900 replies to this topic

[W Tell]

Liquid Gardens, on 08 July 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:

  I don't think the purpose is to debate whether it's moral or right that that govt did something, but whether they actually did that something.  But I'm jumping ahead here, I'm ready for brass tacks unless it's essential we come to an agreement on our disagreements here before proceeding.

Cool. I'll ask a quick question. Do you know anything about PNAC? (the Project for the New American Century) I'm curious of what you think of it and and if you believe it might have had a guiding hand in foreign relations in the Bush Adminastration.

I don't want to go on with a long post if you are already familiar with it.

[Liquid Gardens]

W Tell, on 09 July 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

Cool. I'll ask a quick question. Do you know anything about PNAC? (the Project for the New American Century) I'm curious of what you think of it and and if you believe it might have had a guiding hand in foreign relations in the Bush Adminastration.

I don't want to go on with a long post if you are already familiar with it.

I didn't but just read the wiki article and a couple other ones that came up while googling so I'm a little familiar with it now.  I believe its ideas may have had an influential hand on the Bush Administration's approach to foreign policy, don't know if I'd go as far as 'guiding'.

[Czero 101]

Liquid Gardens, on 10 July 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

I didn't but just read the wiki article and a couple other ones that came up while googling so I'm a little familiar with it now.  I believe its ideas may have had an influential hand on the Bush Administration's approach to foreign policy, don't know if I'd go as far as 'guiding'.

The part you'll want to read up about, or at least the part you'll most likely be asked about, is Section V of the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document, the part that deals with a "call for a new Pearl Harbor" (skip to pdf page 62).

In general terms, a lot of Conspiracy Proponents see the events of 9/11 as that "Pearl Harbor", and therefore use the PNAC as their evidence for (public or "secret") Government's foreknowledge / complicity / planning & execution of those events.





Cz

[W Tell]

Czero 101, on 10 July 2012 - 01:18 AM, said:

The part you'll want to read up about, or at least the part you'll most likely be asked about, is Section V of the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document, the part that deals with a "call for a new Pearl Harbor" (skip to pdf page 62).

In general terms, a lot of Conspiracy Proponents see the events of 9/11 as that "Pearl Harbor", and therefore use the PNAC as their evidence for (public or "secret") Government's foreknowledge / complicity / planning & execution of those events.





Cz

This is true Cz. I was more curious at the moment if he had noticed some familiar names from that think tank that happened to be in Bushs cabinet first. But he should be thinking about the phrase "A New Pearl Harbor" and where it stems from, and what it means. Thank you for the addition.

Edited by W Tell, 10 July 2012 - 01:56 AM.

[Liquid Gardens]

W Tell, on 10 July 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

This is true Cz. I was more curious at the moment if he had noticed some familiar names from that think tank that happened to be in Bushs cabinet first. But he should be thinking about the phrase "A New Pearl Harbor" and where it stems from, and what it means. Thank you for the addition.

Interesting stuff, thanks for the link Cz and for the info on it, W.  I knew they were involved with think tanks like this, but hadn't read their output; pretty badly reasoned and paranoid stuff IMO (and transparent...'protecting America's security and strength' my butt, we're supposed to ignore who makes money off of implementing these ideas?).
But I guess this isn't that much of a surprise to me actually.  I've never thought the Iraq War was justified and knew that was again mostly for the benefit of the military-industrial complex's financial health or some twisted display of strength.  And the idea of an impetus or 'new Pearl Harbor' is a concept that has been around for a long time also, I believed it's been around to some degree since the USS Maine's exploded leading us into the Spanish-American War and I'm sure earlier.
You've definitely piqued my interest here and I'm ready to hear the details on the 9/11 tie-in, or at least to discuss the plausibility of such.  I suspect that this discussion is going to be at a much higher and more vague level as far as hard evidence, as opposed to arguing over crash debris patterns and photos of plane crash sites, so again, I want to reiterate that there isn't anything really adversarial about this discussion, again in keeping with the idea of giving these CTs a fair hearing and not have it be an 'uphill battle'.  We are, together, assessing the plausibility of these ideas.  With that in mind, I'm getting very curious as to some more specific or detailed hypotheses you have concerning 9/11 and the government, mainly because now my brain is reeling through zillions of possibilities and degrees of deception being possibly proposed (was Osama involved at all?, what did the hijackers know?, etc).  Take any approach you want of course, but keep in mind that we can always work backwards too from however detailed you'd like to get with how the govt may have been involved.  If it helps, there is a quote from the wiki article from the critics of this group that I do agree with:  although they didn't think Bush, et al, were complicit in 9/11, the 'PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.'

[W Tell]

Liquid Gardens, on 10 July 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

Interesting stuff, thanks for the link Cz and for the info on it, W.  I knew they were involved with think tanks like this, but hadn't read their output; pretty badly reasoned and paranoid stuff IMO (and transparent...'protecting America's security and strength' my butt, we're supposed to ignore who makes money off of implementing these ideas?).
But I guess this isn't that much of a surprise to me actually.  I've never thought the Iraq War was justified and knew that was again mostly for the benefit of the military-industrial complex's financial health or some twisted display of strength.  And the idea of an impetus or 'new Pearl Harbor' is a concept that has been around for a long time also, I believed it's been around to some degree since the USS Maine's exploded leading us into the Spanish-American War and I'm sure earlier.

Glad to see you know about the Spanish-American war. Look into the Gulf of Tonkin incedent and some of th FOIA evidence that has come out about FDR's willingness to get us into WWII. After that look into the Iran-Contra scandel. I'm attempting to answer the very first question I proposed in my fist post.    

Liquid Gardens, on 10 July 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

You've definitely piqued my interest here and I'm ready to hear the details on the 9/11 tie-in, or at least to discuss the plausibility of such.  I suspect that this discussion is going to be at a much higher and more vague level as far as hard evidence, as opposed to arguing over crash debris patterns and photos of plane crash sites, so again, I want to reiterate that there isn't anything really adversarial about this discussion, again in keeping with the idea of giving these CTs a fair hearing and not have it be an 'uphill battle'.  We are, together, assessing the plausibility of these ideas.  With that in mind, I'm getting very curious as to some more specific or detailed hypotheses you have concerning 9/11 and the government, mainly because now my brain is reeling through zillions of possibilities and degrees of deception being possibly proposed (was Osama involved at all?, what did the hijackers know?, etc).

  I do think in the end it won't be anything anyone's heard before, but I do take on a version that's a bit more acceptable to the mainstream. If you're wondering if I'm a "no plainer", no I'm not. I could point out problems with some photo's that still haven't been debunked to this day, or problems with stories morphing over the years. But all in all, I don't have the experience to discuss in these matters. At best I can ask questions. That's about it. In the end I'm gonna have more of a problen with the buildings falling. Before we get to that I want to paint a better picture government. More precisely, American government.

  

Liquid Gardens, on 10 July 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

Take any approach you want of course, but keep in mind that we can always work backwards too from however detailed you'd like to get with how the govt may have been involved.  If it helps, there is a quote from the wiki article from the critics of this group that I do agree with:  although they didn't think Bush, et al, were complicit in 9/11, the 'PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.'

I find some agreement with that quote. But for the moment I'd like to show that our current (and not so current) government doesn't wear a white dress at the prom.

[Liquid Gardens]

W Tell, on 11 July 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

Glad to see you know about the Spanish-American war. Look into the Gulf of Tonkin incedent and some of th FOIA evidence that has come out about FDR's willingness to get us into WWII. After that look into the Iran-Contra scandel. I'm attempting to answer the very first question I proposed in my fist post.

  I do think in the end it won't be anything anyone's heard before, but I do take on a version that's a bit more acceptable to the mainstream. If you're wondering if I'm a "no plainer", no I'm not. I could point out problems with some photo's that still haven't been debunked to this day, or problems with stories morphing over the years. But all in all, I don't have the experience to discuss in these matters. At best I can ask questions. That's about it. In the end I'm gonna have more of a problen with the buildings falling. Before we get to that I want to paint a better picture government. More precisely, American government.

   I find some agreement with that quote. But for the moment I'd like to show that our current (and not so current) government doesn't wear a white dress at the prom.

Sounds like an interesting approach W, looking forward to it.  And thanks for letting me know that you have a problem with the buildings falling, that will help give me some context as you drill down to the specific.  Again, there is no argument from me that the govt is not good and pure but proceed as you see fit.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 10 July 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

If it helps, there is a quote from the wiki article from the critics of this group that I do agree with:  although they didn't think Bush, et al, were complicit in 9/11, the 'PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.'

So how fortunate for them (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al) that the "transforming event", the pre-stated requirement for an unprecedented "new Pearl Harbor" which would drive their longstanding agenda, happened to occur within the first year of their term in power; just as their once in a lifetime window of opportunity opened in 2001. The realisation in large part of their vision, simply could not have occurred without that catalyzing event.

Through understanding the ideologies and backgrounds of the afforementioned career Neocons, the latter of whom provides a link in his education back to times of Nazi policy, we understand real motivation for 9/11. Do these strike us as politicians content to sail rudderless through 4-8 years of power, or were they ruthless enough to deceive the public and international community in shaping the political landscape in their favour? It would not be the first time on 9/11, nor the last.

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

If I held their position and views, I might have done the same - the stakes and logic were too high - the very future of America as the globe's pre-eminent power depended on it so far as they were concerned.

Edited by Q24, 12 July 2012 - 10:59 AM.

[Paracelse]

In the US Freedom of speech and all that goes with it is given to corporations, as if it was a living entity and this has been used (and abused) by corporations which basically nominated any puppet presidents and congresspeople they wish to.

[W Tell]

Liquid Gardens, on 11 July 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

Sounds like an interesting approach W, looking forward to it.  And thanks for letting me know that you have a problem with the buildings falling, that will help give me some context as you drill down to the specific.  Again, there is no argument from me that the govt is not good and pure but proceed as you see fit.

Sorry to let this drop to the second page LG. I've been working out of town on a job.

Okay, for the most part we are in agreement (I'm sure to an extent) on the way the argument can be formed with governments "good" intentions in the name of the U.S.

Let's get into the buildings. According to the PNAC document, America needed a "New Pearl Harbor" for a fast overhaul of new foreign policy and expenditures in military spending. Do you think it was pure coincedence it happened in the first year of a cabenit laced with some of the brainstormers of that document?

I don't know if they counted on getting footage of the first crash into the towers, but it was a safe bet they knew they'd get all kinds of video on the second collision. I also don't think just the images of planes exploding into the towers was enough to sway the American public to support the kind of overseas actions and military expenditures they had layed out. I believe they needed the buildings to fall...on live T.V. for the full impact...with the world watching. You don't have to agree with me that this is what they "wanted", but it'd be hard to deny that they were handed one of the most atrocious acts against America, in their first year in power, to kickstart the actions laid out in PNAC.

[Liquid Gardens]

W Tell, on 17 July 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

Sorry to let this drop to the second page LG. I've been working out of town on a job.

No problem W, I've been busy too so post at whatever pace is convenient for you, it's good by me.

Quote

Okay, for the most part we are in agreement (I'm sure to an extent) on the way the argument can be formed with governments "good" intentions in the name of the U.S.

Let's get into the buildings. According to the PNAC document, America needed a "New Pearl Harbor" for a fast overhaul of new foreign policy and expenditures in military spending. Do you think it was pure coincedence it happened in the first year of a cabenit laced with some of the brainstormers of that document?

I don't know if they counted on getting footage of the first crash into the towers, but it was a safe bet they knew they'd get all kinds of video on the second collision. I also don't think just the images of planes exploding into the towers was enough to sway the American public to support the kind of overseas actions and military expenditures they had layed out. I believe they needed the buildings to fall...on live T.V. for the full impact...with the world watching. You don't have to agree with me that this is what they "wanted", but it'd be hard to deny that they were handed one of the most atrocious acts against America, in their first year in power, to kickstart the actions laid out in PNAC.

Having time between posts has also helped me get up to speed on this document, and the only way I think I can respond to the whole 'Pearl Harbor' subject is to split out my points.  I've read some other criticisms on the web of this argument and I didn't buy all of them but I do think some are relevant, and I have a few more higher level issues with it of my own.  I'll apologize in advance for the verbosity; I try to lay out my thinking in some detail so that specific points of contention or flaws can be pointed out.

• The most common criticism I've found which I do think has some merit, depending on what exactly the 'Pearl Harbor' argument being made entails, is that this section of the paper is discussing upgrading the military technologically, not justifying the use of force against one of our 'enemies'.  The quote talks specifically about a 'transformation', but not in foreign policy; it refers to missle systems, information technology, and the general upgrading of obsolete areas of the military.  This is further clarified by another mention later in the document of 'Pearl Harbor' in a section discussing the Navy, where they discuss replacing aircraft carriers as they are becoming more and more obsolete in the 21st Century.  Yes, the real Pearl Harbor was the crucial factor in turning public sentiment around to support the entry into WWII and the use of military force, but the use of military force and attacking our perceived enemies is not at all what the Pearl Harbor reference in this document is talking about.  It makes even more sense that this is the meaning as that is more in line with what the 1941 PH meant from a military standpoint, namely, that it showed that the US Navy was not up-to-date and that the focus of our strength at sea, battleships, were vulnerable to aircraft carriers and the way that the Japanese military was conducting the war.  Same thing with this document, it seems to me that most everything in the PH section discusses not falling behind technologically.
  
• Your line, "America needed a "New Pearl Harbor" for a fast overhaul of new foreign policy and expenditures in military spending", is an incomplete statement as far as summarizing the gist of this section and this document IMO.  Yes, if they wanted to get a 'fast' overhaul of military spending, at least as far as modernization if not more, then they do essentially state that something like PH would be necessary.  However, the very same paragraph ends with, "Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.".  It importantly does not say that the US acting 'fast' is critical, it actually advocates the opposite.  If the argument against this is point is that they were really indicating the truth in the beginning of the paragraph and then lying at the end, that's a pretty inconsistent argument.
  
• The attribution of this PH quote to 9/11 is very post-hoc.  "Pearl Harbor" is a useful and not all that uncommon of a metaphor in the US that has a lot of applications for almost anything that brings about a momentous change.  There are any number of events that could have occurred that were of lesser severity than 9/11 that could also be connected to this 'PH' comment even if the govt had nothing to do with it.  We could have had a slightly more damaging USS Cole-like attack on our ships, a terrorist attack on one of our allies, any number of things.  If this hypothetical event was then followed by the govt ramping up spending and invading some whatever country-du-jour is to blame for the hypothesized incident, would we also be looking back and saying for instance, 'Aha, when Kenya attacked our English allies (yes, I'm making stuff up here, plug in the scenario of your choice) and Bush and Cheney followed it up with a military invasion of Kenya, I discovered this document that talked about a new 'Pearl Harbor' so yea, that's a pretty good indication that they may have orchestrated the original attack'?  It's critical to keep in mind when looking at 9/11's connection to this quote the fact that US politicians try to exploit nearly everything that occurs to their advantage, and have been doing so for almost 250 years.  Even things that have nothing to do with human causation like natural disasters.
  
• This document is dated Sept 2000.  Why on earth would they so blatantly state what they want to happen for all to see if what I think may be your interpretation is correct?  I don't want to go too far in assuming your arguments, but you're leaning towards the govt being involved in the collapse of the WTC I think.  If that's the case, there's a pretty glaring inconsistency in that the covert proficiency, intelligence, expertise, and power needed to pull off some kind of organized demolition is totally at odds with the buffoonery of publishing your nefarious plans a year beforehand and making it available on the internet.
  
• Why select just the 'Pearl Harbor' statement out of this ~60 page document and grant it some deeper significance as far as the truth?  Elsewhere in the document the authors lament that, "The “savings” from withdrawing from the Balkans, for example, will not free up anywhere near the magnitude of funds needed for military modernization or transformation."  So the solution to that is to get us involved in Afghanistan and Iraq which will remove many orders of magnitude more funds from the equation than the Balkans?  Is there some reason not to take this comment concerning how expenditures on military engagements are logically taking away from the modernization that they are seeking as just as indicative of what PNAC wanted as the PH quote?

See, this is what happens when you don't reply fast enough and I let this stuff rattle around my brainpan.   You absolutely do not need to rebut any of the above, I'm mainly trying to get across that I have good reason to question the significance of the PH quote.  Yes, absolutely, 9/11 was exploited by the govt to do what they somewhat wanted to do anyway as, to be fair, the report also talks a lot about increasing military spending overall and maintaining more of a presence abroad in addition to the modernization of our current military technologies. (Actually, was that focus of the report, the modernization of the military, really accomplished by the Afghan and Iraq War?  Seems like most of the money has gone to the running of those two wars and given some of the problems we had with not enough armor on vehicles and other shortages, it didn't seem like the modernization discussed in the document was actually realized.  I'm not that up-to-date on that question though.).  The fact it was exploited is nothing new and to be expected.

You're getting to the good stuff with the WTC, so looking forward to what you have to say about that.  To wrap up the PH quote discussion, I don't think your overall argument will rely critically on anything like, 'well, I've already shown that the govt wanted 9/11 to happen by the PNAC report', so I'm not too worried about us potentially seeing it differently.  Depending on if or how 'the govt is full of liars' argument will fit into your overall theory, I'll just note that the PNAC report is about as tainted by the govt as you can get.  It's one thing to assert that the govt lies, you have no argument from me there, but it's a whole other animal to say 'and I can tell when they are lying and when they are telling the truth', that'll require a lot of evidence.

[Q24]

I know LG and WT are having a discussion but I hope neither mind me putting my two cents in...

Liquid Gardens, on 18 July 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

1. The most common criticism I've found which I do think has some merit, depending on what exactly the 'Pearl Harbor' argument being made entails, is that this section of the paper is discussing upgrading the military technologically, not justifying the use of force against one of our 'enemies'. The quote talks specifically about a 'transformation', but not in foreign policy; it refers to missle systems, information technology, and the general upgrading of obsolete areas of the military. This is further clarified by another mention later in the document of 'Pearl Harbor' in a section discussing the Navy, where they discuss replacing aircraft carriers as they are becoming more and more obsolete in the 21st Century. Yes, the real Pearl Harbor was the crucial factor in turning public sentiment around to support the entry into WWII and the use of military force, but the use of military force and attacking our perceived enemies is not at all what the Pearl Harbor reference in this document is talking about. It makes even more sense that this is the meaning as that is more in line with what the 1941 PH meant from a military standpoint, namely, that it showed that the US Navy was not up-to-date and that the focus of our strength at sea, battleships, were vulnerable to aircraft carriers and the way that the Japanese military was conducting the war. Same thing with this document, it seems to me that most everything in the PH section discusses not falling behind technologically.

Put it in context...

Why did the authors require the armed forces to modernize technologically?  To what end?

The title of the chapter is a giveaway: "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force".

There are some who would talk down contents of this section - oh it's only about information technologies - though the authors did not take it lightly: "Information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on the military as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence."

This one factor is essential support to wider aims of the document: -

• To raise the military budget.
  
• To increase presence in the Gulf region.
  
• To ensure America's continued global pre-eminence.

9/11, the new Pearl Harbor, achieved all of this.

Liquid Gardens, on 18 July 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

2. Your line, "America needed a "New Pearl Harbor" for a fast overhaul of new foreign policy and expenditures in military spending", is an incomplete statement as far as summarizing the gist of this section and this document IMO. Yes, if they wanted to get a 'fast' overhaul of military spending, at least as far as modernization if not more, then they do essentially state that something like PH would be necessary. However, the very same paragraph ends with, "Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.". It importantly does not say that the US acting 'fast' is critical, it actually advocates the opposite. If the argument against this is point is that they were really indicating the truth in the beginning of the paragraph and then lying at the end, that's a pretty inconsistent argument.

The document was not a blueprint for 9/11; it shows only the motive that existed.

Liquid Gardens, on 18 July 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

3. The attribution of this PH quote to 9/11 is very post-hoc. "Pearl Harbor" is a useful and not all that uncommon of a metaphor in the US that has a lot of applications for almost anything that brings about a momentous change. There are any number of events that could have occurred that were of lesser severity than 9/11 that could also be connected to this 'PH' comment even if the govt had nothing to do with it. We could have had a slightly more damaging USS Cole-like attack on our ships, a terrorist attack on one of our allies, any number of things. If this hypothetical event was then followed by the govt ramping up spending and invading some whatever country-du-jour is to blame for the hypothesized incident, would we also be looking back and saying for instance, 'Aha, when Kenya attacked our English allies (yes, I'm making stuff up here, plug in the scenario of your choice) and Bush and Cheney followed it up with a military invasion of Kenya, I discovered this document that talked about a new 'Pearl Harbor' so yea, that's a pretty good indication that they may have orchestrated the original attack'? It's critical to keep in mind when looking at 9/11's connection to this quote the fact that US politicians try to exploit nearly everything that occurs to their advantage, and have been doing so for almost 250 years. Even things that have nothing to do with human causation like natural disasters.

Equally if not more critical to keep in mind that certain U.S. politicians, particularly the PNAC document authors who came to power in 2001, have a history of fabricating situations and promoting lies which work to their advantage, both before and after 9/11 - reference Team B and the Iraq WMD affair.

I don't understand relevance of the hypotheticals you mention - it didn't happen any other way than a Pearl Harbor scale attack, on America, at the beginning of the Neocon term in power.

Liquid Gardens, on 18 July 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

4. This document is dated Sept 2000. Why on earth would they so blatantly state what they want to happen for all to see if what I think may be your interpretation is correct? I don't want to go too far in assuming your arguments, but you're leaning towards the govt being involved in the collapse of the WTC I think. If that's the case, there's a pretty glaring inconsistency in that the covert proficiency, intelligence, expertise, and power needed to pull off some kind of organized demolition is totally at odds with the buffoonery of publishing your nefarious plans a year beforehand and making it available on the internet.

The document was not a blueprint for 9/11; it shows only the motive that existed.

The individual who wrote of a "new Pearl Harbor" requirement was not necessarily aware of the upcoming 9/11 operation... though working in the same circles and to similar policy as those actually responsible for the plot, would be aware of the benefit an attack would bring.

Liquid Gardens, on 18 July 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

5. Why select just the 'Pearl Harbor' statement out of this ~60 page document and grant it some deeper significance as far as the truth? Elsewhere in the document the authors lament that, "The "savings" from withdrawing from the Balkans, for example, will not free up anywhere near the magnitude of funds needed for military modernization or transformation." So the solution to that is to get us involved in Afghanistan and Iraq which will remove many orders of magnitude more funds from the equation than the Balkans? Is there some reason not to take this comment concerning how expenditures on military engagements are logically taking away from the modernization that they are seeking as just as indicative of what PNAC wanted as the PH quote?

All indicated is that withdrawal from theatre will not free up the funds for the required modernisation. I'm not sure if you are aware but the large majority of funding for operations comes from a separate pot of money (bank loans) to the annual military budget (taxpayers). Therefore when we pull out of theatre the immediate "savings", so far as funding for modernisation programs go, are low. What was vital in their eyes was a boost to the annual budget, and just look at that rise immediately following 9/11...





The attack was a catalyst for the majority of the aims which were of the highest stakes in the authors' views - America's continued global pre-eminence. There is no denying the motive that existed within certain U.S. ideologies for a 9/11 false flag, and further that it outweighed any potential benefit that could be derived by 'Al Qaeda'.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 18 July 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

I know LG and WT are having a discussion but I hope neither mind me putting my two cents in...

I certainly don't mind Q, I'm interested in what you have to say also.  I won't be able to respond to two different theories simultaneously, but your posts so far have been providing additional detail to what WT and I are already discussing so anything you or anyone have to add is great.

I'll get into some specifics below, but overall I think some of the points/rebuttals you are providing are a little different than what I'm criticizing, and that may be because of my misconstruing the arguments.  I was essentially just doing a brain dump of my thoughts on the Pearl Harbor comment in the document, as I see CTs singling this out as especially indicative of something, some apparently going so far to say this is some kind of 'smoking gun' that 9/11 was orchestrated by the govt.  A lot of your points have to do with motive, but I guess I don't see then why that has anything to do specifically with the 'PH' comment; it's not that comment, it's the whole document that provides the motive.  And it's not like any of this was secretive or anything, the Bush Administration was chock full of hawks and everyone knew it.  This PH comment and this document is entirely superfluous since all the motive that should be needed was common knowledge, namely that the Bush Admin wanted increased defense spending, and they got it partially because they exploited 9/11.  Maybe I should try it this way and ask that you and WT complete the following sentence if appropriate:  "The 'Pearl Harbor' reference in the PNAC document bears mentioning because it specifically shows/suggests _____".

Quote

Put it in context...

Why did the authors require the armed forces to modernize technologically?  To what end?

The title of the chapter is a giveaway: "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force".

There are some who would talk down contents of this section - oh it's only about information technologies - though the authors did not take it lightly: "Information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on the military as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence."

This one factor is essential support to wider aims of the document: -

• To raise the military budget.
  
• To increase presence in the Gulf region.
  
• To ensure America's continued global pre-eminence.

9/11, the new Pearl Harbor, achieved all of this.

Agreed, but this is using a different sense of 'Pearl Harbor' than how it is used in the document.  The document does not say, "in order to quickly raise the military budget, increase our presence in the Gulf, and to ensure global pre-eminence, a new "Pearl Harbor" will be required"; it says to transform the military technologically quickly a new PH would be required, which is made even clearer by the later mention of PH with respect to the Navy.  I think we're blending two overlapping PH translations:  1- PH as in motivating the population to be behind essentially anything the govt wants to do militarily, and 2 - PH in the sense of how the 1941 PH demonstrated the obsolescense of our Navy.  I think the document uses 'PH' definitely in the #2 sense, but not specifically in the #1 sense, while recognizing again the overlap.  The 1941 PH showed we weren't prepared for carrier-based naval engagement and we very quickly upgraded our navy in response; it's difficult to analogize that to the 9/11 'PH' where we are outmatched by some dudes with boxcutters.  I think I'm flailing away here perhaps at points no one is specifically making, so I think having a specific statement per my fill-in-the-blanks above would help.

Quote

The document was not a blueprint for 9/11; it shows only the motive that existed.

I understand that it's just providing 'motive' but it seems rather arbitrary to not take it any further.  For instance, I haven't seen anything in the document saying that any of this transformation needs to be completed quickly (I may well have missed something there's only so much of that PNAC paranoid sales pitch I can stand to read at once), especially since it talks about a decades-long implementation, and WTs statement mentioned a 'fast overhaul' as being part of the point of the PH statement.  I think it's entirely fair to say then, 'motive to do what exactly' and that is provided by the document that is providing that motive.  Isn't the motive, as laid out in the document, to transform and upgrade our military, increase our presence over the world, increase defense spending over a period of decades?  Wouldn't this be the preferable way to do this from a 'Republican' point of view to transition the other govt spending that they don't like, such as social programs, into defense, which will take time?  Republicans are all about the deficit supposedly, they really wanted to rack up a bunch more debt to fight a couple wars?  I think there's an assumption perhaps being made that since they said they wanted defense spending to increase that they wanted it to happen quickly and massively no matter what the downsides, and I'm not sure if the evidence for that assumption is found in this document that is providing this motive.  

Quote

I don't understand relevance of the hypotheticals you mention - it didn't happen any other way than a Pearl Harbor scale attack, on America, at the beginning of the Neocon term in power.

Sorry about that, that was definitely unclear.  I was just trying to point out that, again depending on what exactly the significance of PH is that is being argued, any number of lesser catastrophic events could have resulted in the Bush Adm ramping up defense spending in response.  Some of these events may have nothing to do with anything the US govt had influence over and 'just happened', but some people could still pull out this PNAC document and look at the PH quote and say, "see, this is evidence that they were behind the 'insert alternate momentous event'.  This to me is a danger inherent with making these types of connections, I'm not saying it's always invalid or anything, on the contrary it's usually necessary.  But it's also the process by which the prophecies of Nostradamus are deemed valid by some: take a somewhat vague statement and attribute some far more specific event and meaning to it just because there is a connection to be made, and that connection is therefore used invalidly as evidence that the original statement is what the author 'really meant'.

Quote

The individual who wrote of a "new Pearl Harbor" requirement was not necessarily aware of the upcoming 9/11 operation... though working in the same circles and to similar policy as those actually responsible for the plot, would be aware of the benefit an attack would bring.

The whole point of this document is all the important people who signed on to it, but maybe they didn't read it?  Seems like it would be a pretty important section to have rewritten if you were plotting the new 'PH'.  Even if I grant for a second that they were actually plotting 9/11, isn't it possible they were aware of the PH statement but didn't felt they needed to take it out because they meant it in the way I've been arguing they meant it, strictly referring to upgrading the military?  I'm definitely losing even more sight of why the 'PH' statement deserves any specific mention.

Quote

All indicated is that withdrawal from theatre will not free up the funds for the required modernisation. I'm not sure if you are aware but the large majority of funding for operations comes from a separate pot of money (bank loans) to the annual military budget (taxpayers). Therefore when we pull out of theatre the immediate "savings", so far as funding for modernisation programs go, are low. What was vital in their eyes was a boost to the annual budget, and just look at that rise immediately following 9/11...

Thanks for the graph and info, and good point Q.  You are correct, it doesn't look like the wars themselves have taken away from the increased spending on the things they laid out in the document that they desired.

Quote

There is no denying the motive that existed within certain U.S. ideologies for a 9/11 false flag, and further that it outweighed any potential benefit that could be derived by 'Al Qaeda'.

I'm with you up to the comma, but 'benefit' is a fairly subjective term and I think can only be compared across the same units of measure.  The potential benefits to the govt was more money and power, and the benefits to AQ was fame/notoriety and more recruits, to just select a few; you can't really compare one of those being a greater 'benefit' than the other, it depends on what the benefitee is seeking.

[W Tell]

I'll let you two discuss the PNAC document if you want. From my understanding this was a document brainstormed by a think tank planning for Americas defenses (And offenses) in the coming century. The term "A New Pearl Harbor" I used to think was their lament, because without it would take forever to sway the public without such an act.

But I've come to the conclusion over the years that government "never" wastes a good crisis.

Nowdays I look at that term as their express elevator.

But that's just me.

[lliqerty]

W Tell, on 20 July 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

I'll let you two discuss the PNAC document if you want. From my understanding this was a document brainstormed by a think tank planning for Americas defenses (And offenses) in the coming century. The term "A New Pearl Harbor" I used to think was their lament, because without it would take forever to sway the public without such an act.

But I've come to the conclusion over the years that government "never" wastes a good crisis.

Nowdays I look at that term as their express elevator.

But that's just me.

That is what Rahm Emanuel said, to "never wastes a good crisis".