03-10-2013, 11:16 AM
Peter I don't know if I will spend the time to watch the same materials rehashed. Is there anything new there? The New Pearl Harbor... buit is very telling at how this is is used by the truth movement to claim not only fore knowledge by INTENT to do 9/11.
I have explained this before.
Democracies do not attack unless attacked. 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. In both cases there was intel that the enemy was preparing to attack and in both cases the US did not not even prepare. At best it could be argued that hawks wanted to go to war and understood that there needed to be a reason which would have public support and so perhaps did nothing. But what COULD they have done? In the case of 9/11 perhaps hyuped up security? And similar to protect US naval assets. But everyone knows how a country will respond to being attacked. Calling it a Pearl Harbor event is only a load catch phrase.
Yes there was intel that Islamic terrorists were planning plane hijhacking attacks. Intel had prevednted somehow the earlier plot called Bojinka... or it was called off when some of the bombs they were preparing exploded in Manilla I think tippling off intel.
It appears that insiders were of two minds (or more)... they had only diffuse intel and couldn't grab all the hijackers in advance, had no legal reason to do it and their lawyers would have them out of jail pretty quick... or they wanted to let the attacks take place and become the cassus belli for war in the ME. The latter came true.
At best one might make the argument that the hawks drove a LIHOP... by both blocking intel somewhat and not doing anything at all (or little as they could and seem like they were doing something) even staging their exercises of what they knew might happen at the time when it DID happen.
The entire framing of the "New Pearl Harbor" as proof of an inside job is deceptive and manipulative.
I have explained this before.
Democracies do not attack unless attacked. 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. In both cases there was intel that the enemy was preparing to attack and in both cases the US did not not even prepare. At best it could be argued that hawks wanted to go to war and understood that there needed to be a reason which would have public support and so perhaps did nothing. But what COULD they have done? In the case of 9/11 perhaps hyuped up security? And similar to protect US naval assets. But everyone knows how a country will respond to being attacked. Calling it a Pearl Harbor event is only a load catch phrase.
Yes there was intel that Islamic terrorists were planning plane hijhacking attacks. Intel had prevednted somehow the earlier plot called Bojinka... or it was called off when some of the bombs they were preparing exploded in Manilla I think tippling off intel.
It appears that insiders were of two minds (or more)... they had only diffuse intel and couldn't grab all the hijackers in advance, had no legal reason to do it and their lawyers would have them out of jail pretty quick... or they wanted to let the attacks take place and become the cassus belli for war in the ME. The latter came true.
At best one might make the argument that the hawks drove a LIHOP... by both blocking intel somewhat and not doing anything at all (or little as they could and seem like they were doing something) even staging their exercises of what they knew might happen at the time when it DID happen.
The entire framing of the "New Pearl Harbor" as proof of an inside job is deceptive and manipulative.