Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

false-flag operation


  • Please log in to reply
285 replies to this topic

#31    el midgetron

el midgetron

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined:26 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the middle of the mitten

  • saturnalian brother

Posted 23 October 2010 - 07:23 AM

View PostTK0001, on 22 October 2010 - 12:57 PM, said:

Are you suggesting Kennedy was assassinated because he nixed Operation Northwoods? That's a new one to me. I'd like to hear more evidence of this.

I am suggesting that Kennedy didn't fit the corporate status quo required to serve as president. If you want to believe he was killed by the classical lone-gunman, you're welcome to. However, could his reluctance to sign off on something like Operation Northwoods be evidence of his fall from favor? Sure, I think so.

View PostTK0001, on 22 October 2010 - 12:57 PM, said:

1. I have read Rebuilding America's Defenses, and it talks about the transformation to take place over a long period of time, absent a catastrophe like a new Pearl Harbor.

Thank god that never happened......

View PostTK0001, on 22 October 2010 - 12:57 PM, said:

The transformation it speaks of is the advancement of information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with the advancement of information technologies?

Thats the worst synopsis I have ever heard. You are either being intentionally deceptive or suffer a reading comprehension deficiency.

Seriously, listen to yourself. Why would advancing information technologies in the military require a new Pearl Harbor??

View PostTK0001, on 22 October 2010 - 12:57 PM, said:

2. If this was part of some grand conspiracy to attack it's own country, why in God's name would the US government allow it to be published on the internet? Same with Operation Northwoods. Why can we look these items up today (why are they declassified) if they implicate the US government in 9/11?

I assume because they can declassify that kind of stuff and no one loses their job or goes to prison. Heck, the MSM basically ignors this kind of stuff in favor of celebrity gossip. Quite the "punishment" as you suggest....

Posted Image

"Feels good to be breaking the laws in America again" - Kenny Powers


#32    TK0001

TK0001

    THIMK!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 23 October 2010 - 01:21 PM

View Postel midgetron, on 23 October 2010 - 07:23 AM, said:

Thats the worst synopsis I have ever heard. You are either being intentionally deceptive or suffer a reading comprehension deficiency.

Seriously, listen to yourself. Why would advancing information technologies in the military require a new Pearl Harbor??

It didn't say it would "require" a new Pearl Harbor. It said the transformation would be a slow one ABSENT a new Pearl Harbor.

I'll quote right from the document itself:

Quote

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs.

Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs 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.

It's on page 50 of the document you wanted me to read:

Rebuilding America's Defenses

"New Pearl Harbor" appears on page 51, incidentally.


#33    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,863 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 23 October 2010 - 01:45 PM

It's things like this that make me wonder why anyone would want to give the government more power.  A small government with well-defined powers and responsibilities would have a harder time fooling the people.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#34    SolarPlexus

SolarPlexus

    Warrior of Light

  • Member
  • 3,432 posts
  • Joined:28 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Serbia

  • .....This moment contains all moments.....

    ...You dont have a Soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.....

Posted 23 October 2010 - 04:56 PM

View PostIamsSon, on 23 October 2010 - 01:45 PM, said:

It's things like this that make me wonder why anyone would want to give the government more power.  A small government with well-defined powers and responsibilities would have a harder time fooling the people.

yup

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Galileo Galilei
Posted Image
"Who never walks save where he sees men's tracks makes no discoveries."J.G. Holland

#35    el midgetron

el midgetron

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined:26 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the middle of the mitten

  • saturnalian brother

Posted 25 October 2010 - 04:50 AM

View PostTK0001, on 23 October 2010 - 01:21 PM, said:

It didn't say it would "require" a new Pearl Harbor. It said the transformation would be a slow one ABSENT a new Pearl Harbor.

Ah, well that clears it all up. :tu:

Sorry man, but arguing word games is a fail.

It didn't say require, it said absent. I guess that totally changes the projected strategies layed out in the document........

Posted Image

"Feels good to be breaking the laws in America again" - Kenny Powers


#36    TK0001

TK0001

    THIMK!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 25 October 2010 - 12:21 PM

View Postel midgetron, on 25 October 2010 - 04:50 AM, said:

Ah, well that clears it all up. :tu:

Sorry man, but arguing word games is a fail.

It didn't say require, it said absent. I guess that totally changes the projected strategies layed out in the document........

That's a big difference, midge. You're trying to say that the PNAC was calling for a new Pearl Harbor to happen so that the US could advance it's "agenda". The truth is, the PNAC was acknowledging the fact that making the transformation to incorporating more information technologies in the military would take decades, absent the unlikelihood of a new Pearl Harbor happening. And they were talking about information technologies, not some nefarious plan to strike up a war in the middle east.

Did you even read the document? I linked you to it, and quoted right from it. And you're still trying to tell me it says something different?


#37    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 26 October 2010 - 12:10 AM

View PostTK0001, on 25 October 2010 - 12:21 PM, said:

That's a big difference, midge. You're trying to say that the PNAC was calling for a new Pearl Harbor to happen so that the US could advance it's "agenda". The truth is, the PNAC was acknowledging the fact that making the transformation to incorporating more information technologies in the military would take decades, absent the unlikelihood of a new Pearl Harbor happening. And they were talking about information technologies, not some nefarious plan to strike up a war in the middle east.

Did you even read the document? I linked you to it, and quoted right from it. And you're still trying to tell me it says something different?
The information technologies spoken about are one particular aspect of the overall transformation strategy.  Because the chapter including the “new Pearl Harbor” reference begins with, “Information technologies, in particular…” you are jumping on it as though that is the transformation strategy in its entirety – it is not.  Further, the “process of transformation” is intended to support wider U.S. military objectives.  The document makes clear what some of these objectives are: -

  • “Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security.  While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

  • “And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.”

The above excerpts are eye-catching as they explain that even should Saddam Hussein be removed and more friendly relations be formed with Iran, the United States would still seek “forward-based forces” to secure “longstanding American interests” in the Gulf region.  This is all a part of what the transformation strategy is intended to enable.

Let’s look at another area described in the document: military spending.  At the time of writing Rebuilding America’s Defenses, military spending was at just below 3% of GDP.  This figure had been on a slow downward trend ever since the close of the Cold War near 10 years earlier. As the PNAC put it: -

  • “Today, America spends less than 3 percent of its gross domestic product on national defense, less than at any time since before World War II – in other words, since before the United States established itself as the world’s leading power.”

This statement shows the concern that America’s position as the world’s leading power could come under threat if the current situation continued.  Following this, the PNAC stated: -

  • “The program we advocate – one that would provide America with forces to meet the strategic demands of the world’s sole superpower – requires budget levels to be increased to 3.5 to 3.8 percent of the GDP.”

The above figures were described as “a minimum level”.  After 9/11, the downward trend was reversed and as at 2010 the military budget stands at 4.7% of GDP (back to Cold War levels).  This graph shows the story regarding military spending from a slightly different angle: -

Posted Image


The red line indicates 9/11 - notice the trend before and after.  There is simply no denying that 9/11 had an effect that was of benefit to the PNAC agenda – that is, the same effect that they said a “new Pearl Harbor” would bring.

Does this prove that members of the PNAC were responsible for engineering 9/11?  No it does not.
Does this prove that members of the PNAC had motive for engineering 9/11?  Absolutely.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#38    el midgetron

el midgetron

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined:26 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the middle of the mitten

  • saturnalian brother

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:10 AM

View PostTK0001, on 25 October 2010 - 12:21 PM, said:

That's a big difference, midge. You're trying to say that the PNAC was calling for a new Pearl Harbor to happen so that the US could advance it's "agenda". The truth is, the PNAC was acknowledging the fact that making the transformation to incorporating more information technologies in the military would take decades, absent the unlikelihood of a new Pearl Harbor happening. And they were talking about information technologies, not some nefarious plan to strike up a war in the middle east.

Did you even read the document? I linked you to it, and quoted right from it. And you're still trying to tell me it says something different?

No I wasn't. Its been years since I read the document and you attack me on a choice of words. "Required" or "absent", its a silly game you play. Trying to suggest its all about "information technologies" when the document discusses the military muscle needed to fight simultaneous wars is the real deception. Of course, since I am not exactly quoting thier words I guess you can continue your game....

Props to Q24 for a his response of substance and detail. :tu:

Posted Image

"Feels good to be breaking the laws in America again" - Kenny Powers


#39    TK0001

TK0001

    THIMK!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 26 October 2010 - 12:02 PM

View Postel midgetron, on 26 October 2010 - 04:10 AM, said:

No I wasn't. Its been years since I read the document and you attack me on a choice of words. "Required" or "absent", its a silly game you play.

Well I don't know what to tell you. There's a huge difference between those words and they're just not saying what you think they're saying. You call that a "silly game", I call that understanding the meaning of words.


#40    illuminated

illuminated

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 204 posts
  • Joined:10 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • This is the last time i pray to the sky, because everything we were ever told is a lie.

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:16 PM

View PostTK0001, on 26 October 2010 - 12:02 PM, said:

Well I don't know what to tell you. There's a huge difference between those words and they're just not saying what you think they're saying. You call that a "silly game", I call that understanding the meaning of words.

using words especially in governmental documents is a game.
they word their way around certain points in the documents to make it seem more just or more appropriate.
now JFK was assassinated and not by lee harvey oswald. former fbi agents  have spoken out against it numerous times.
evidence of people over phone conversations planning it and talking about it, also bragging about what had happened.
and one of the people was in a picture taken with jfk before his assassination.

jfk was a great president only because he was just and he actually had americas interest at heart.

now george w bush did not plan 9/11 it is statistics that he was americas dumbest president in over 40 years.
he just simply signed off on the false flag operation not caring. he had his own interest at heart.

yes cheney has started or is planning on building pipelines through afghanistan.

as stated all throughout this post there are many reasons people would want afghani land.
and what german could not do in the 80's  america did in 2001.

and to answer a question in the  1st page.

no one these days gave the government  the power they have over time they took it along with the freedoms we used to have.

and here is something that will also bother alot if not all americans

high official government agencies such as the cia are corporate owned and run.
meaning the corporations that own it have the complete use of cia intelligence and power.

meaning big brother is really just a corporation.
our safety is in corporate americas hands.

Posted Image
Innocent people get murdered in the struggle daily. And poor people never get **** and struggle daily. This ain't no alien conspiracy theory, this **** is real. Written on the dollar underneath the Masonic sealuhhh censorship is everywhere...

#41    SolarPlexus

SolarPlexus

    Warrior of Light

  • Member
  • 3,432 posts
  • Joined:28 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Serbia

  • .....This moment contains all moments.....

    ...You dont have a Soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.....

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:49 PM

they couldn't control JFK so they killed him.... he wouldn't budge

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Galileo Galilei
Posted Image
"Who never walks save where he sees men's tracks makes no discoveries."J.G. Holland

#42    el midgetron

el midgetron

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined:26 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the middle of the mitten

  • saturnalian brother

Posted 27 October 2010 - 03:47 AM

View PostTK0001, on 26 October 2010 - 12:02 PM, said:

Well I don't know what to tell you. There's a huge difference between those words and they're just not saying what you think they're saying. You call that a "silly game", I call that understanding the meaning of words.

Yet, you haven't back off your claim that it was about "information tech" even though anyone who has read the document knows that you are presenting a very narrow (hardly realistic) view of its narrative. You press me for 1 word, yet you misrepresnt the contents of entire document.

Edited by el midgetron, 27 October 2010 - 03:49 AM.

Posted Image

"Feels good to be breaking the laws in America again" - Kenny Powers


#43    TK0001

TK0001

    THIMK!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 27 October 2010 - 01:01 PM

View Postel midgetron, on 27 October 2010 - 03:47 AM, said:

Yet, you haven't back off your claim that it was about "information tech" even though anyone who has read the document knows that you are presenting a very narrow (hardly realistic) view of its narrative. You press me for 1 word, yet you misrepresnt the contents of entire document.

Quote

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in
military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern
military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs 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.

The United States enjoys every prospect of leading this transformation. Indeed, it was the improvements in capabilities
acquired during the American defense buildup of the 1980s that hinted at and then confirmed, during Operation Desert Storm,
that a revolution in military affairs was at hand. At the same time, the process of military transformation will present
opportunities for America’s adversaries to develop new capabilities that in turn will create new challenges for U.S. military preeminence.

Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation
and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced
dramatically over the past decade. Indeed, during the mid-1980’s, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan
buildup which was primarily an effort to expand existing forces and field traditional weapons systems, research spending
represented 20 percent of total Pentagon budgets. By contrast, today’s research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending. And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons. Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge on future battlefields.

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military
missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new
technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

There it is, in context. You tell me what "transformation" they were talking about.


#44    TK0001

TK0001

    THIMK!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 27 October 2010 - 03:14 PM

View PostTK0001, on 27 October 2010 - 01:01 PM, said:

There it is, in context. You tell me what "transformation" they were talking about.


Here, I'll highlight the good parts:



Quote

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in
military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern
military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs 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.

The United States enjoys every prospect of leading this transformation. Indeed, it was the improvements in capabilities
acquired during the American defense buildup of the 1980s that hinted at and then confirmed, during Operation Desert Storm,
that a revolution in military affairs was at hand. At the same time, the process of military transformation will present
opportunities for America’s adversaries to develop new capabilities that in turn will create new challenges for U.S. military preeminence.

Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation
and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced
dramatically over the past decade. Indeed, during the mid-1980’s, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan
buildup which was primarily an effort to expand existing forces and field traditional weapons systems, research spending
represented 20 percent of total Pentagon budgets. By contrast, today’s research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending. And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons. Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge on future battlefields.

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military
missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new
technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.



#45    illuminated

illuminated

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 204 posts
  • Joined:10 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • This is the last time i pray to the sky, because everything we were ever told is a lie.

Posted 27 October 2010 - 08:08 PM

i think he highlighted enough to show that the dep. of def. stated they are going to need to be more aggressive in what they do
and they shown they have done so and  it shows they have technologies that we do not see or will not see for a while kind of bogus if you ask me.

Posted Image
Innocent people get murdered in the struggle daily. And poor people never get **** and struggle daily. This ain't no alien conspiracy theory, this **** is real. Written on the dollar underneath the Masonic sealuhhh censorship is everywhere...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users