16-04-2012, 11:02 PM
In the aforementioned, now exiled thread, I suggested the following to Jeffrey Orling:
We must base this exchange on shared definitions, in this case those proffered by Peter Dale Scott:
"DEEP POLITICS" is defined as all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged.
A "DEEP POLITICAL SYSTEM" is defined as one which resorts to decision-making and enforcement procedures outside as well as inside those sanctioned by law and society.
In re your postulate that "government or even intel operations... [did not manage] to win 3 wars in 3rd world countries despite having a military budget greater than the entire rest of the world," and my response, "What makes you think that the goal of the deep political system is to 'win' the wars which you reference?":
Do we agree that the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were planned and initiated by "deep political systems" as defined by Professor Scott?
Do we agree that the war in Vietnam was a war of aggression prolonged for reasons unrelated to American strategic planning and military capabilities to win it?
Do we agree that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were wars of aggression prolonged for reasons unrelated to American strategic planning and military capabilities to win them?
Do we agree that the protection and enhancement of global drug trafficking were prime motivating factors in the decisions to wage all three wars?
Do we agree that insuring maximum profits for defense industries was a prime motivating factor in the decisions to wage all three wars?
Do we agree that said profits would be increased in direct proportion to the ability of deep political systems to prolong all three wars?
Do we agree that protection of and access to fossil fuel supplies were prime motivating elements in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
Do we agree that all three wars were nothing more or less than additions to a "perpetual war for perpetual piece" global strategy designed to preserve the tribalism upon which the few depend to control the many and to preserve and protect their own hegemony?
Do we agree that the Cold War was a fictive construct, and that JFK was murdered on the orders of those power groups that were "above Cold War differences"?
Jeffrey replied thusly:
[COLOR="#FF0000"]I suspect that the wars mentioned were undertaken to advance several agendas, none of which has anything to do with the security interests of the USA... which is what the DOD is supposed to have as its core mission. Of course the national security ruse is always hauled out, but hard to believe on its merits... Afghanistan a threat to me?
So I suspect that those pushing the wars are doing so for power and money and the military itself needs to justify its very existence and budgeting. If no threats... why do we need such a huge expensive DOD? Money can be from MIC procurements, weapons sales, drug trafficking, resource and labor exploitation, and the related media and other businesses which make out from the war efforts.
And then there are the politicians who trade on deception, myths illusion and fear to keep them in power and cash. If the people voted those wars wouldn't have started and if once started would have been ended a lot sooner were it not for the greed for money and power of the insiders and the already powerful.
The 1% don't make the wealth from working... but from deals. War is a big series of deals.[/COLOR]
In response, I asked the question that logically follows:
So then ... Do you retract your arguments that "government and intel operations" cannot be responsible for 9-11 because they are so incompetent that they could not win the wars under discussion here, and that rather than being a conspiracy originating in deep political processes, 9-11 may be written off as "a series of failures of a huge lumbering system and a massive cover up of incompetence"?
Jeffry came back with (in part):
No I do not retract that statement. I do accept the notion of false flags... but not of the scale of something like 911. This is way more complex as a MIHOP conspiracy... if it is... than say the sinking of the Maine or the the Gulf of Tonkin or Reichstag fire. Each of these were relatively *minor* acts which led to big wars.
After Greg Burnham weighed in to comment on Jeffrey's apparent double-thinking, Jeffrey ticked me off with the following:
I am not here to discuss the JFK assassination. This is a thread about 9/11. Let's relate your deep political analysis to 9/11 kindly.
Greg and I independently shot back, in the following order:
I was discussing Deep Political critical thinking.
Thank you, Greg.
Jeffrey, either understand the deeper reasons why I choose to enlighten our discussion of 9-11 investigative methods by referencing the RELATED deep political event that is the JFK assassination, or take your ignorance elsewhere. Kindly.
This should bring everyone up to speed.
We must base this exchange on shared definitions, in this case those proffered by Peter Dale Scott:
"DEEP POLITICS" is defined as all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged.
A "DEEP POLITICAL SYSTEM" is defined as one which resorts to decision-making and enforcement procedures outside as well as inside those sanctioned by law and society.
In re your postulate that "government or even intel operations... [did not manage] to win 3 wars in 3rd world countries despite having a military budget greater than the entire rest of the world," and my response, "What makes you think that the goal of the deep political system is to 'win' the wars which you reference?":
Do we agree that the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were planned and initiated by "deep political systems" as defined by Professor Scott?
Do we agree that the war in Vietnam was a war of aggression prolonged for reasons unrelated to American strategic planning and military capabilities to win it?
Do we agree that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were wars of aggression prolonged for reasons unrelated to American strategic planning and military capabilities to win them?
Do we agree that the protection and enhancement of global drug trafficking were prime motivating factors in the decisions to wage all three wars?
Do we agree that insuring maximum profits for defense industries was a prime motivating factor in the decisions to wage all three wars?
Do we agree that said profits would be increased in direct proportion to the ability of deep political systems to prolong all three wars?
Do we agree that protection of and access to fossil fuel supplies were prime motivating elements in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
Do we agree that all three wars were nothing more or less than additions to a "perpetual war for perpetual piece" global strategy designed to preserve the tribalism upon which the few depend to control the many and to preserve and protect their own hegemony?
Do we agree that the Cold War was a fictive construct, and that JFK was murdered on the orders of those power groups that were "above Cold War differences"?
Jeffrey replied thusly:
[COLOR="#FF0000"]I suspect that the wars mentioned were undertaken to advance several agendas, none of which has anything to do with the security interests of the USA... which is what the DOD is supposed to have as its core mission. Of course the national security ruse is always hauled out, but hard to believe on its merits... Afghanistan a threat to me?
So I suspect that those pushing the wars are doing so for power and money and the military itself needs to justify its very existence and budgeting. If no threats... why do we need such a huge expensive DOD? Money can be from MIC procurements, weapons sales, drug trafficking, resource and labor exploitation, and the related media and other businesses which make out from the war efforts.
And then there are the politicians who trade on deception, myths illusion and fear to keep them in power and cash. If the people voted those wars wouldn't have started and if once started would have been ended a lot sooner were it not for the greed for money and power of the insiders and the already powerful.
The 1% don't make the wealth from working... but from deals. War is a big series of deals.[/COLOR]
In response, I asked the question that logically follows:
So then ... Do you retract your arguments that "government and intel operations" cannot be responsible for 9-11 because they are so incompetent that they could not win the wars under discussion here, and that rather than being a conspiracy originating in deep political processes, 9-11 may be written off as "a series of failures of a huge lumbering system and a massive cover up of incompetence"?
Jeffry came back with (in part):
No I do not retract that statement. I do accept the notion of false flags... but not of the scale of something like 911. This is way more complex as a MIHOP conspiracy... if it is... than say the sinking of the Maine or the the Gulf of Tonkin or Reichstag fire. Each of these were relatively *minor* acts which led to big wars.
After Greg Burnham weighed in to comment on Jeffrey's apparent double-thinking, Jeffrey ticked me off with the following:
I am not here to discuss the JFK assassination. This is a thread about 9/11. Let's relate your deep political analysis to 9/11 kindly.
Greg and I independently shot back, in the following order:
I was discussing Deep Political critical thinking.
Thank you, Greg.
Jeffrey, either understand the deeper reasons why I choose to enlighten our discussion of 9-11 investigative methods by referencing the RELATED deep political event that is the JFK assassination, or take your ignorance elsewhere. Kindly.
This should bring everyone up to speed.