|
Post by mank on Sept 18, 2009 18:19:13 GMT 3
Ndugu mank, .... Would you say the same for all those who question the official 9/11 story, including the families of the victims, not to mention the innocent victims of the “war on terror”? Don't people have the right to ask questions about incidents that do not make sense to them, to say the least, especially when these same incidents are continually used to justify ongoing retaliatory / invasive / oppressive actions against them? Ndugu Wanyee, to address what I left out from your latest: People have the right to ask questions, and if you have not noticed, I applaud your questions about 9/11. But the right to raise questions does not come with the right to make unfounded conclusions. Here you cloud 2 separate debates under a convenient but unargued conclusion - that is the controversy I see you courting improperly. From what I understand you to be arguing, your title should be something like "Was 9/11 ...., and is Obama ....?" ... then argue the facts of each, and, more importantly, the bridge you perceive to exist between the two. Else label this thread only with 9/11, and the material you have posted that far will fit.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Sept 18, 2009 22:16:19 GMT 3
Ndugu mank, .... Would you say the same for all those who question the official 9/11 story, including the families of the victims, not to mention the innocent victims of the “war on terror”? Don't people have the right to ask questions about incidents that do not make sense to them, to say the least, especially when these same incidents are continually used to justify ongoing retaliatory / invasive / oppressive actions against them? Ndugu Wanyee, to address what I left out from your latest: People have the right to ask questions, and if you have not noticed, I applaud your questions about 9/11. But the right to raise questions does not come with the right to make unfounded conclusions. Here you cloud 2 separate debates under a convenient but unargued conclusion - that is the controversy I see you courting improperly. From what I understand you to be arguing, your title should be something like "Was 9/11 ...., and is Obama ....?" ... then argue the facts of each, and, more importantly, the bridge you perceive to exist between the two. Else label this thread only with 9/11, and the material you have posted that far will fit. Man K,In case you've not heard about it before, there is what is termed 'Sensetional Headlines' aka 'Screaming Headlines' in journalism intentionally employed by unprofessional journalists to draw readers' attention to their articles which would otherwise be ignored by discerning readers. This is the trick Ndugu Wanyee is using to try to draw peope's attention to his actual topic 9/11. 'The Obama Deception' is the sensetional headline here. Actually it is the topic of this thread which is a hoax, not Obama!!!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 18, 2009 22:29:02 GMT 3
Ndugu Eintein,
Any time Wanyee has been challenged to clarify the relation between the title and his material he has insisted that the title follows from the material ... so I do not think he is using the tactic you reference. To him the title is a valid conclusion from the matrial he posts. And that is where he loses me. If I misunderstand his intention, then I hope he will clarify matters for me this time.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Sept 18, 2009 23:14:16 GMT 3
Ndugu mank, As I expected, you have yet again avoided a very simple question, for the same reasons that I believe Einstein does not want to answer it - neither of you is prepared to shoot himself in the foot by admitting that there is indeed a very clear relationship between the title of this thread and the evidence being presented here. It is simple - did the United States invade Afghanistan and Iraq in response to 9/11 (in the name of fighting terrorism) or not? Ndugu Einstein, I am not holding my breath, but can you also answer this simple question? --- Meanwhile, from the horse’s own mouth:“Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11. We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan” ( Obama’s Remarks on Iraq and Afghanistan - www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html?pagewanted=all). --- "Let us renew our resolve against those who perpetrated this barbaric act and who plot against us still. In defense of our nation, we will never waver. In pursuit of al Qaeda and its extremist allies, we will never falter” ( Obama Honors 9/11 Victims, Those Who Serve As Ceremonies Mark Eighth Anniversary of Terror Attacks, President Says U.S. 'Will Never Falter' in Pursuit of al Qaeda - www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/11/national/main5302919.shtml). --- In a March 20, 2009 interview with CBS' 60 Minutes Correspondent Steve Kroft, which was broadcast March 22, 2009, Mr. Obama answered questions about Afghanistan: PRESIDENT OBAMA: Speaking of which. Yeah.
STEVE KROFT: What -- what should that mission be?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Making sure that al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests and our allies. That's our number one priority. And in service of that priority there may be a whole host of things that we need to do. We may need to build up-- economic capacity in Afghanistan. We may need to-- improve our diplomatic efforts in Pakistan.
We may need to bring a more regional-- diplomatic approach to bear. We may need to coordinate more effectively with our allies. But we can't lose sight of what our central mission is. The same mission that we had when we went in after 9 11. And that is these folks can project-- violence against the United States' citizens. And that is something that we cannot tolerate.
But what we can't do is think that just a military approach in Afghanistan is going to be able to solve our problems. . So what we're looking for is a comprehensive strategy. And there's gotta be an exit strategy. There-- there's gotta be a sense that this is not perpetual drift.
STEVE KROFT: Afghanistan has proven to be very hard to govern. This should not come as news to anybody (LAUGHTER) given its history.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Right.
STEVE KROFT: As the graveyards of empire. And there are people now who are concerned. We need to be careful what we're getting ourselves into in Afghanistan. Because we have come to be looked upon there by-- by people in Afghanistan, and even people now in Pakistan--
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Right.
STEVE KROFT: -as another foreign power coming in, trying to take over the region.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm very mindful of that. And so is my national security team. So's the Pentagon.
Afghanistan is not going to be easy in many ways. And this is not I disagreeessment. This is the assessment of -- commanders on the ground.--- And in an interview with CFR President Richard N. Haass', on his latest book, War of Necessity, War of Choice: Interviewer: In your new book you talk about the first Iraq war as being one of necessity, and the second Iraq war as being one of choice, although not a very good choice. How do you view the Afghanistan situation right now? It obviously started out as a war of necessity in retaliation for 9/11, but is it now becoming more of a war of choice? Richard N. Haass: The short answer is yes, you're exactly right. After 9/11, what the United States did in Afghanistan against the Taliban was a manifestation of the right of self-defense, and I did describe it in the book as a war of necessity. Since then, over the years, the U.S. position in Afghanistan has gotten broader, and in the most recent [Obama] administration white paper, you have the president and others talking about bringing the fight to the Taliban. So this suggests to me more than a narrow goal in Afghanistan of simply going after al-Qaeda remnants and a larger goal of essentially trying to help the central government in Kabul prevail in what increasingly looks like a civil war. SOURCE: Obama Broadening Afghanistan War Into 'War of Choice' and Not 'Necessity'www.cfr.org/publication/19274/obama_broadening_afghanistan_war_into_war_of_choice_and_not_necessity.html--- See also: Obama lies to defend US War of Aggression in AfghanistanCarl Herman August 19, 2009 The President of the US swears to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (article VI, paragraph 2) states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." One of the most important treaties is that governing when a nation may go to war. After 20th century wars that killed over 100 million human beings, the UN was formed to eliminate war as a foreign policy option The UN Charter is registered in the US State Department as a Treaty in Force. Therefore, one of the most important Constitutional duties of any US President is to follow the law to not unleash the world’s most powerful destructive force and to defend innocent civilians from such onslaught and misery. This is also one of the most important laws for citizens to understand and hold their political leadership accountable for ethical behavior and demand prosecution in its violation. On August 17, 2009 President Obama again defended the US invasion of Afghanistan. He called it "fundamental to the defense of our people," and said, "But we must never forget this is not a war of choice, this is a war of necessity. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans." The US legal argument that the invasion of Afghanistan is not a War of Aggression is that the US actions in Afghanistan are defensive. A War of Aggression is defined as a non-defensive war that is unauthorized by the UN Security Council. Osama bin Laden was being protected by the Taliban Afghan government, which made them co-terrorists demonstrating intent to inflict another 9/11 upon the US. This legal opinion of "defensive action" supersedes the opinion of the UN Security Council, who did not authorize use of force. Let’s review the history of the US invasion of Afghanistan before we analyze the US claim that this is a defensive war. After the attacks of 9/11, the US government requested the cooperation of the Afghanistan government for extradition of Osama bid Laden to be charged with the 9/11 attacks. The Afghan government agreed, as per usual cooperative international law, as soon as the US government provided evidence of bin Laden’s involvement.[1] The US government refused to provide any evidence. The Afghan government refused US troops entering their country and extradition until evidence was provided, and made their argument to the world press for the rule of law to apply to the US extradition request. The US invaded Afghanistan without providing evidence and without UN Security Council approval. President Bush stated, "There’s no need to discuss evidence of innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty."[2] Seven years later, despite promises to do so, the US has not provided any evidence that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, the FBI does not seek bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, stating "there is no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11."[3] Some of you might have heard of a bin Laden "confession video." The Pentagon’s "official translation" seems to indicate foreknowledge of the attacks, but independent translations show that the "official" version is a manipulation and an accurate translation shows no evidence of involvement.[4] Apparently, the FBI is in agreement with the independent translations as they do not seek him for the crime. Indeed, Princeton professor of International Law Richard Falk articulates doubts concerning many aspects of the government’s explanation of 9/11.[5] This view of a counter-government explanation is now shared by over 1,500 reputable scholars and professionals with academic training and professional experience that qualify them as experts in their testimonies.[6] Facts: The US invaded Afghanistan. The US provided no evidence to the Taliban Afghan government that bin Laden was involved in 9/11 and still have not done so. The US has provided no evidence that the Taliban supported the attacks of 9/11. The UN Security Council did not authorize use of force in Afghanistan. The US has provided no evidence of imminent threat to US national security from the Taliban. With no evidence of imminent threat or attack by Afghanistan, the US invasion is a War of Aggression. And yes, it's just that simple. The words of President Obama are the same as all tyrants: whatever justification to best sell the most horrific crime a nation can commit. They are lies of commission and lies of omission to not give you the context I just provided of the law. The US is engaged in Wars of Aggression with our tax dollars and under our flag. Consider the words of Reichsmarschall Herman Goering, President of the Reichstag in Nazi Germany from 1932-1945, and considered among to top few in Nazi "leadership." "Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." – Hermann Goering, 1946 Nuremberg Trial. Quoted by Nuremberg prison psychologist, Gilbert Gustave in Nuremberg Diary, page 278, published by Da Capo Press, 1995 ISBN 0306806614, 9780306806612 Let’s consider your role in this. If you want to consider yourself a responsible citizen, you have to upgrade your definition to understand, speak powerfully, and take action concerning violation of your nation’s war powers. If not, your definition of responsibility includes complacency with hundreds of billions of our collective dollars and the most destructive impact upon millions of human beings. I recommend practice of the above information so you can explain it to anyone within two minutes. Allow me two simple analogies: if you consider yourself a sports fan and/or player, you would HAVE to understand the most important few rules of the game. If you didn’t, others would tell you that with that level of ignorance you aren’t serious about the game. If you were in a relationship and your partner spent a lot of time and money with another person, you would ask what your partner is doing with that person. And if all it took to verify your partner’s story was as much time as it took to read this article, and you never verified the story, others would tell you with that level of complacency considering the large amount of time and money involved with your partner that you aren’t serious about having a relationship. Does that help motivate you? What will you do? Please answer your heart and mind’s strongest calling. As for a policy response, unless you have a better idea, I suggest supporting a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as I’ve previously argued. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe at the top of this page just under the title of the article. If you want to end these Wars of Aggression and move this nation to build a brighter future, please share these articles with all who claim they want to be competent citizens. If enough of us are educated, speak powerfully, and take action, these Wars of Aggression will end and we can shift our collective focus to constructive policies. Until such time, we will have more war, destruction and misery in the name of whatever bullshit rhetoric our "leadership" thinks the public will hope and believe. SOURCE: www.uruknet.info/?p=57109
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 19, 2009 4:35:50 GMT 3
Wanyee,
You are not serious. You had asked whether 9/11 was used as a pretext for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. I answered that question, and before I did, I stated my interpretation of the keyword "pretext" which can take different meanings in common speech.
You have asked a different question, and I will answer this one too. You asked:
There is nothing ambiguous about that, as far as I know. The answer is YES.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Sept 19, 2009 7:51:06 GMT 3
Ndugu mank, Thank you for finally answering my question, but I must point out something. You are the one has been introducing ambiguity all along. This latest instance is yet another good example of you running around in those circles that I have been talking about. Maybe I missed something, but this is the answer you gave me when I asked you (the first question) “whether 9/11 was used as a pretext for invading Iraq and Afghanistan”: "Dictionary.com defines Pretext as something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object. In that context I cannot agree or disagree that 9/11 was used as a pretext for invading Afghanistan (and Iraq). There are many reasons to wonder whether this is not indeed the case, but to agree or disagree would be presumptuous. ... you claim that I refuse to answer the question, but as I answer it here I feel that I am repeating my answer. I wont go back into the thread, but I can bet i answered you before." - From what I can read above, you didn’t answer the question, but rather avoided doing so. Now “you have” answered the question, probably because the references I last posted (“from the horse’s own mouth” / below) left you with no choice: Ironically, the first one is an excerpt from the book Obama in His Own Words, published by the Bureau of International Information Programs. Obama Honors 9/11 Victims, Those Who Serve: As Ceremonies Mark Eighth Anniversary of Terror Attacks, President Says U.S. 'Will Never Falter' in Pursuit of al Qaeda - www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/11/national/main5302919.shtml - See also Obama outlines policy of endless war - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9616 Obama’s Remarks on Iraq and Afghanistanwww.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html?pagewanted=allObama Broadening Afghanistan War Into 'War of Choice' and Not 'Necessity'www.cfr.org/publication/19274/oba...._necessity.htmlObama lies to defend US War of Aggression in Afghanistanwww.uruknet.info/?p=57109And the March 20, 2009 interview with CBS' 60 Minutes Correspondent Steve Kroft, which was broadcast March 22, 2009.--- Anyway, thank you for your response. Now, let us wait for Ndugu Einstein’s response (when he finishes doing his "disappearing" act), before we can proceed further. I do want not want to run around in the same circles with him. Ndugu Einstein, I ask you again “did the United States invade Afghanistan and Iraq in response to 9/11 (in the name of fighting terrorism) or not?”
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 19, 2009 17:40:53 GMT 3
Ndugu mank, Thank you for finally answering my question, but I must point out something. You are the one has been introducing ambiguity all along. This latest instance is yet another good example of you running around in those circles that I have been talking about. Wanyee, Let's at least have some respect for one another. When you intend to post something negative, please make sure you have the basis for it. Do not just force negativity into the discussion. Neither of us has to be insulted because a word that could have different meanings has been used. I think I did the responsible thing to give you the meaning upon which I answered you. According to you I had to say "yes" or "no", no matter what the question. That is why you could not see my answer. That does not mean that I did not answer. The fact that you stopped using the word Pretext following my answer (in which I defined the word so you do not use my answer to back a question I had not perceived) indicates that you do recognize the ambiguity of the word. So why do you need to create a side disagreement over the word? Is there not enough to discuss on this topic? What gives you the idea that I can answer your question for lack of a choice? I have a choice over whether I should read your questions in the first place. I think you are up to something with your “from the horse’s own mouth”. So, please move on with the subject. You do not have to insult anyone again before you do.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Sept 19, 2009 20:38:50 GMT 3
Ndugu Einstein, I ask you again “did the United States invade Afghanistan and Iraq in response to 9/11 (in the name of fighting terrorism) or not?” Ndugu Wanyee, First of all, it might be helpful for you to separate the war in Afghanistan from the war in Iraq. While the war in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military operation Operation Enduring Freedom, was launched by the United States with the United Kingdom in response to the September 11 attacks, the war in Iraq started from March 20 to May 1, 2003. As such, the Iraq war had no direct links with 9/11. If it had, the US would have attacked both countries simultaneously and immediately after 9/11. Secondly, the stated reasons for the two wars are also different. The stated aim of the invasion of Afghanistan was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. On the other hand, the stated reasons for the invasion of Iraq were to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people. Thus your question above needs to be differently formulated to get a direct answer from me!
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Sept 23, 2009 5:39:33 GMT 3
Error.
Please see next posting.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Sept 23, 2009 5:44:59 GMT 3
Is Ndugu Wanyee still in town or is he busy spreading his propaganda against Obama in other threads?! Ndugu Wanyee, for 5 days you have not managed to clear the air between the Afghan and Iraqi wars!!
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Sept 23, 2009 5:52:22 GMT 3
Ndugu Einstein, Yes, I am very much around. This is what I meant when I talked about ambiguity with mank. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq both constitute the "war on terror", which is in turn based on 9/11. Please read the following: POLITICS-US: Key Officials Used 9/11 As Pretext for Iraq WarAnalysis by Jim Lobe WASHINGTON, Jul 15 (IPS) - With demands for a full-scale investigation of the manipulation of intelligence by the administration of Pres. George W. Bush mounting steadily, it appears increasingly clear that key officials and their allies outside the administration intended to use the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq within hours of the attacks themselves. Within the administration, the principals appear to have included Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, and his national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby, among others in key posts in the National Security Council and the State Department. Outside the administration, key figures included close friends of both Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, including Richard Perle, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief James Woolsey - both members of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board (DPB); Frank Gaffney, head of the arms-industry-funded Center for Security Policy; and William Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), among others. PNAC, which is based on the fifth floor of American Enterprise Institute (AEI) building, in downtown Washington, was founded in 1997 with the signing of a statement of principles calling for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity", signed by 25 prominent neo-conservatives and right-wingers, including, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Libby, as well as several other senior Bush administration officials. A close examination of the public record indicates that all of these individuals - both in and outside the administration - were actively preparing the ground within days, even hours, after the 9/11 attacks, for an eventual attack on Iraq, whether or not it had any role in the attacks or any connection to al Qaeda. The challenge, in their view, was to persuade the public that such links either did indeed exist or were sufficiently likely to exist that a preventive strike against Iraq was warranted. Their success in that respect was stunning, although, in order to pull it off, they also had to distort and exaggerate the evidence being collected by U.S. intelligence agencies. A hint of a deliberate campaign to connect Iraq with the 9/11 attacks and al Qaeda surfaced last month in a June televised interview of Gen. Wesley Clark on the popular public-affairs programme, 'Meet the Press.' In answer to a question, Clark asserted, "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein". "It came from the White House, it came from other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein'." While Clark has not yet identified who called him, Perle, Woolsey, Gaffney, and Kristol were using the same language in their media appearances on 9/11 and over the following weeks. "This could not have been done without help of one or more governments," Perle told The Washington Post on Sep. 11. "Someone taught these suicide bombers how to fly large airplanes. I don't think that can be done without the assistance of large governments." Woolsey was more direct. "(I)t's not impossible that terrorist groups could work together with the government...the Iraqi government has been quite closely involved with a number of Sunni terrorist groups and - on some matters - has had direct contact with (Osama) bin Laden," he told one anchorman in a series of at least half a dozen national television appearances on Sep. 11 and 12. That same evening, Kristol echoed Woolsey on National Public Radio. "I think Iraq is, actually, the big, unspoken sort of elephant in the room today. There's a fair amount of evidence that Iraq has had very close associations with Osama bin Laden in the past, a lot of evidence that it had associations with the previous effort to destroy the World Trade Center (in 1993)". While Kristol and Co. were trying to implicate Hussein in the public debate, their friends in the administration were pushing hard in the same direction. Cheney, according to published accounts, had already confided to friends even before Sep. 11 that he hoped the Bush administration would remove Hussein from power. But the evidence about Rumsfeld is even more dramatic. According to an account by veteran CBS newsman David Martin last September, Rumsfeld was "telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks" five hours after an American Airlines jet slammed into the Pentagon. Martin attributed his account in part to notes that had been taken at the time by a Rumsfeld aide. They quote the defense chief asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH (Saddam Hussein) at the same time, not only UBL (Usama bin Laden). The administration should "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not", the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. Wolfowitz shared those views, according to an account of the meeting Sep. 15-16 of the administration's war council at Camp David provided by the Washington Post's Bill Woodward and Dan Balz. In the "I-was-there" style for which Woodward, whose access to powerful officials since his investigative role in the Watergate scandal almost 30 years ago is unmatched, is famous: "Wolfowitz argued (at the meeting) that the real source of all the trouble and terrorism was probably Hussein. The terrorist attacks of Sept 11 created an opportunity to strike. Now, Rumsfeld asked again: 'Is this the time to attack Iraq'"? "Powell objected", the Woodward and Balz account continued, citing Secretary of State Colin Powell's argument that U.S. allies would not support a strike on Iraq. "If you get something pinning Sept 11 on Iraq, great", Powell is quoted as saying. But let's get Afghanistan now. If we do that, we will have increased our ability to go after Iraq - if we can prove Iraq had a role". Upon their return to Washington, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz convened a secret, two-day meeting of the DPB chaired by Perle. Instead of focusing on the first steps in carrying out a "war on terrorism", however, the discussions centred on how Washington could use 9/11 to strike at Iraq, according to an account in the Wall Street Journal. Unlike Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), neither the State Department nor the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was invited to participate in the meeting. After those deliberations concluded, however, Woolsey was sent - it remains unclear under whose authority - to London to collect evidence of any possible ties between Baghdad and al Qaeda. Although he returned empty-handed, that did not prevent him and his close associates on the DPB from writing and speaking out in the press about Hussein's alleged - and completely unconfirmed - role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and any other rumour, dubiously-sourced story, or allegations by INC-supplied defectors that appeared to implicate Hussein in terrorist activities in general and with al Qaeda in particular. But even as the DPB was locked in the Pentagon, Kristol was gathering signatures on a letter to Bush, eventually published in PNAC's name in The Washington Times Sep. 20, advising him on targets in his war on terrorism, an agenda that so far has anticipated to a remarkable degree the evolution of Bush's actual policy. In addition to calling for the ouster of the Taliban and war on al Qaeda - as well as cutting off the Palestinian Authority (PA) under Yassir Arafat and other moves - the letter stated explicitly that Saddam Hussein must go regardless of his relationship to the attacks or al Qaeda. "It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States," it said. "But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism." The letter was signed by 38 prominent neo-conservatives, many of whom - especially Perle, Kristol, Gaffney, William Bennett, DPB member Eliot Cohen, AEI's Reuel Marc Gerecht and Kirkpatrick, Robert Kagan, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, Clifford May and Randy Scheunemann (who would go on to head the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq) - would emerge, along with Woolsey, as the most ubiquitous champions of war with Iraq outside the administration. It was the same people who, on behalf of their friends in the Pentagon, also mounted an almost constant campaign against the CIA, the State Department, and anyone else who tried to slow the drive to war or question the administration's assertions about Hussein's links with al Qaeda or the threat he posed to U.S. security. Their success is beyond question. By last October, just before the House of Representatives was to vote on giving Bush authority to go to war, a survey by the Pew Research Center found that two-thirds of adult respondents believed that "Saddam Hussein helped the terrorists in the Sep. 11 attacks". While that percentage has declined over time, a strong majority was found late last month to believe that Hussein supported al Qaeda, and a remarkable 52 percent believe that the U.S. has actually found "clear evidence in Iraq" of close ties between the two. A mere seven percent in the latter poll said they believed "there was no connection at all", the finding which most accurately reflects the views of the U.S. intelligence community. (END/2003) SOURCE: ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=19255 --- See also:Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier. We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC)...The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002)...Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001) - This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination - www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraqIn fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to...the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002) - Ibid--- "On January 11th 2008 the opposition-controlled upper house voted down the bill to restart the mission to refuel U.S. and other ships patrolling the Indian Ocean...Yukihisa Fujita of the Japan Democratic party, made a 20 minute long statement at the House of Councillors, the upper house of the Diet (parliament) of Japan, ahead of the voting. He questioned the official version of 9/11 presented to the japanese government and the public by the US administration in a session of the defence commission.The Japanese government assumed that the suspect was Al-Queda because Bush told then Prime minister Koizumi in 2001 after the attacks of 9/11 had happened and later did send the self-defense force to Iraq based on that assumption" - (Main Japanese Opposition Party Questions 9/11 in Parliament: Broadcast on Japanese public TV - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7803).--- "The 9/11 Tragedy has been used as the excuse for two deadly wars of aggression, for taking away our rights, and for committing war crimes that have undermined Americas reputation. Only by exposing the truth about 9/11 can we end this madness" - ( Robert Bowman, former head of the "Star Wars" program as quoted in Political Leaders for 911 Truth - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12565 and pl911truth.com/). --- Last, but not least, I would like to introduce an important term: jus ad bellum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum) --- Ndugu zangu, the point is that 9/11 is the "core event" being used to justify the (petro)geopolitical wars presently being waged (beginning with Afghanistan then Iraq). Anyway, you have both answered my question, Einstein specifically stating that "the war in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military operation Operation Enduring Freedom, was launched by the United States with the United Kingdom in response to the September 11 attacks". Now, my second question - do you both agree that 9/11 was a false-flag operation (http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag)?--- The "war on terrorism" is bogus. The 911 narrative as conveyed by the 911 Commission report is fabricated. The Bush administration is involved in acts of cover-up and complicity at the highest levels of government. Revealing the lies behind 911 would serve to undermine the legitimacy of the "war on terrorism". Revealing the lies behind 911 should be part of a consistent antiwar movement. Without 911, the war criminals in high office do not have a leg to stand on. The entire national security construct collapses like a deck of cards - (Al Qaeda and the "War on Terrorism" - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718)
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Sept 23, 2009 6:08:27 GMT 3
Ndugu Einstein, This is what I meant when I talked about ambiguity with mank. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq both constitute the "war on terror", which is in turn based on 9/11. Please read the following: POLITICS-US: Key Officials Used 9/11 As Pretext for Iraq WarAnalysis by Jim Lobe WASHINGTON, Jul 15 (IPS) - With demands for a full-scale investigation of the manipulation of intelligence by the administration of Pres. George W. Bush mounting steadily, it appears increasingly clear that key officials and their allies outside the administration intended to use the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq within hours of the attacks themselves. Within the administration, the principals appear to have included Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, and his national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby, among others in key posts in the National Security Council and the State Department. Outside the administration, key figures included close friends of both Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, including Richard Perle, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief James Woolsey - both members of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board (DPB); Frank Gaffney, head of the arms-industry-funded Center for Security Policy; and William Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), among others. PNAC, which is based on the fifth floor of American Enterprise Institute (AEI) building, in downtown Washington, was founded in 1997 with the signing of a statement of principles calling for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity", signed by 25 prominent neo-conservatives and right-wingers, including, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Libby, as well as several other senior Bush administration officials. A close examination of the public record indicates that all of these individuals - both in and outside the administration - were actively preparing the ground within days, even hours, after the 9/11 attacks, for an eventual attack on Iraq, whether or not it had any role in the attacks or any connection to al Qaeda. The challenge, in their view, was to persuade the public that such links either did indeed exist or were sufficiently likely to exist that a preventive strike against Iraq was warranted. Their success in that respect was stunning, although, in order to pull it off, they also had to distort and exaggerate the evidence being collected by U.S. intelligence agencies. A hint of a deliberate campaign to connect Iraq with the 9/11 attacks and al Qaeda surfaced last month in a June televised interview of Gen. Wesley Clark on the popular public-affairs programme, 'Meet the Press.' In answer to a question, Clark asserted, "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein". "It came from the White House, it came from other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein'." While Clark has not yet identified who called him, Perle, Woolsey, Gaffney, and Kristol were using the same language in their media appearances on 9/11 and over the following weeks. "This could not have been done without help of one or more governments," Perle told The Washington Post on Sep. 11. "Someone taught these suicide bombers how to fly large airplanes. I don't think that can be done without the assistance of large governments." Woolsey was more direct. "(I)t's not impossible that terrorist groups could work together with the government...the Iraqi government has been quite closely involved with a number of Sunni terrorist groups and - on some matters - has had direct contact with (Osama) bin Laden," he told one anchorman in a series of at least half a dozen national television appearances on Sep. 11 and 12. That same evening, Kristol echoed Woolsey on National Public Radio. "I think Iraq is, actually, the big, unspoken sort of elephant in the room today. There's a fair amount of evidence that Iraq has had very close associations with Osama bin Laden in the past, a lot of evidence that it had associations with the previous effort to destroy the World Trade Center (in 1993)". While Kristol and Co. were trying to implicate Hussein in the public debate, their friends in the administration were pushing hard in the same direction. Cheney, according to published accounts, had already confided to friends even before Sep. 11 that he hoped the Bush administration would remove Hussein from power. But the evidence about Rumsfeld is even more dramatic. According to an account by veteran CBS newsman David Martin last September, Rumsfeld was "telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks" five hours after an American Airlines jet slammed into the Pentagon. Martin attributed his account in part to notes that had been taken at the time by a Rumsfeld aide. They quote the defense chief asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH (Saddam Hussein) at the same time, not only UBL (Usama bin Laden). The administration should "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not", the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. Wolfowitz shared those views, according to an account of the meeting Sep. 15-16 of the administration's war council at Camp David provided by the Washington Post's Bill Woodward and Dan Balz. In the "I-was-there" style for which Woodward, whose access to powerful officials since his investigative role in the Watergate scandal almost 30 years ago is unmatched, is famous: "Wolfowitz argued (at the meeting) that the real source of all the trouble and terrorism was probably Hussein. The terrorist attacks of Sept 11 created an opportunity to strike. Now, Rumsfeld asked again: 'Is this the time to attack Iraq'"? "Powell objected", the Woodward and Balz account continued, citing Secretary of State Colin Powell's argument that U.S. allies would not support a strike on Iraq. "If you get something pinning Sept 11 on Iraq, great", Powell is quoted as saying. But let's get Afghanistan now. If we do that, we will have increased our ability to go after Iraq - if we can prove Iraq had a role". Upon their return to Washington, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz convened a secret, two-day meeting of the DPB chaired by Perle. Instead of focusing on the first steps in carrying out a "war on terrorism", however, the discussions centred on how Washington could use 9/11 to strike at Iraq, according to an account in the Wall Street Journal. Unlike Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), neither the State Department nor the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was invited to participate in the meeting. After those deliberations concluded, however, Woolsey was sent - it remains unclear under whose authority - to London to collect evidence of any possible ties between Baghdad and al Qaeda. Although he returned empty-handed, that did not prevent him and his close associates on the DPB from writing and speaking out in the press about Hussein's alleged - and completely unconfirmed - role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and any other rumour, dubiously-sourced story, or allegations by INC-supplied defectors that appeared to implicate Hussein in terrorist activities in general and with al Qaeda in particular. But even as the DPB was locked in the Pentagon, Kristol was gathering signatures on a letter to Bush, eventually published in PNAC's name in The Washington Times Sep. 20, advising him on targets in his war on terrorism, an agenda that so far has anticipated to a remarkable degree the evolution of Bush's actual policy. In addition to calling for the ouster of the Taliban and war on al Qaeda - as well as cutting off the Palestinian Authority (PA) under Yassir Arafat and other moves - the letter stated explicitly that Saddam Hussein must go regardless of his relationship to the attacks or al Qaeda. "It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States," it said. "But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism." The letter was signed by 38 prominent neo-conservatives, many of whom - especially Perle, Kristol, Gaffney, William Bennett, DPB member Eliot Cohen, AEI's Reuel Marc Gerecht and Kirkpatrick, Robert Kagan, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, Clifford May and Randy Scheunemann (who would go on to head the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq) - would emerge, along with Woolsey, as the most ubiquitous champions of war with Iraq outside the administration. It was the same people who, on behalf of their friends in the Pentagon, also mounted an almost constant campaign against the CIA, the State Department, and anyone else who tried to slow the drive to war or question the administration's assertions about Hussein's links with al Qaeda or the threat he posed to U.S. security. Their success is beyond question. By last October, just before the House of Representatives was to vote on giving Bush authority to go to war, a survey by the Pew Research Center found that two-thirds of adult respondents believed that "Saddam Hussein helped the terrorists in the Sep. 11 attacks". While that percentage has declined over time, a strong majority was found late last month to believe that Hussein supported al Qaeda, and a remarkable 52 percent believe that the U.S. has actually found "clear evidence in Iraq" of close ties between the two. A mere seven percent in the latter poll said they believed "there was no connection at all", the finding which most accurately reflects the views of the U.S. intelligence community. (END/2003) SOURCE: ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=19255 --- See also:Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier. We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC)...The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002)...Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001) - This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination - www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to...the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002) - Ibid--- "On January 11th 2008 the opposition-controlled upper house voted down the bill to restart the mission to refuel U.S. and other ships patrolling the Indian Ocean...Yukihisa Fujita of the Japan Democratic party, made a 20 minute long statement at the House of Councillors, the upper house of the Diet (parliament) of Japan, ahead of the voting. He questioned the official version of 9/11 presented to the japanese government and the public by the US administration in a session of the defence commission.The Japanese government assumed that the suspect was Al-Queda because Bush told then Prime minister Koizumi in 2001 after the attacks of 9/11 had happened and later did send the self-defense force to Iraq based on that assumption" ( Main Japanese Opposition Party Questions 9/11 in Parliament: Broadcast on Japanese public TV - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7803)--- "The 9/11 Tragedy has been used as the excuse for two deadly wars of aggression, for taking away our rights, and for committing war crimes that have undermined Americafs reputation. Only by exposing the truth about 9/11 can we end this madness" ( Robert Bowman, former head of the "Star Wars" program as quoted in Political Leaders for 911 Truth - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12565 and pl911truth.com/). --- Last, but not least, I would like to introduce an important term: jus ad bellum(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum) --- Ndugu zangu, the point is that 9/11 is the "core event" being used to justify the (petro)geopolitical wars presently being waged (beginning with Afghanistan then Iraq). Anyway, you have both answered my question, Einstein specifically stating that "the war in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military operation Operation Enduring Freedom, was launched by the United States with the United Kingdom in response to the September 11 attacks". Now, my second question - do you both agree that 9/11 was a false-flag operation (http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag)?--- The "war on terrorism" is bogus. The 911 narrative as conveyed by the 911 Commission report is fabricated. The Bush administration is involved in acts of cover-up and complicity at the highest levels of government. Revealing the lies behind 911 would serve to undermine the legitimacy of the "war on terrorism". Revealing the lies behind 911 should be part of a consistent antiwar movement. Without 911, the war criminals in high office do not have a leg to stand on. The entire national security construct collapses like a deck of cards - Al Qaeda and the "War on Terrorism" - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718Please stop being a huge snob. The Afghan and Iraqi wars are very different wars with very different reasons!! While the Afghan war was primarily against terrorist activities in the US, the war in Iraq was primarily against weapons of mass destruction irrespective against whom!! Now after you've been cornered you state: Before you got smoked out, your presentation was that both the Afghan and Iraqi wars started at the same time!! Please stop wasting people's time if you don't know what you are yapping about. You gotta get your facts right before you present them on Jukwaa. Jukwaaists are NOT idiots!! And if you got a bone to grind with Obama, you can take it elsewhere unless you are ready to get your facts right. This thread was started by yourself; it cannot be Einstein's responsibility to keep putting you on the right track by pointing out the gaps in your arguments!! Where is the Obama Deception and which war was the direct consequent to 9/11 (Afghan or Iraqi? Make your pick please and now).
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Sept 23, 2009 6:17:16 GMT 3
Ndugu Einstein,
You obviously did not even take the time to read my post. The time you took to post your response above (after simply copying and pasting my last post), proves it.
This shows your "objectivity".
Read my last post carefully and you will see that there is nothing to get excited about.
You have already admitted that the war in Afghanistan was triggered by 9/11.
Now I ask you (again), do you agree or disagree that 9/11 was a false-flag operation?
---
We are getting somewhere...
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Sept 23, 2009 6:39:10 GMT 3
Ndugu Einstein, You obviously did not even take the time to read my post. The time you took to post your response above (after simply copying and pasting my last post), proves it. This shows your "objectivity". Read my last post carefully and you will see that there is nothing to get excited about. You have already admitted that the war in Afghanistan was triggered by 9/11. Now I ask you (again), do you agree or disagree that 9/11 was a false-flag operation?--- We are getting somewhere...You gotta prove that bullcrap yourself! Einstein is not your big brother to keep cleaning your ass!! Where is the Obama Deception and which war was the consequent of 9/11? Afghan or Iraqi?? And please note that questions like this below are not academic at all! They remind me of the multiple choice questions during my primary school days! You know, you could be a complete idiot but still guess every question right!! What sort of dung is this for a question? After 10 pages of this thread you still can't substantiate your 'Obama Deception' theory and you dare ask me a question like that??
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 23, 2009 17:51:53 GMT 3
Ndugu Einstein, Yes, I am very much around. Great! Had you felt you made your point, or did you just have to take a breather? Anyways, good to know you are around. Really? I thought the ambiguity you and I had an exchange on only had to do with the applied meanings of a certain word? Good ... that sounds like you are promising to move onto the real topic at last! Good grief! Your second question? .... your second question? How many times did I answer that question already? Was it your first question then, or how is your ordering series? Wanyee, you cannot force people to take positions over speculative topics awash with partisan innuendos. I have told you over and over again that the materiality of 9/11 remains a serious question for me, but nothing makes me feel confident that I know the true cause. You are really trying hard to torture our minds into submission to your point of view here, deceiving us that you are on the way to discussing "The Obama Deception". When will that discussion be, SIR? I do agree with you that without 9/11 there might probably never have been a US attack of Afghanistan or/and Iraq (although I believe some kind of intervention was called for in Afghanistan even before 9/11 ... I reserve any further comments to avoid going further off topic here). But I am not with you when you go further to claim that 9/11 was therefore staged so a case could be made for such attacks. That is a topic of inquiry, and no matter how many times you ask me whether I agree with your view, I cannot say I agree or disagree. So what is your point? Why are we, under THE OBAMA DECEPTION, marking-time on whether 9/11 was used to justify Afghan & Iraq war, or whether 9/11 was a false flag operation? Please don't post me another mile of globalresearch.ca ... tell me about The Obama Deception. That is the subject I am keen on.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Sept 23, 2009 23:18:24 GMT 3
Ndugu zangu,
You both need to calm down.
As I said before, we are getting somewhere: you have both concurred that 9/11 triggered the invasion of Afghanistan.
Now, please simply state whether you agree or disagree that 9/11 was a false flag operation.
That is all.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Sept 24, 2009 1:42:01 GMT 3
Ndugu zangu, You both need to calm down. As I said before, we are getting somewhere: you have both concurred that 9/11 triggered the invasion of Afghanistan. Now, please simply state whether you agree or disagree that 9/11 was a false flag operation. That is all. No, it is you who need to answer questions! This thread is your own baby and not mine. Hence, I SHALL not calm down till you answer the question: Where is the Obama Deception??!!You hypothesised on this topic. So, come on and give us an answer. From now henceforth, you will answer the questions, not me!! Ndugu Wanyee, Where is the Obama Deception!!??
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Sept 24, 2009 3:13:03 GMT 3
Ndugu zangu, I put forward my hypothesis a long time ago and you are the ones who are "attempting" to challenge it. Ndugu Einstein, cheap distraction tactics will only get you so far, and as I once told you a long time ago, you can run but you can't hide. If you can take the time to answer the question regarding whether 9/11 is a false flag operation or not, you will answer yourself regarding "The Obama Decepton".--- Now, as I used to say, this thread is based on the following argument: 1. Obama is pursuing the “war on terror” 2. The “war on terror” is a hoax / deception, because it is based on a “false-flag operation” (http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag) In reality, “the US led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region…The ultimate objective, combining military action, covert intelligence operations and war propaganda, is to break down the national fabric and transform sovereign countries into open economic territories, where natural resources can be plundered and confiscated under "free market" supervision. This control also extends to strategic oil and gas pipeline corridors (e.g. Afghanistan)…The collective demonization of Muslims, including the vilification of Islam, applied Worldwide, constitutes at the ideological level, an instrument of conquest of the World's energy resources. It is part of the broader economic, political mechanisms underlying the New World Order” (The "Demonization" of Muslims and the Battle for Oil - www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4347).
N.B: "By definition, world hydrocarbon (oil and gas) production peaks when half the planet's reserves have been used up. After that point, every barrel of oil will be harder to find, more expensive to obtain, and more valuable to whoever controls it. Many of the world's foremost experts place that peak between 2000 and 2007. We live in a global economic system based on endless growth, and that growth is only possible with endless hydrocarbons to burn. Demand for oil and gas is increasing at staggering rates; after peak, there will be demand that simply cannot be met, and energy prices will rise inexorably. The resulting economic catastrophe may see oil hit $100 per barrel before the end of this decade. Oil not only keeps us warm and moves our cars, it is used to make all plastics and is, together with natural gas, the most important ingredient keeping modern agriculture afloat. It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed…We eat oil. Without cheap oil, billions of people will freeze or starve and unfortunately, there is no combination of renewable energy sources that can replace oil and gas consumption without massive conservation efforts that are nowhere in sight" (Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney - www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml).The fact that Obama is pursuing this “war on terror” / hoax / deception (that is being perpetrated by the global power elite), proves that he is either their puppet or he is very ignorant of the fact that the “war on terror” is in fact a hoax. Those who may wish to challenge this argument must begin by challenging its basis (as stated above), by either refuting that Obama is pursuing the "war on terror" or refuting that 9/11 was a false-flag operation.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 24, 2009 6:04:25 GMT 3
Ndugu Wanyee,
I am surprised by your vigor at showing that logic is not your thing ... and at your obstinate reiteration, time after time, that your title for the thread somehow follows logically from the clutter of stories you have pasted here. Sorry buddy, you should consult a textbook on logic and then take another short at your arguments. I tried to give you a free course earlier, which you either failed to notice, or did not appreciate. I think you need such a course if you are going to be trying to argue hypotheses of the type you allege here.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Sept 24, 2009 23:52:27 GMT 3
Ndugu zangu,
I hope the following helps:
At Last, Some Truth About Iraq and Afghanistan by Eric Margolis
PARIS – After a sea of lies and a tsunami of propaganda, the ugly truth behind the Iraq and Afghanistan wars finally emerged into full view this week.
Four major western oil companies, Exxon, Mobil, Shell, BP and Total, are about to sign US-brokered no-bid contracts with the US-installed Baghdad regime to begin exploiting Iraq’s oil fields. Saddam Hussein had kicked these firms out three decades ago when he nationalized Iraq’s foreign-owned oil industry for the benefit of Iraq’s national development. The Baghdad regime is turning back the clock.
This agreement comes as talks are continuing between the Washington and its Baghdad client regime over future US basing rights in Iraq. After some face-saving Iraqi objections, it is expected that Baghdad will sign a compact with Washington giving US forces control of Iraq and its air space in a manner very similar to Great Britain’s colonial arrangement with Iraq. Interestingly, the same oil companies that used to exploit Iraq when it was a British colony are now returning. As former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted, the Iraq war was all about oil. VP Dick Cheney stated in 2003 that the invasion of Iraq was about oil, and for the sake of Israel.
Meanwhile, according to Pakistani and Indian sources, Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1680 km long pipeline project expected to cost $ 8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and, later, oil from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the west.
The Caspian Basin located under the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakkstan, holds an estimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 100–200 billion barrels of oil. Securing the world’s last remaining known energy Eldorado is strategic priority for the western powers. China can only look on with envy.
But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of landlocked Central Asia to the sea: through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. For Washington, Iran is tabu. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan, including the cities of Herat and Kandahar.
In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the US firm UNOCAL signed a major pipeline deal. UNOCAL lavished money and attention on Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and also hired an minor Afghan official, one Hamid Karzai.
Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the US deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium, Bridas. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened Taliban with war.
In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept up sending money to Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it "on side" for possible use in a war or strikes against Iran.
The 9/11 attacks, about which Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial US operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the US stayed on, built bases – which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route – and installed former UNOCAL"consultant" Hamid Karzai as leader.
Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight "Islamic terrorism," liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The cover story for Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, Saddam’s supposed links to 9/11, and promoting democracy.
Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by US, Canadian and NATO forces. As American analyst Kevin Phillips writes, the US military and its allies have become an "energy protection force."
From Washington’s viewpoint, the TAPI deal has the added benefit of scuttling another proposed pipeline project that would have delivered Iranian gas and oil to Pakistan and India.
India’s energy needs are expected to triple over the next decade to 8 billion barrels of oil and 80 million cubic meters of gas daily. Delhi, which has its own designs on Afghanistan and has been stirring the pot there, is cock-a-hoop over the new pipeline plan. Russia, by contrast, is grumpy, having hoped to monopolize Central Asian energy exports.
Energy is more important than blood in our modern world. The US is a great power with massive energy needs. Domination of oil is a pillar of America’s world power. Afghanistan and Iraq are all about control of oil.
June 24, 2008
Eric Margolis [send him mail], contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World. See his website.
Copyright © 2008 Eric Margolis
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Sept 25, 2009 1:53:28 GMT 3
And the above is your proof of the 'Obama Deception'? You are so desperate, aren't you? Keep going!!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 25, 2009 14:21:26 GMT 3
Ndugu zangu, I hope the following helps: At Last, Some Truth About Iraq and Afghanistanby Eric Margolis PARIS – After a sea of lies and a tsunami of propaganda, the ugly truth behind the Iraq and Afghanistan wars finally emerged into full view this week. Four major western oil companies, Exxon, Mobil, Shell, BP and Total, are about to sign US-brokered no-bid contracts with the US-installed Baghdad regime to begin exploiting Iraq’s oil fields. Saddam Hussein had kicked these firms out three decades ago when he nationalized Iraq’s foreign-owned oil industry for the benefit of Iraq’s national development. The Baghdad regime is turning back the clock. This agreement comes as talks are continuing between the Washington and its Baghdad client regime over future US basing rights in Iraq. After some face-saving Iraqi objections, it is expected that Baghdad will sign a compact with Washington giving US forces control of Iraq and its air space in a manner very similar to Great Britain’s colonial arrangement with Iraq. Interestingly, the same oil companies that used to exploit Iraq when it was a British colony are now returning. As former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted, the Iraq war was all about oil. VP Dick Cheney stated in 2003 that the invasion of Iraq was about oil, and for the sake of Israel. Meanwhile, according to Pakistani and Indian sources, Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1680 km long pipeline project expected to cost $ 8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and, later, oil from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the west. The Caspian Basin located under the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakkstan, holds an estimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 100–200 billion barrels of oil. Securing the world’s last remaining known energy Eldorado is strategic priority for the western powers. China can only look on with envy. But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of landlocked Central Asia to the sea: through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. For Washington, Iran is tabu. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan, including the cities of Herat and Kandahar. In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the US firm UNOCAL signed a major pipeline deal. UNOCAL lavished money and attention on Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and also hired an minor Afghan official, one Hamid Karzai. Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the US deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium, Bridas. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened Taliban with war. In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept up sending money to Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it "on side" for possible use in a war or strikes against Iran. The 9/11 attacks, about which Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial US operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the US stayed on, built bases – which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route – and installed former UNOCAL"consultant" Hamid Karzai as leader. Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight "Islamic terrorism," liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The cover story for Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, Saddam’s supposed links to 9/11, and promoting democracy. Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by US, Canadian and NATO forces. As American analyst Kevin Phillips writes, the US military and its allies have become an "energy protection force." From Washington’s viewpoint, the TAPI deal has the added benefit of scuttling another proposed pipeline project that would have delivered Iranian gas and oil to Pakistan and India. India’s energy needs are expected to triple over the next decade to 8 billion barrels of oil and 80 million cubic meters of gas daily. Delhi, which has its own designs on Afghanistan and has been stirring the pot there, is cock-a-hoop over the new pipeline plan. Russia, by contrast, is grumpy, having hoped to monopolize Central Asian energy exports. Energy is more important than blood in our modern world. The US is a great power with massive energy needs. Domination of oil is a pillar of America’s world power. Afghanistan and Iraq are all about control of oil. June 24, 2008 Eric Margolis [send him mail], contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World. See his website.Copyright © 2008 Eric Margolis In what way do you expect this to help in the current topic of discussion?
|
|
|
Post by genius on Sept 25, 2009 15:07:12 GMT 3
ManK and Einstein, I must give you two marks for your unlimited patience with Wanyee.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 25, 2009 19:49:31 GMT 3
ManK and Einstein, I must give you two marks for your unlimited patience with Wanyee. Let's recognize Wanyee for his very sensitional title ... that indeed is what kept us going. Now that we have established beyond any doubt that it is pure BS, any more patience would be irrational on our part.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Sept 25, 2009 20:56:30 GMT 3
ManK and Einstein, I must give you two marks for your unlimited patience with Wanyee. Genius,This guy Wanyee is the complete hoax himself and not Obama as he would want to have us believe!! Most of us here have very sharp and analytical minds and can NEVER fall for a propaganda spreading, conspiracy theory weaving and dumping Wanyee!! How pathetic can a schooled person become??!! This topic has been a complete waste of my valuable man-hours. It is a pity we have such people like Wanyee on Jukwaa! What a waste of space and time!! I'm completely out of here. Please Wanyee NEVER ask me again to respond to any thread started by yourself! Pünkt, fertig und aus!!!
|
|