+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-911)
+--- Thread: Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan (/Thread-Demolition-Access-To-The-WTC-Towers-Kevin-Ryan)
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan - Carsten Wiethoff - 03-10-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:The policy of pre emptive war was adapted POST 9/11. I suppose it was pushed through as an acceptable policy because waiting to be attacked first had devastating consequences.
The policy of preemptive war has nothing to do with a real threat of being attacked, it is purely a way to make wars of aggression tolerable to the public. In case of Afghanistan, the plan to invade was complete weeks before 9/11 and in case of Iraq the planning started immediately on 9/11, despite any evidence that Iraq posed any danger or had anything to do with 9/11. Both wars violated international law in the boldest way.
There is no justification for a preemptive war.
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan - David Guyatt - 03-10-2013
Peter Presland Wrote:Aside from hotly contested differences over the trivia of domestic politics you cannot put a fag paper between their stated policies -
I think my metaphor would be "banknote" instead of fag-paper, Peter. They're only marginally thicker, but so very much more meaningful to the political classes, I think. :
:
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan - Jeffrey Orling - 03-10-2013
Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:The policy of pre emptive war was adapted POST 9/11. I suppose it was pushed through as an acceptable policy because waiting to be attacked first had devastating consequences.
The policy of preemptive war has nothing to do with a real threat of being attacked, it is purely a way to make wars of aggression tolerable to the public. In case of Afghanistan, the plan to invade was complete weeks before 9/11 and in case of Iraq the planning started immediately on 9/11, despite any evidence that Iraq posed any danger or had anything to do with 9/11. Both wars violated international law in the boldest way.
There is no justification for a preemptive war.
I suspect that the DOD has had war plans for every nation in the ME for decades which are continuously being updated as local conditions and world alliances evolve. W's energy buds had meetings in the WH which were secret and it's likely that they discussed how to get at the oil in the ME and perhaps finishing off Sadam was as good an excuse as any. They need a pretext for waging war!
The trouble with raising the notion of false flags all the time, is that the US policies actually provoke locals around the world who are victims of the US corps and MIC to push back. This is undeniable.
Expanding the empire is not easy for a democracy. It's not lawful. At best the US can advocate for free markets and so forth and boy do they ever do that... try to control the world economy, local economies and the resources around the world. Corporations don't play by the rules of nations. They are non state actors too. What has happened of course, is that the MIC and the DOD has been the muscle for the corps (notice their revolving doors)... and now they are locked together in common interest... conquering and control of the world.
DOD is not really about defending the US but advancing control and influence of US corporations around the world... but it can't simply attack and take over a nation and grab what they want... They can't even do that when they try... witness Vietnam, and Iraq... and Afghanistan.
The MIC uses the CIA to engage in black ops (POTUS's covert foreign policy action group)... criminal activities to advance US *interests*... read corporate interests. They assassinate and run drugs and weapons and manage coups and insurgent groups like the Contras (there are dozens of examples)... they bribe placed puppets in developing countries. All of this is well known. And the locals occasionally kick back and they are EXPECTED to kick back. Why wouldn't they? The Palestinians are? Gandhi did. Mandela did... Che did... etc. The US has re configured its strategies to fight insurgencies... because no nation is going to attack the US... (the weapons race is a hard sell now. With out attack there is no cause for a retribution. So 9/11 would do fine for them...And it was an attack and it was one that was on the intel radar if we are to believe people like Rowley and Edmonds. Any excuse works for them and of course ANY attack would be compared to Pearl Harbor and the MIC advocate for a similar response - WAR. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.
The historians knew this, the think tanks knew it and the right wing chicken hawk ones had wet dreams about an attack on the US to be able to point to Pearl Harbor. Didn't work for Khobar towers, USS Cole, or Nairobi Embassy. US people did not clamor for an attack... Who was the DOD to wage war on when a rubber boat exploded next to the Cole?
Sure they exploited 9/11 and considering how many people were killed the demand for blood was easy to fulfill... They had the plans.. they were ready to roll out. Out came their war plans... and they've been years and years in the making. That's what the tens of thousands who work in the pentagon are doing... planning for wars! And breeding the excuses for them.
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan - Lauren Johnson - 03-10-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:The policy of pre emptive war was adapted POST 9/11. I suppose it was pushed through as an acceptable policy because waiting to be attacked first had devastating consequences.
The policy of preemptive war has nothing to do with a real threat of being attacked, it is purely a way to make wars of aggression tolerable to the public. In case of Afghanistan, the plan to invade was complete weeks before 9/11 and in case of Iraq the planning started immediately on 9/11, despite any evidence that Iraq posed any danger or had anything to do with 9/11. Both wars violated international law in the boldest way.
There is no justification for a preemptive war.
I suspect that the DOD has war plans for every nation in the ME for decades which are continuously being updated at local conditions and world alliances evolve. W's energy buds has meetings in the WH which were secret and it's likely that they discussed how to get at the oil in the ME and perhaps finishing off Sadam was as good an excuse as any.
The trouble with raising the notion of false flags all the time, is that the US policies actually provoke locals around the world who are victims of the US corps and MIC to push back.
Expanding the empire is not easy for a democracy. It's not lawful. At best the US can advocate for free markets and so forth and boy do they ever do that... try to control the world economy, local economies and the resources around the world. Corporations don't play by the rules of nations. They are non state actors too. What has happened of course is that the MIC and the DOD has been the muscle for the corps... and now they are locked together in common interest... conquering and control of the world. DOD is not really about defending the US but advancing control and influence around the world... but it can't simply attack and take over a nation... They can't even do that when they try... witness Vietnam, and Iraq... and Afghanistan. The MIC uses the CIA to engage in black ops... criminal activities to advance US *interests*... read corporate interests. They assassinate and run drugs and weapons and manage coups and insurgent groups like the Contras... they bribe placed puppets in developing countries. All of this is well known. And the locals occasionally kick back and they are EXPECTED to kick back. The US has re configured its strategies to fight insurgencies... because no nation is going to attack the US... no cause for a retribution. 9/11 would do fine for them... any excuse and of course it would be compared to Pearl Harbor and advocate for a similar response - WAR.
The historians knew this, the think tanks knew it and the right wing ones had wet dreams about an attack on the US to be able to point to Pearl Harbor. Didn't work for Khobar towers, USS Cole, or Nairobi Embassy. US people did not clamor for an attack... Who was the DOD to wage war on when a rubber boat exploded next to the Cole?
Sure they exploited 9/11 and considering how many people were killed the demand for blood was easy to fulfill. Out came their war plans... and they've been years and years in the making. That's what the tens of thousands who work in the pentagon are doing... planning for wars!
A DPF Challenge: What is the flaw in this argument? I have some ideas, but I don't have a lot of time now.
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan - Jeffrey Orling - 03-10-2013
Power sees itself above the law and is constantly engaged in lawless pursuits of its agenda... more power, wealth and control and keeping others from getting any of it. Board rooms are not transparent. Executives and government bureaucrats don't poll or inform the public of their plans... or do so only to comply to minimum standards.
Secrecy is how MOST of this goes down. And it's secret because it unlawful or unethical or both.
It's always been like that.
The democracy in the US is really a fig leaf which enables the powerful and elite to act in much the same way as a monarch would... it's a sort of distributed dictatorship where the elite can wear the mask of democracy and act as fascists and get away with it. All means of accountability had been pretty much stripped away and neutered by now.
It's the Truman show and everyone's acting it and can't tell they are.... and most don't care as they are struggling or stealing.
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan - Jan Klimkowski - 03-10-2013
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:The policy of pre emptive war was adapted POST 9/11. I suppose it was pushed through as an acceptable policy because waiting to be attacked first had devastating consequences.
The policy of preemptive war has nothing to do with a real threat of being attacked, it is purely a way to make wars of aggression tolerable to the public. In case of Afghanistan, the plan to invade was complete weeks before 9/11 and in case of Iraq the planning started immediately on 9/11, despite any evidence that Iraq posed any danger or had anything to do with 9/11. Both wars violated international law in the boldest way.
There is no justification for a preemptive war.
I suspect that the DOD has war plans for every nation in the ME for decades which are continuously being updated at local conditions and world alliances evolve. W's energy buds has meetings in the WH which were secret and it's likely that they discussed how to get at the oil in the ME and perhaps finishing off Sadam was as good an excuse as any.
The trouble with raising the notion of false flags all the time, is that the US policies actually provoke locals around the world who are victims of the US corps and MIC to push back.
Expanding the empire is not easy for a democracy. It's not lawful. At best the US can advocate for free markets and so forth and boy do they ever do that... try to control the world economy, local economies and the resources around the world. Corporations don't play by the rules of nations. They are non state actors too. What has happened of course is that the MIC and the DOD has been the muscle for the corps... and now they are locked together in common interest... conquering and control of the world. DOD is not really about defending the US but advancing control and influence around the world... but it can't simply attack and take over a nation... They can't even do that when they try... witness Vietnam, and Iraq... and Afghanistan. The MIC uses the CIA to engage in black ops... criminal activities to advance US *interests*... read corporate interests. They assassinate and run drugs and weapons and manage coups and insurgent groups like the Contras... they bribe placed puppets in developing countries. All of this is well known. And the locals occasionally kick back and they are EXPECTED to kick back. The US has re configured its strategies to fight insurgencies... because no nation is going to attack the US... no cause for a retribution. 9/11 would do fine for them... any excuse and of course it would be compared to Pearl Harbor and advocate for a similar response - WAR.
The historians knew this, the think tanks knew it and the right wing ones had wet dreams about an attack on the US to be able to point to Pearl Harbor. Didn't work for Khobar towers, USS Cole, or Nairobi Embassy. US people did not clamor for an attack... Who was the DOD to wage war on when a rubber boat exploded next to the Cole?
Sure they exploited 9/11 and considering how many people were killed the demand for blood was easy to fulfill. Out came their war plans... and they've been years and years in the making. That's what the tens of thousands who work in the pentagon are doing... planning for wars!
A DPF Challenge: What is the flaw in this argument? I have some ideas, but I don't have a lot of time now.
The flaw is that Carsten Wiethoff has a sophisticated, profound, understanding of deep politics.
Jeffrey Orling, by his own frequent explicit admission, knows nothing of deep politics yet continues to offer us his banal ramblings.
In the thread here, about the Boston bombing, Orling defines false flag in a manner which is both ignorant of the term's history and dangerously restrictive in its usage, and concludes that that event does not fit his casually constructed definition of false flag.
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:While it could be a false flag, it might not and actually be something equally troubling. I tend to think of a false flag as a deliberate act to create an incident which appears to frame the enemy as attacking so that the creators of the false flag can then respond as if they really WERE attacked. The Gulf of Tonkin comes to mind. I think the USS Liberty may have be staged to provide an excuse for the US to enter war on Israeli's side or provide an excuse to justify and frame US political and tactical response to the conflict.
Jeffrey - your personal definition of false flag is dangerously restrictive.
Here is the commonly accepted definition:
Quote:False flag (or black flag) describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them. Operations carried during peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, may by extension be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the real organisation behind an operation.
There is no need for a false flag atrocity to be designed to provoke a war.
The entire Strategia Della Tensione of Gladio and its successors is based on false flag atrocities.
If DPF is to be a kindergarten and a breeding ground for nonsense, then I want no part of it.
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan - Jeffrey Orling - 03-10-2013
Sorry for being banal... I am not a member of any think tank or or a think group. I pick and choose what makes sense to me. I am sure that many of the great thinkers would not accept deep politics (whatever it's purported to be) as the sole explanation for the way the world works.
You can ask me not to participate if you'd like but wouldn't that be shutting yourselves off from the outside world?
Thread title is demolition access... isn't that a bit of a cart before the horse position to take?
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan - David Guyatt - 04-10-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:DOD is not really about defending the US but advancing control and influence of US corporations around the world... but it can't simply attack and take over a nation and grab what they want... They can't even do that when they try... witness Vietnam, and Iraq... and Afghanistan.
War is an end in itself. The war machines profits enormously. Winning is not always the point.
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan - Magda Hassan - 04-10-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:You can ask me not to participate if you'd like but wouldn't that be shutting yourselves off from the outside world?We all live in the 'outside' world too Jeffrey. Some of us are quite worldly wise too.
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan - Magda Hassan - 04-10-2013
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Jelly anyone?Lauren Johnson Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:The policy of preemptive war has nothing to do with a real threat of being attacked, it is purely a way to make wars of aggression tolerable to the public. In case of Afghanistan, the plan to invade was complete weeks before 9/11 and in case of Iraq the planning started immediately on 9/11, despite any evidence that Iraq posed any danger or had anything to do with 9/11. Both wars violated international law in the boldest way.
There is no justification for a preemptive war.
I suspect that the DOD has war plans for every nation in the ME for decades which are continuously being updated at local conditions and world alliances evolve. W's energy buds has meetings in the WH which were secret and it's likely that they discussed how to get at the oil in the ME and perhaps finishing off Sadam was as good an excuse as any.
The trouble with raising the notion of false flags all the time, is that the US policies actually provoke locals around the world who are victims of the US corps and MIC to push back.
Expanding the empire is not easy for a democracy. It's not lawful. At best the US can advocate for free markets and so forth and boy do they ever do that... try to control the world economy, local economies and the resources around the world. Corporations don't play by the rules of nations. They are non state actors too. What has happened of course is that the MIC and the DOD has been the muscle for the corps... and now they are locked together in common interest... conquering and control of the world. DOD is not really about defending the US but advancing control and influence around the world... but it can't simply attack and take over a nation... They can't even do that when they try... witness Vietnam, and Iraq... and Afghanistan. The MIC uses the CIA to engage in black ops... criminal activities to advance US *interests*... read corporate interests. They assassinate and run drugs and weapons and manage coups and insurgent groups like the Contras... they bribe placed puppets in developing countries. All of this is well known. And the locals occasionally kick back and they are EXPECTED to kick back. The US has re configured its strategies to fight insurgencies... because no nation is going to attack the US... no cause for a retribution. 9/11 would do fine for them... any excuse and of course it would be compared to Pearl Harbor and advocate for a similar response - WAR.
The historians knew this, the think tanks knew it and the right wing ones had wet dreams about an attack on the US to be able to point to Pearl Harbor. Didn't work for Khobar towers, USS Cole, or Nairobi Embassy. US people did not clamor for an attack... Who was the DOD to wage war on when a rubber boat exploded next to the Cole?
Sure they exploited 9/11 and considering how many people were killed the demand for blood was easy to fulfill. Out came their war plans... and they've been years and years in the making. That's what the tens of thousands who work in the pentagon are doing... planning for wars!
A DPF Challenge: What is the flaw in this argument? I have some ideas, but I don't have a lot of time now.
The flaw is that Carsten Wiethoff has a sophisticated, profound, understanding of deep politics.
Jeffrey Orling, by his own frequent explicit admission, knows nothing of deep politics yet continues to offer us his banal ramblings.
In the thread here, about the Boston bombing, Orling defines false flag in a manner which is both ignorant of the term's history and dangerously restrictive in its usage, and concludes that that event does not fit his casually constructed definition of false flag.
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:While it could be a false flag, it might not and actually be something equally troubling. I tend to think of a false flag as a deliberate act to create an incident which appears to frame the enemy as attacking so that the creators of the false flag can then respond as if they really WERE attacked. The Gulf of Tonkin comes to mind. I think the USS Liberty may have be staged to provide an excuse for the US to enter war on Israeli's side or provide an excuse to justify and frame US political and tactical response to the conflict.
Jeffrey - your personal definition of false flag is dangerously restrictive.
Here is the commonly accepted definition:
Quote:False flag (or black flag) describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them. Operations carried during peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, may by extension be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the real organisation behind an operation.
There is no need for a false flag atrocity to be designed to provoke a war.
The entire Strategia Della Tensione of Gladio and its successors is based on false flag atrocities.
If DPF is to be a kindergarten and a breeding ground for nonsense, then I want no part of it.
