Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan

[Magda Hassan]

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.

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:

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.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Jelly anyone?