.

Thanks for proving my point that he called off the support.
you're quite welcome

Ah yes, that notorious Israeli dictatorship. Why do we support that tyrant, anyway? What's his name, again? You know, the one who's been oppressing the Israeli people for decades now.
The Israelis are not terrorists anymore, simply because we've given them enough military aid (and continue to do so), to the point where they have a very strong military, and even have nuclear weapons, which no Arab country has been allowed to have.

They mostly attack the PLO on what they once were. The fact is: Though they once committed terrorism, they currently denounce it. The same can be said of the Israeli government. The Israeli army stems from Haganah, a militant group of Anti-Arab Jews in the 20's. They committed bombings against Arabs no different than the PLO once did. But we do not judge the Israeli army by what they were, but by what they are. The fact is: If America had supported Palestine instead of Israel, Israel would be the ones committing terrorism.

Quite some time ago, Israel (I believe it was Mossad) was caught improperly torturing prisoners. Since then, they've condemned it, and don't do it. But the fact is, it was done.


Okay, having dispensed with the heavy-handed sarcasm, let me move right along to some sputtering outrage. Shrub, your characterization of Hussein as a "benevolent mafia" type of guy is ignorant at best, and arrant foolishness at worst. Don't give me that "back in 1979, the people had free education" crap. You know better than that; a gilded cage is still a prison. There are people out there who will use anything to justify dictatorship. Don't be one of them
Not at all. He gained power, much like a mafia-leader did and ran his government the same way. In the 60's, he was a Baathist goon and only gained power because he did the dirty, bloody assassination jobs that no one else wanted to do. His bravery and the fact that he got things done was what led to his popularity.

After the Iraqi government under Abdullah Qasim faced a coup in 1963 and the Baathist party took power, Hussein was named Vice President. In 1979, the President of Iraq, Bakr, stepped down and Hussein came into power. After that, he put 68 members of his own party on trial for conspiracy and executed 21 of them, in order to ensure no one would try to overthrow him.

While in power, yes, since 1979 (and likely, all of the years before that after Iraq's economy was prosperous), the standard of living in Iraq was good. Hussein did not allow any political opposition whatsoever, though. If you formed a political party that did not support the Baathist party, they'd have you tortured, then executed. If you became very wealthy, then Hussein, like a mafia leader, often "Made an offer you couldn't refuse." In other words, if you became rich, Hussein expected you to join and support the Baath party. If you refused, yes, you'd be tortured, then executed.

But he didn't just randomly kill people and he attacked the Kurds, up north, because they opposed him. Even before Iraq, because of military problems, they were semi-autonomous. After the Iraqi war, the Kurds supported the U.S. militarily.

However, as said before, the Baath party gave citizens free education and free healthcare. Hussein also abolished "sharia", Islamic law. In other words, the Taliban and the current Iraqi government is probably going to put sharia law into effect, which means:
#1. They cut your hand off if you steal.
#2. Womens' testimony in court is worth less than mens'.
#3. Execution for adultery.
#4. Implementing a council and police force to enforce moral and religious values.
#5. Abolishing insurance and credit.

If Hussein was merely a dictator trying to milk Iraq of its wealth, he wouldn't have given a shit about Islamic law and he would've immediately eliminated all healthcare and education. He didn't. And while he ran the country with an iron fist and brutally eliminated all political opposition, he was seen as being courageous, for being able to come into a power in such a Napoleon-like way, and for challenging the United States. He also provided for the people. This, as well as Hussein's propaganda (covering up the Kurdish genocide), is why Hussein was considered a folkhero, not just to some of them Iraqis (non-Kurds), but to the Arab world.

This is also the reason for such an intense insurgency. The fact is, unless you opposed Saddam Hussein in Iraq, life was not bad in Iraq. Looking at videos of it in the movie, Fahrenheit 9\11, you can clearly see that. What the United States did was turn a peaceful, prosperous area run by a brutal fascist, and turned it into a military war-zone run by a puppet democracy.

You want to know who had brutal human rights abuses? The Taliban. They repeatedly persecuted women and non-Muslims.

And guess who they took many of their laws from? Our buddies, Saudi Arabia. Yes. You may not be aware of this, but the Taliban was modeled after Saudi Arabia. They took their same laws, but added to them.

So, for example, there is a religious police in Saudi Arabia too. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive. A while ago, in Saudi Arabia, 15 girls burned to death in a Saudi school. There was a fire, but the girls did not have appropriate clothing to be seen by the public. So, the religious police sealed the building shut, so they could not escape. Those girls who did miraculously escape were beaten furiously.

It's also been recently reported that Saudi Arabia has a large slave trade. And finally, Bin Laden and the majority of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian.

Yet Saudi Arabia is our close ally. Saudi Arabia... The government that DOES milk its country for wealth.. Bush constantly holds hands with the Saudi Royal family, because of their oil. And it makes me sick.

Granted, but you also don't soothe insurgents to stop them from blowing up troops and civilians alike by needlessly putting a Jewish face onto every aspect of your war effort.

But why should we discriminate against an otherwise worthy candidate just because of his ancestral background. This is our chance to say, "In America, that kind of thing doesn't matter. If you have a problem with our spokesman, you'll have to change your prejudices, because we will not bend over backwards for your sake."

Also, you don't "soothe" insurgents. You kill them. Simple as that.

Also, you don't "soothe" insurgents. You kill them. Simple as that.
A military general said a while ago that, ultimately, they're going to need to win the war by convincing the insurgents that democracy can work. They were having indirect talks with them, to convince them to have a cease-fire.

Hatred cannot be ended by murder. It is ignorant to assume that you can kill an ideology with guns, unless you plan on committing genocide.

And furthermore, throughout history, whenever a country invades and occupies a foreign country, they have:
-(Usually) Lost the war
-(On rare occasions) Succeeded, but had an extremely long, costly occupation

Now to clarify, I find it ridiculous to claim that 9\11 was faked, for a number of reasons, such as:
[list] Why the Secretary of Defense would be in the Pentagon when it hit (if it was pre-planned)


Because he knew he'd be safe...Remember, the side that was hit was being reinforced for just such an attack at the time of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon.


It's impossible to fake the deaths of so many people

Why would they fake deaths when they could have the impact of so many REAL deaths?


Staging an attack would not require so many deaths

A fun little factoid: If the Twin Towers were at full capacity when the attack took place, about 15,000+ people would've died (the capacity of the towers on a normal day was approximately 25,000)


A well-known man claimed responsibility, with a clear motivation

Yes, you mean the man payed by the CIA to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan?

The man who runs an organization called "Al-Queda"? (which translated into English, means, "The Database"?)

Yes, ill believe a bunch of shoddy videos put out by the government any day...When pigs fly...


However, I do believe that there is a great deal they aren't telling us. Such as why many videos of the event have been confiscated. It's understandable why they would do this for the Pentagon, but not security cameras of the WTC. In addition, there was a Middle-Eastern man who had gone into the WTC basement the day of the attack, working for a false plumbing company, with the address of a Russian man's apartment. Many firefighters who were at the seen and architectural experts have said there also must've been explosives.


Those buildings would've been impossible to fell with a comparitively mosquito-sized plane smashing into them, and the only way to explain the buildings' sudden FREEFALL is Proffessional Demolition...A bunch of "jihadists" could'nt have managed that.


Also, what about WTC 7?


The place was a FEMA HQ, with many redundancies in it's structure...How the fuc* could IT fall down without proffessional demos? It collapsed at 5 o' clock, several hours after the towers fell, and it was'nt even hit by large debris and did'nt have any raging fires.

By the way, no highrise steel structure has EVER been felled by just pure fire , and the government says that two GIGANTIC buildings (and one FEMA Bunker) were felled by a REALLY REALLY HOT FIRE?

Also, if the Towers had really "pancaked" as they say they did, there would've been 47 steel columns rising up out of the debris, like a skeleton, but they're nowhere in sight...At the bottom of both towers were 47 giant blobs of red-hot molten metal, and that was all the way at the END of cleanup work.

A military general said a while ago that, ultimately, they're going to need to win the war by convincing the insurgents that democracy can work. They were having indirect talks with them, to convince them to have a cease-fire.

He was talking about those that are Iraqi. You have to convince them. Those that aren't Iraqi... fair game.

Hatred cannot be ended by murder. It is ignorant to assume that you can kill an ideology with guns, unless you plan on committing genocide.

As much as this may shock people, I do agree with this statement.

And furthermore, throughout history, whenever a country invades and occupies a foreign country, they have:
-(Usually) Lost the war
-(On rare occasions) Succeeded, but had an extremely long, costly occupation

Occupation is normally long. BTW, how long did Britain stay in Africa? France in Africa? Germany in Africa? Netherlands in Africa? Portugal in Africa? What about the Brits in India? the middle east? They took those over and held them for a long time. Same thing for the rest of the nations till they either won their independence through force of arms or were let go by their conquerors.

A military general said a while ago that, ultimately, they're going to need to win the war by convincing the insurgents that democracy can work. They were having indirect talks with them, to convince them to have a cease-fire.

Hatred cannot be ended by murder. It is ignorant to assume that you can kill an ideology with guns, unless you plan on committing genocide.

And furthermore, throughout history, whenever a country invades and occupies a foreign country, they have:
-(Usually) Lost the war
-(On rare occasions) Succeeded, but had an extremely long, costly occupation

Like the talks that happened when we pulled out of Fallujah. We all know how that turned out -- with the troops having to go back in, fight down the same damn streets and pacify the place by force.

What makes you think convincing the insurgents of democracy's merits will accomplish anything? They're fanatics, and they're not even from Iraq. More than likely, they'll laugh in your face, then chop off your head on tv.

I think I need only cite the many great empires in history to disprove your talk about the pointlessness of war.

*snip*

I'm going to hate myself for this but Letokia, are you being sarcastic?

I think I need only cite the many great empires in history to disprove your talk about the pointlessness of war.
...That all fell apart. And you're admitting that America is in Iraq to achieve imperialistic goals?

And you're right. They aren't from Iraq. We kicked over a big fucking hornets nest and now we're trying to fix it in the worst way possible.

I'm going to hate myself for this but Letokia, are you being sarcastic?

God, I hope so . . .

I'm going to hate myself for this but Letokia, are you being sarcastic?



Why would you think i'm being sarcastic?


Go ahead, wise guy, what do YOU know about the collapses?

...That all fell apart. And you're admitting that America is in Iraq to achieve imperialistic goals?

And you're right. They aren't from Iraq. We kicked over a big fucking hornets nest and now we're trying to fix it in the worst way possible.

So empires eventually fall apart. Whoop-de-doo. You're just stating an historical fact, like "Today's Great Powers are different from the ones three centuries ago" Countries come and go, empires rise and fall, it's natural. Nonetheless, there are empires out there that hung together for hundreds of years. Don't be so cavalier in dismissing them.

You know, I don't really give a damn if America's in Iraq for imperialistic reasons. However, my personal preferences don't have much to do with the matter. I used the empires example merely to rebut Shrub's assertion that invasions always result in disaster for the invader. I'm sure that the United States is not trying to build some kind of Second Empire.

God, I hope so . . .
me too...except you can't just rule anything out because you don't like it. If it was planned by the Bush Administration, which the evience for it is now becoming stronger than the evidence against it, it would mean a huge stain on my country and her patriotic citizens such as myself.

me too...except you can't just rule anything out because you don't like it. If it was planned by the Bush Administration, which the evience for it is now becoming stronger than the evidence against it, it would mean a huge stain on my country and her patriotic citizens such as myself.



By the way, i'm not so stupid as to believe that the entire administration was in on it, just a small faction within, but an obviously powerful one.


Heck, I don't even think Bush knows...If he does, he's very good at playing stupid.

me too...except you can't just rule anything out because you don't like it. If it was planned by the Bush Administration, which the evience for it is now becoming stronger than the evidence against it, it would mean a huge stain on my country and her patriotic citizens such as myself.

If it were true, September 11 would be a day of infamy worse than Dec 7. The world will long remember that the worse attack on American soil was perpetrated by other Americans.

It's kind of interesting to speculate about: if it was an inside job, who in the upper echelons of the Administration was in on it? I personally blame Norman Mineta as the mastermind. The Secretary of Transportation is the logical choice for ringleader. ;)

Why would you think i'm being sarcastic?


Go ahead, wise guy, what do YOU know about the collapses?

WHy do I think your being sarcastic because there is no evidence of such a thing and I bet you 3-1 you got that from michael moore's movie F 9/11!

I realy hate conspiracy theories that are out in left field. BTW, you haven't explained how Flight 93 went down. I can tell you it wasn't shot down. You also haven't explained to me why you put quotation marks around the word plane when one of the posters on this board actually witnessed the plane going into the pentagon. BTW, the side the plane hit wasn't protected from this sort of thing. It was on the schedule to do. The rest of it was though and they are thinking that is what actulaly saved the building.

As for the WTC collapsed, see what a fully loaded plane, crashing to an up rise and bursting into flames would do. Luckily it went down the way it did otherwise, many more people would've fallen. Now can I see a link to prove that WTC 7 was a FEMA bunker please. First I've heard of it. I know that a NYC emergency center was near there but unusable due to the attacks so do you have proof that it was a FEMA bunker?

me too...except you can't just rule anything out because you don't like it. If it was planned by the Bush Administration, which the evience for it is now becoming stronger than the evidence against it, it would mean a huge stain on my country and her patriotic citizens such as myself.

I doubt very much that the Bush administration had anything to do with this. For one, the body language of the administration was wrong. You can tell alot about a person based on body language. It was all wrong for them to be involved. And yes, I know when something is wrong based on tone of voice and on body language. The tone also wasn't conducive to this.

Number 3: nothing like this can stay secret for long. Not with today's media. Someone would have a guilty conscience and would've spilled the beans long before now.

Number 4: why did you make such a ludicroius statement?

Heck, I don't even think Bush knows...If he does, he's very good at playing stupid.

I actually laughed at this. People already think he's stupid so whats the point?

By the way, i'm not so stupid as to believe that the entire administration was in on it, just a small faction within, but an obviously powerful one.


Heck, I don't even think Bush knows...If he does, he's very good at playing stupid.
ah, that would be smart on Rove's part. Or the PNAC, or whoever staged it if it was staged.

And who says he's playing stupid? lol

Why would you think i'm being sarcastic?


Go ahead, wise guy, what do YOU know about the collapses?


Why did the other buildings collapse? Perhaps the two buildings weighing several Thousand Tons falling would cause a huge Fricking Earthquake at ground Zero. And if there a buildings that are weak nearby? Crash.

There were over 60 plans on how to stop Fidel Castro, most of them were assassination plans but some were to make him bald, fill him full of LSD before he does a speech. And some even weirder.

I doubt very much that the Bush administration had anything to do with this. For one, the body language of the administration was wrong. You can tell alot about a person based on body language. It was all wrong for them to be involved. And yes, I know when something is wrong based on tone of voice and on body language. The tone also wasn't conducive to this. The body language of the entire administration? That's pretty complex. Espacially when you almost never see the brains of the Admin.

Number 3: nothing like this can stay secret for long. Not with today's media. Someone would have a guilty conscience and would've spilled the beans long before now.
Uh huh, because the media is part of a vast liberal conspriacy. I think we've already gone into this, Corneliu, and neither of us want to go back in. Lol, who in the Administration has a guilty conscience? Who has a conscience for that matter? Certainly not Karl Rove, nor the entire PNAC, or Bush's other handlers.

Number 4: why did you make such a ludicroius statement?
What makes it "ludicroius"? The fact that it disturbs you that your administration is evil?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9226231&postcount=38

WHy do I think your being sarcastic because there is no evidence of such a thing and I bet you 3-1 you got that from michael moore's movie F 9/11!


Watched F9/11, did'nt care for it much...Plus Moore is a big anti-gun nut..



I realy hate conspiracy theories that are out in left field. BTW, you haven't explained how Flight 93 went down. I can tell you it wasn't shot down. You also haven't explained to me why you put quotation marks around the word plane when one of the posters on this board actually witnessed the plane going into the pentagon. BTW, the side the plane hit wasn't protected from this sort of thing. It was on the schedule to do. The rest of it was though and they are thinking that is what actulaly saved the building.


You're right, Flight 93 did'nt get shot down...


There was a plane approaching the Pentagon, but it sailed over as a distraction for the Cruise Missile going in.



As for the WTC collapsed, see what a fully loaded plane, crashing to an up rise and bursting into flames would do. Luckily it went down the way it did otherwise, many more people would've fallen.


First, the burning jet fuel was'nt hot enough to melt thickass steel like that steel in the WTC...Second, the black smoke was indicative of a CHOKING fire, meaning the fire was running out of fuel...The building fell at freefall speeds, which is impossible if the building "pancaked" as the government says.



Now can I see a link to prove that WTC 7 was a FEMA bunker please. First I've heard of it. I know that a NYC emergency center was near there but unusable due to the attacks so do you have proof that it was a FEMA bunker?


The Corporate News Media does a good job of cutting up stories like that, so I understand your confusion...The WTC 7 building WAS the emergency building that was "rendered unusable".

Also, the CIA headquarters for NYC were in there...I had a longer post, but as I went to post it, the Forum software had kicked me off and forced me to rewrite...Make of that what you will...

Letokia, I'm not even going to bother argue with you. But, for your information, "Al-Qaeda", means, "The BASE", not "The Database." In any case, no one gives a shit about your conspiracy theories.

For everyone else: Stop feeding it.


Occupation is normally long. BTW, how long did Britain stay in Africa? France in Africa? Germany in Africa? Netherlands in Africa? Portugal in Africa?
And look how Africa turned out.


What about the Brits in India? the middle east? They took those over and held them for a long time.
I wouldn't exactly call India a "long time." Furthermore, what you said of the Middle East is absolutely ignorant. Do some research on the British and French mandates of World War I and World War II. The governments in all of those countries have had several dozen regime-changes and coups, none of them being relatively stable until now. Many still aren't exactly "stable."

Oh, and.. I need to clarify: My statistic was incorrect. In history, whenever one country has invaded another and defeats the military, but there has been an insurgency, they've either had to pull out (as with Vietnam) or had to occupy it for two decades.

I think I need only cite the many great empires in history to disprove your talk about the pointlessness of war.
Yes, let's take a look at the great "empires" in history, shall we?

Ottoman Empire - Controlled almost the entire Middle East. In the 19th century, was called "the Sick Man" of Europe, because of its constant decline. During WW1, sided with the Germans. Divided up according to the British and French mandates.

British Empire (And Other European) - Faced some form of opposition in virtually every country it controlled. Its mercantilism was an absolute failure. A smaller, poorly-organized military in America kicked it out. And in India, Muslims and Hindus who hated eachother, worked together and kicked the British out non-violently. Britain, and all of the other countries that had created colonies pulled out, because they realized it wasn't worth the struggle. They benefitted greatly from the colonies, by using slave-labor, inflated prices (only selling British-manufactured goods), and sucking all of the raw resources out of those countries. But in the long term, it was too difficult to maintain such fascist rule, and so they pulled out--leaving the countries desolate, with various primitive tribes and clans at eachothers' throats for control, the violence continuing today.

Chinese Empire - Most successful out of all of them, because many of their "dynasties" lasted quite long. However, each changed, anywhere from a few hundred to several hundred years, never being permanently stable. Because they used slave-labor and brutal methods as well. Eventually, the final dynasty collapsed and was overtaken by democracy, quickly after that, Communism.

...That all fell apart. And you're admitting that America is in Iraq to achieve imperialistic goals?
It sounds rather silly, doesn't it?

So empires eventually fall apart. Whoop-de-doo. You're just stating an historical fact, like "Today's Great Powers are different from the ones three centuries ago" Countries come and go, empires rise and fall, it's natural. Nonetheless, there are empires out there that hung together for hundreds of years. Don't be so cavalier in dismissing them.

You know, I don't really give a damn if America's in Iraq for imperialistic reasons. However, my personal preferences don't have much to do with the matter. I used the empires example merely to rebut Shrub's assertion that invasions always result in disaster for the invader. I'm sure that the United States is not trying to build some kind of Second Empire.
Oh, please. Earlier, you were ranting about the success empires have had as if it was relevant. Now, you've switched 180 degrees.

If the old empires are nothing like today's great powers, then why in the donkey fuck did you mention them? You use a straw man to attack the idea that war is pointless, which is something I never claimed. And, to support your argument, you say that war works, because it worked for the empires. Not only is this an incredibly ambiguous and meaningless statement, but it's ignorant. It clearly didn't work as we've pointed out (and you admit it's a poor analogy). Therefore, kindly shove your foot in your mouth, you warmongering imperialist.

You're right, Flight 93 did'nt get shot down...
Every good tragedy needs a hero story!

It's too bad you missed my thread about this! Here's my arguement:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9075062&postcount=1

lol, how did this thread get so hijacked!?

Letokia, I'm not even going to bother argue with you. But, for your information, "Al-Qaeda", means, "The BASE", not "The Database." In any case, no one gives a shit about your conspiracy theories.


Your're either a liar or you've been lied to...Pick one.

Ottoman Empire - Controlled almost the entire Middle East. In the 19th century, was called "the Sick Man" of Europe, because of its constant decline. During WW1, sided with the Germans. Divided up according to the British and French mandates.

British Empire (And Other European) - Faced some form of opposition in virtually every country it controlled. Its mercantilism was an absolute failure. A smaller, poorly-organized military in America kicked it out. And in India, Muslims and Hindus who hated eachother, worked together and kicked the British out non-violently. Britain, and all of the other countries that had created colonies pulled out, because they realized it wasn't worth the struggle. They benefitted greatly from the colonies, by using slave-labor, inflated prices (only selling British-manufactured goods), and sucking all of the raw resources out of those countries. But in the long term, it was too difficult to maintain such fascist rule, and so they pulled out--leaving the countries desolate, with various primitive tribes and clans at eachothers' throats for control, the violence continuing today.

Chinese Empire - Most successful out of all of them, because many of their "dynasties" lasted quite long. However, each changed, anywhere from a few hundred to several hundred years, never being permanently stable. Because they used slave-labor and brutal methods as well. Eventually, the final dynasty collapsed and was overtaken by democracy, quickly after that, Communism.

Oh, please. Earlier, you were ranting about the success empires have had as if it was relevant. Now, you've switched 180 degrees.

If the old empires are nothing like today's great powers, then why in the donkey fuck did you mention them? You use a straw man to attack the idea that war is pointless, which is something I never claimed. And, to support your argument, you say that war works, because it worked for the empires. Not only is this an incredibly ambiguous and meaningless statement, but it's ignorant. It clearly didn't work as we've pointed out (and you admit it's a poor analogy). Therefore, kindly shove your foot in your mouth, you warmongering imperialist.

Heh, "warmongering imperialist." You make me blush, sir!

You said that in every case through history, invaders have either met with defeat or had to fight a powerful insurgency. I was pointing to imperial history to say, in effect, "Look, it can't be as universally bad for the invaders as you'd like to pretend. Empires lasting for hundreds of years don't just pop into existence, they have to be conquered, and maintained. This obviously can't be done without invading and pacifying the place." Also, never did I say that the empires of old are nothing like today's Great Powers. I was saying that they are different countries; ie, Spain's golden age is long past, yet today's current superpower didn't even exist at the height of Spain's power. I said this to refute someone (maybe Achtung 45?) who said that all the great empires of the past have fallen. That's nothing more than a truism, but I felt the need to rebut it anyway. Okay?

Your're either a liar or you've been lied to...Pick one.

I've heard the same thing too. It means "The Base"

Your're either a liar or you've been lied to...Pick one.
No, you paranoid twit.

Using Arabic dictionaries, Al-Qaida or القاعدة is translated as "grassroots" (Wikipedia says it means "foundation" or "the base").
http://www.sattaratun.com/imam.asp?arabic=%u0627%u0644%u0642%u0627%u0639%u062F%u0629

And using an Arabic dictionary for PC terms, the Arabic for "database" is قاعدة بيانات
http://www.sattaratun.com/pcterm.asp?english=database

And, using Systran (a second translator) "the base" is translated as القاعدة (Al-Qaida) and "database" is translated as something else قاعدة معطيات

http://www.systranbox.com/systran/box

You said that in every case through history, invaders have either met with defeat or had to fight a powerful insurgency.
No, I clarified and you misunderstood me.

In every case where one country invaded another and faced a non-military civilian insurgency, they either lost or had to occupy the country for several decades. It was a statistic that ex-President Clinton, President Bush's close friend and a supporter of the Iraq war, mentioned on Larry King.

No, I clarified and you misunderstood me.

In every case where one country invaded another and faced a non-military civilian insurgency, they either lost or had to occupy the country for several decades. It was a statistic that ex-President Clinton, President Bush's close friend and a supporter of the Iraq war, mentioned on Larry King.

Yes, you did clarify and I thank you for that. However, I couldn't have known that your clarification was coming when I wrote up my original post, now could I?

President Clinton: the man who never told a lie. No, wait . . . that was George Washington. :D (Also, a "close friend" of GWB? Get me some of what you're smoking, man. Bush's 2000 campaign was run mainly on "Clinton was a scumbag. I'm gonna clean house")

President Clinton: the man who never told a lie. No, wait . . . that was George Washington. :D (Also, a "close friend" of GWB? Get me some of what you're smoking, man. Bush's 2000 campaign was run mainly on "Clinton was a scumbag. I'm gonna clean house")
No, President Bush's campaign was run on "family values", although I agree that probably had something to do with Clinton.

However, Bush and Clinton are close friends, and believe it or not, Bill Clinton publicly supports Bush. And they and their families hang out frequently.

...Which is why it's been rather difficult for Conservatives to find a reason to hate Hillary. Being that she is the portrait of family values, sticking by her husband despite the Monica Lewinsky scandals (contrary to Bush's alcoholic daughters and George being an alcoholic himself and also doing weed and coke), as well as the Clintons being so friendly with the Bush family, Hillary was an ex-Republican, and has said very little about abortion and Iraq.

No, President Bush's campaign was run on "family values", although I agree that probably had something to do with Clinton.

However, Bush and Clinton are close friends, and believe it or not, Bill Clinton publicly supports Bush. And they and their families hang out frequently.

...Which is why it's been rather difficult for Conservatives to find a reason to hate Hillary. Being that she is the portrait of family values, sticking by her husband despite the Monica Lewinsky scandals (contrary to Bush's alcoholic daughters and George being an alcoholic himself and also doing weed and coke), as well as the Clintons being so friendly with the Bush family, Hillary was an ex-Republican, and has said very little about abortion and Iraq.

This is probably also for decorum's sake. It just isn't nice when an ex-president criticizes how the current one is doing his job. I never had anything against Carter, but he earned my enmity by speaking out against Bush every chance he got. Sure, he's a private citizen now, and he has the right to express himself. I just wish he'd chosen the path of discretion. And good on the Clintons for taking the high road.

This is probably also for decorum's sake. It just isn't nice when an ex-president criticizes how the current one is doing his job. I never had anything against Carter, but he earned my enmity by speaking out against Bush every chance he got. Sure, he's a private citizen now, and he has the right to express himself. I just wish he'd chosen the path of discretion. And good on the Clintons for taking the high road.
More like the path of "ass-kissing."

Clinton said he gets along well with Bush because they don't usually discuss politics. And, other than politics, they share a lot in common as guys. He also said after leaving office, he wanted to try to gain Bush's support. Basically, he said something like, "I thought.. How can I understand this guy? How can I get it to where we can both disagree, but be on the same side?" After being impeached, he said he made it a goal to become close friends with the Bush family. And they are. There was a story a while ago about Clinton and Bush Sr. flying in a plane, but they only had one bed. Bush Sr. offered to switch off in the middle of the night, but Bill just said Bush could have the bed (because he was much older) and that he'd sleep on the floor.

That's why, other than her gender, Hillary might be a good candidate for Presidency. If Hillary was a man, she'd be a shoe-in. Because she's got support from all the Democrats and many Republicans. Her own state loves her. The only dirt that the Republicans can really use against her is the various racial-jokes she's made. With her past stances on civil rights, her idol being Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., that wouldn't really work. Because the Dems know better and the Republicans don't give a shit about racism.

But anyway, back to the original issue: Can you concede now that the government falsifying intelligence is possible? Faking 9\11 is silly. But what's your current stance on the Downing Street memos?