Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Was The BP Oil Spill A Staged Event??? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

Col. Klink

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1245
Offline
#15 : June 08, 2010, 09:24:29 PM

I'm just wondering, do YOU think 9/11 was an inside job? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes, Si, Oui, نعم , да, 是的 , da, ano, ja , kyll�, ναί, כן , हां , s� , 예, tak, sim, да. If youre wondering, I just gave you an answer in 18 different languages, thats got to be a first time for you.

I thought so.




That's not near enough tin foil for this tomfoolery ... This may not even be enough:




olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21171
Offline
#16 : June 08, 2010, 10:51:27 PM

 8)

benchwarmer69

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3966
Offline
#17 : June 08, 2010, 11:34:10 PM

I'm just curious, name one large scale conspiracy event that has actually been unraveled. Most of the conspiracy theories that have been unveiled are stuff that was operated by a small group of people. Something like 9/11 would just require too many people.

Look up Operation Northwoods.

It is a legitimate document that literally states that they intended to start something with Cuba (and get everyone rallied also) by using CIA/FBI. To be fair though, these types of strategies are thrown around all the time in the Pentagon etc. At least, I hope so. Sometimes these strategies can be helpful with knowing how to deal with problems ahead of schedule. It all depends on whom is running the show.

So it IS completely possible "they" would do something like 9-11 to get the masses on their side. I don't however think it was an inside job. Mostly I believe there were many failures that were circumstantial in nature, and we were hit when we really didn't expect it.

(IF).. it was an inside job, it would have been ran by Donald R. imo. Bush was too "nearsighted" to have thought up a plot like 9-11, and Don had huge business after the war restarted. Bush did have Iraqi & Afghan ties though, so whatever.


Col. Klink

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1245
Offline
#18 : June 08, 2010, 11:50:56 PM

I'm just curious, name one large scale conspiracy event that has actually been unraveled. Most of the conspiracy theories that have been unveiled are stuff that was operated by a small group of people. Something like 9/11 would just require too many people.

Look up Operation Northwoods.

It is a legitimate document that literally states that they intended to start something with Cuba (and get everyone rallied also) by using CIA/FBI. To be fair though, these types of strategies are thrown around all the time in the Pentagon etc. At least, I hope so. Sometimes these strategies can be helpful with knowing how to deal with problems ahead of schedule. It all depends on whom is running the show.

So it IS completely possible "they" would do something like 9-11 to get the masses on their side. I don't however think it was an inside job. Mostly I believe there were many failures that were circumstantial in nature, and we were hit when we really didn't expect it.

(IF).. it was an inside job, it would have been ran by Donald R. imo. Bush was too "nearsighted" to have thought up a plot like 9-11, and Don had huge business after the war restarted. Bush did have Iraqi & Afghan ties though, so whatever.

I may be wrong but i believe taqibalib was asking about events that actually happened .... and although Northwoods was a pretty widespread plan, it didn't call for the mass murder of US citizens and destruction of numerous American landmarks. It's just mind boggling to think that people actual believe that 9/11 was a concoction of our government just to oust the nut in Iraq.

benchwarmer69

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3966
Offline
#19 : June 09, 2010, 12:07:37 AM

http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/nuke_moon_000514.html

I mean, they even had ideas like this one. It's downright crazy what they could be thinking of nowadays. As if that wasn't enough.

I agree Col. Taqi was talking about events that actually happened, but in my mind, it's very discomforting that plans like that "could have been" placed in motion. They didn't say "out loud" that they would hurt anyone within our country, but they did say they would incite it. An to me, that's bad enough. How else do you think they start something radical enough to get everyone behind it? The treat of death compels everyone to do something much quicker than normal. Back then it would have "only" taken the lives of say, 200 people to incite one maybe?


Vatican_Assassin

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1647
Offline
#20 : June 09, 2010, 01:11:01 AM

I'm just curious, name one large scale conspiracy event that has actually been unraveled. Most of the conspiracy theories that have been unveiled are stuff that was operated by a small group of people. Something like 9/11 would just require too many people.

Look up Operation Northwoods.

It is a legitimate document that literally states that they intended to start something with Cuba (and get everyone rallied also) by using CIA/FBI. To be fair though, these types of strategies are thrown around all the time in the Pentagon etc. At least, I hope so. Sometimes these strategies can be helpful with knowing how to deal with problems ahead of schedule. It all depends on whom is running the show.

So it IS completely possible "they" would do something like 9-11 to get the masses on their side. I don't however think it was an inside job. Mostly I believe there were many failures that were circumstantial in nature, and we were hit when we really didn't expect it.

(IF).. it was an inside job, it would have been ran by Donald R. imo. Bush was too "nearsighted" to have thought up a plot like 9-11, and Don had huge business after the war restarted. Bush did have Iraqi & Afghan ties though, so whatever.

I may be wrong but i believe taqibalib was asking about events that actually happened .... and although Northwoods was a pretty widespread plan, it didn't call for the mass murder of US citizens and destruction of numerous American landmarks. It's just mind boggling to think that people actual believe that 9/11 was a concoction of our government just to oust the nut in Iraq.

If you were paying attention, I brought up the Gulf of Tonkin incident which got us into the Vietnam War. As with most "Conspiracies" I will admit their usually sometimes is a lack of evidence, mostly because all of it is destroyed. In the case of 9/11, there is laundry list that can point to the "possibility" that was indeed stage, if not, then they at least invited it and allowed it to happen. But it doesn't help that Guiliani ordered all the scrap metal to be sent off to China to be melted down, one massive crime scene goodbye! It couldve been tested to see if there was bomb making material. There were smaller pieces that were tested though that did come up positive for nanothermite, but of course the news isn't going to report it. It would also help if the FBI released the black boxes in which they lied saying they didn't find, when there were many that worked on ground zero who admitted that they were indeed found. I'm tired of  repeating myself over and over again. It's not that many don't believe it, but that they don't WANT to believe it. Like you can't handle the truth!

Lynch47

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2510
Offline
#21 : June 09, 2010, 01:23:55 AM

ridiculous

Vatican_Assassin

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1647
Offline
#22 : June 09, 2010, 02:13:07 AM

ridiculous

Explain? Please don't give the always, "Why would anyone in our Govt do such a thing?". I guess we have Angels running our Country? Who hide behind saying they're are Christian and believe in God, but only saying that to decieve the masses in believing they wouldn't commit these kind of acts. It's like with Bush, why would he say he's a Christian and also be a "Skull and Bones" member(not be confused with poster Skull and Bones) at the same time, in which they partake in Satanic rituals. His father and grand father were also "Bonesmen". You might also want to look into the Bohemian Grove which many of our leaders go to, some acts they partake there include mock human sacrifices. I'm telling you, we have some sick people that run our society.

benchwarmer69

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3966
Offline
#23 : June 09, 2010, 02:19:40 AM

I'm just curious, name one large scale conspiracy event that has actually been unraveled. Most of the conspiracy theories that have been unveiled are stuff that was operated by a small group of people. Something like 9/11 would just require too many people.

Look up Operation Northwoods.

It is a legitimate document that literally states that they intended to start something with Cuba (and get everyone rallied also) by using CIA/FBI. To be fair though, these types of strategies are thrown around all the time in the Pentagon etc. At least, I hope so. Sometimes these strategies can be helpful with knowing how to deal with problems ahead of schedule. It all depends on whom is running the show.

So it IS completely possible "they" would do something like 9-11 to get the masses on their side. I don't however think it was an inside job. Mostly I believe there were many failures that were circumstantial in nature, and we were hit when we really didn't expect it.

(IF).. it was an inside job, it would have been ran by Donald R. imo. Bush was too "nearsighted" to have thought up a plot like 9-11, and Don had huge business after the war restarted. Bush did have Iraqi & Afghan ties though, so whatever.

I may be wrong but i believe taqibalib was asking about events that actually happened .... and although Northwoods was a pretty widespread plan, it didn't call for the mass murder of US citizens and destruction of numerous American landmarks. It's just mind boggling to think that people actual believe that 9/11 was a concoction of our government just to oust the nut in Iraq.

If you were paying attention, I brought up the Gulf of Tonkin incident which got us into the Vietnam War. As with most "Conspiracies" I will admit their usually sometimes is a lack of evidence, mostly because all of it is destroyed. In the case of 9/11, there is laundry list that can point to the "possibility" that was indeed stage, if not, then they at least invited it and allowed it to happen. But it doesn't help that Guiliani ordered all the scrap metal to be sent off to China to be melted down, one massive crime scene goodbye! It couldve been tested to see if there was bomb making material. There were smaller pieces that were tested though that did come up positive for nanothermite, but of course the news isn't going to report it. It would also help if the FBI released the black boxes in which they lied saying they didn't find, when there were many that worked on ground zero who admitted that they were indeed found. I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. It's not that many don't believe it, but that they don't WANT to believe it. Like you can't handle the truth!

Honestly, doing all of this to get everyone together to fight Iraqis??

Doesn't that seem a bit like overkill maybe? Hell, all Bush needed to do was SAY there was MMD, and "boom", we're in a war. No U.N. needed. No real evidence. No 9-11 really needed.

The recent question I've been wondering is.. if war makes money for a country, can there be two groups "throwing" the fight? In otherwords, to many, war is profitable, but does that make it go any quicker? In no way does it make it go quicker if there is funding for it. People will milk what they can. It's my personal opinion that this was a agreed upon war by a few select groups in all countries involved. Both Generals firing blanks because they wouldn't have a job if they shot the other or made any progress.

I've always believed that men wouldn't do anything if it weren't for money or women. That being said, someone was/is getting paid.


Col. Klink

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1245
Offline
#24 : June 09, 2010, 10:30:32 AM

I'm just curious, name one large scale conspiracy event that has actually been unraveled. Most of the conspiracy theories that have been unveiled are stuff that was operated by a small group of people. Something like 9/11 would just require too many people.

Look up Operation Northwoods.

It is a legitimate document that literally states that they intended to start something with Cuba (and get everyone rallied also) by using CIA/FBI. To be fair though, these types of strategies are thrown around all the time in the Pentagon etc. At least, I hope so. Sometimes these strategies can be helpful with knowing how to deal with problems ahead of schedule. It all depends on whom is running the show.

So it IS completely possible "they" would do something like 9-11 to get the masses on their side. I don't however think it was an inside job. Mostly I believe there were many failures that were circumstantial in nature, and we were hit when we really didn't expect it.

(IF).. it was an inside job, it would have been ran by Donald R. imo. Bush was too "nearsighted" to have thought up a plot like 9-11, and Don had huge business after the war restarted. Bush did have Iraqi & Afghan ties though, so whatever.

I may be wrong but i believe taqibalib was asking about events that actually happened .... and although Northwoods was a pretty widespread plan, it didn't call for the mass murder of US citizens and destruction of numerous American landmarks. It's just mind boggling to think that people actual believe that 9/11 was a concoction of our government just to oust the nut in Iraq.

If you were paying attention, I brought up the Gulf of Tonkin incident which got us into the Vietnam War. As with most "Conspiracies" I will admit their usually sometimes is a lack of evidence, mostly because all of it is destroyed. In the case of 9/11, there is laundry list that can point to the "possibility" that was indeed stage, if not, then they at least invited it and allowed it to happen. But it doesn't help that Guiliani ordered all the scrap metal to be sent off to China to be melted down, one massive crime scene goodbye! It couldve been tested to see if there was bomb making material. There were smaller pieces that were tested though that did come up positive for nanothermite, but of course the news isn't going to report it. It would also help if the FBI released the black boxes in which they lied saying they didn't find, when there were many that worked on ground zero who admitted that they were indeed found. I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. It's not that many don't believe it, but that they don't WANT to believe it. Like you can't handle the truth!

Honestly, doing all of this to get everyone together to fight Iraqis??


Eggzactly .... The Tin Foil Societies are too busy trying to come up with their wacky ways as to HOW the government did it and I've never seen an even halfway rational explanation as to WHY we would kill thousands of American citizens and destroy multiple US landmarks.

Balls Out

*
Starter
****
Posts : 875
Offline
#25 : June 09, 2010, 10:51:14 AM


Honestly, doing all of this to get everyone together to fight Iraqis??

Doesn't that seem a bit like overkill maybe? Hell, all Bush needed to do was SAY there was MMD, and "boom", we're in a war. No U.N. needed. No real evidence. No 9-11 really needed.

Don't forget Afganistan...they need Afganistan to run their natural gas pipelines from the 'Stans (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, ect...) to the Arabian sea. The taliban, who ran Afganistan before the invasion, didn't want to play ball, just like Hussein in Iraq, so invasion they got.

So in order to secure the natural gas in the 'Stans and the huge reserves of oil in Iraq, you need to scare the American people enough to go along with invasion/occupation of those countries.

However, Iraq/Afganistan are just the start...the end game is controlling all of the middle east and that doesn't begin to happen until Iran is controlled.

Have you heard of the think tank PNAC (Project for a New American Century)? Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President **CENSORED** Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the presidential elections. One year before 9/11, the PNAC called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda.

The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:

"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.

 "…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

It's all there in plain English people, open your eyes...

Source http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5428.htm

"Some birds can only have a back archer if you flick the starter button - spocking the G spot doesn't work on all of them"

The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
#26 : June 09, 2010, 12:29:42 PM

[
Have you heard of the think tank PNAC (Project for a New American Century)? Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President **CENSORED** Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the presidential elections. One year before 9/11, the PNAC called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda.

umm...look, I like a good conspiracy as much as anyone...but try to keep your facts straight and folks are more likely to at least investigating what you're saying - just before they figure out you're a left leaning "Bush and the GOP fascists...

....because the PNAC did not "CALL" for a any "Pearl Harbor" event - they noted in article V of their  "Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" - they noted that Saddam/Iraq was plotting his revenge against America - they referenced that the Clinton administration was keeping information from the American people about this. The most important piece of info supporting this claim was that there were links between Iraq and the bombing of the World Trade Center.

Because of Saddams hatred and goal of revenge, the PNAC advocated regime change in Iraq. An assumption of their research paper on the subject of regime change they estimated that the process of regime change in Iraq would likely be a long one "...absent a catastrophic and catalyzing event...like a new Pearl Harbor..."

The point is that they were making a case that the Clinton Administration had so totally eviscerated the US military that diplomacy would no longer work. Further, their point about Iraq was that there were numerous links between the Iraqi intelligence operatives and the mastermind of the FIRST radical muslim attack on the World Trade Center (Ramzi Yousef's plan to detonate a device in one building & have it topple into the other building), but that the Clinton administration refused to investigate the links between Iraq and the first WTC bombings.

So I'll repeat: PNAC NEVER called for ANY "Pearl Harbor" catastrophe - they were simply noting that because the Clinton adminstration had deliberately ignored the situation regarding Saddams plans for revenge, (even though Clinton's team believed that Saddam did in fact have WMD's and had completely rebuilt his military, and had ties to Ramzy Yousef).

The PNAC subsequently estimated the only way to now deal with the "Saddam revenge" situation was a regime change in Iraq. What you misquote is the part of the report that mentions this was unlikely to be accomplished short of Iraq pulling off a (succesful) "Pearl Harbor" like attack similar to what would have happened if Ramzy Yousef's attack had been successful on the same buildings that fell by the hands of muslim extremists on 9-11....

The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:

"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.

 "…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

It's all there in plain English people, open your eyes...

Source http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5428.htm

But the problem is that you seem to only think the threat of the new world order only comes from one side. While I am inclined to agree with you - I think that "side" is embedded deep in BOTH American political parties. It is the socialist/leftists within each party that is agtitating for the plan. The war in Iraq destabilized the region, because it destabilized Iran's power. We actually glimpsed what might have happened if our new liberal president hadn't helped the Iranian mullahs retain power.

That is why many of us our attempting to wrest power away from the globalists within EACH of the American political parties...the real conspiracy is that so many are missing this so badly...

The PNAC was not a radical group calling for the overthrow of this country - it was a group calling for America to understand and accept it's leadership role - because there were those that existed that hated America and were willing to conspire to topple us - it culminated in the radical muslim destruction of the WTC...NOT because someone in the Bush administration blew up Americans.

That is such a FOOLISH proposition - it's a wonder that your able to find enough tinfoil to block out the light of truth for so long.

Sometimes you go and find exactly what you were looking for...but it doesn't make it true.

Incomparable sig by Incognito

Balls Out

*
Starter
****
Posts : 875
Offline
#27 : June 09, 2010, 04:30:30 PM

umm...look, I like a good conspiracy as much as anyone...but try to keep your facts straight and folks are more likely to at least investigating what you're saying - just before they figure out you're a left leaning "Bush and the GOP fascists...

Actually I'm truth and justice leaning.

....because the PNAC did not "CALL" for a any "Pearl Harbor" event - they noted in article V of their  "Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force"

That title pretty much says it all doesn't it?

- they noted that Saddam/Iraq was plotting his revenge against America - they referenced that the Clinton administration was keeping information from the American people about this. The most important piece of info supporting this claim was that there were links between Iraq and the bombing of the World Trade Center.

What revenge was Saddam plotting? What links did he have to the WTC? Who's "giving" you this information?

Because of Saddams hatred and goal of revenge, the PNAC advocated regime change in Iraq.

Come on, that's infantile stuff...in order to create "tomorrows dominant force" you need to control the oil...period. Do you dispute that claim?

An assumption of their research paper on the subject of regime change they estimated that the process of regime change in Iraq would likely be a long one "...absent a catastrophic and catalyzing event...like a new Pearl Harbor..."

I don't think you'll find any paper coming from PNAC that "calls" for a Pearl Harbor type of event, I'll give you that. But it is laid out there in plain English...no Pearl Harbor=long,  Pearl Harbor=short. It's quite the coincidence that almost as soon as these PNAC guys get into power there's a "catastrophic and catalyzing event"...and the march to Baghdad is on. That doesn't prove anything I know, but it's a piece to the puzzle.

The point is that they were making a case that the Clinton Administration had so totally eviscerated the US military that diplomacy would no longer work.

I'm not getting you here on this statement...if the US military was "so totally eviscerated" wouldn't you want diplomacy over war...since the military was so weak and all.

Further, their point about Iraq was that there were numerous links between the Iraqi intelligence operatives and the mastermind of the FIRST radical muslim attack on the World Trade Center (Ramzi Yousef's plan to detonate a device in one building & have it topple into the other building), but that the Clinton administration refused to investigate the links between Iraq and the first WTC bombings.

Is there any proof to what you just said...or am I just supposed to take PNACs word for it?

So I'll repeat: PNAC NEVER called for ANY "Pearl Harbor" catastrophe - they were simply noting that because the Clinton adminstration had deliberately ignored the situation regarding Saddams plans for revenge, (even though Clinton's team believed that Saddam did in fact have WMD's and had completely rebuilt his military, and had ties to Ramzy Yousef).

The PNAC subsequently estimated the only way to now deal with the "Saddam revenge" situation was a regime change in Iraq. What you misquote is the part of the report that mentions this was unlikely to be accomplished short of Iraq pulling off a (succesful) "Pearl Harbor" like attack similar to what would have happened if Ramzy Yousef's attack had been successful on the same buildings that fell by the hands of muslim extremists on 9-11....

It's been PROVEN that Saddam had no WMD's and sweet FA for a military...he was no threat to anybody but his own people. PNAC wanted Iraqs oil, but Saddam wasn't a friendly so he had to go...this scenario has been played out many times before all around the world...it's all part of having that "dominant force" their so eager to have..or continue to have.

But the problem is that you seem to only think the threat of the new world order only comes from one side. While I am inclined to agree with you - I think that "side" is embedded deep in BOTH American political parties.

I don't know what you're basing your assumptions on, because I do agree with you...one party is as bad as the other and neither can be trusted.

It is the socialist/leftists within each party that is agtitating for the plan. The war in Iraq destabilized the region, because it destabilized Iran's power. We actually glimpsed what might have happened if our new liberal president hadn't helped the Iranian mullahs retain power.

That is why many of us our attempting to wrest power away from the globalists within EACH of the American political parties...the real conspiracy is that so many are missing this so badly...

So who are these socialist/leftist/globalists specifically?

The PNAC was not a radical group calling for the overthrow of this country -

Agreed...that already happened in 1913 with the passing of the Federal Reserve Act

it was a group calling for America to understand and accept it's leadership role

Please enlighten me as to what that "leadership" role is exactly.

That is such a FOOLISH proposition - it's a wonder that your able to find enough tinfoil to block out the light of truth for so long.

Sometimes you go and find exactly what you were looking for...but it doesn't make it true.

What makes you think I'm "looking" for anything....I just want the truth...and that's not going to come from any major news source or any politicians mouth...all I've done is scrutinize as much information as I could find, do some critical thinkning and come to a conclusion...and I conclude that 9/11 was an inside job.

"Some birds can only have a back archer if you flick the starter button - spocking the G spot doesn't work on all of them"

Nukepineisland

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1180
Offline
#28 : June 09, 2010, 05:26:49 PM

umm...look, I like a good conspiracy as much as anyone...but try to keep your facts straight and folks are more likely to at least investigating what you're saying - just before they figure out you're a left leaning "Bush and the GOP fascists...

Actually I'm truth and justice leaning.

....because the PNAC did not "CALL" for a any "Pearl Harbor" event - they noted in article V of their  "Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force"

That title pretty much says it all doesn't it?

- they noted that Saddam/Iraq was plotting his revenge against America - they referenced that the Clinton administration was keeping information from the American people about this. The most important piece of info supporting this claim was that there were links between Iraq and the bombing of the World Trade Center.

What revenge was Saddam plotting? What links did he have to the WTC? Who's "giving" you this information?

Because of Saddams hatred and goal of revenge, the PNAC advocated regime change in Iraq.

Come on, that's infantile stuff...in order to create "tomorrows dominant force" you need to control the oil...period. Do you dispute that claim?

An assumption of their research paper on the subject of regime change they estimated that the process of regime change in Iraq would likely be a long one "...absent a catastrophic and catalyzing event...like a new Pearl Harbor..."

I don't think you'll find any paper coming from PNAC that "calls" for a Pearl Harbor type of event, I'll give you that. But it is laid out there in plain English...no Pearl Harbor=long,  Pearl Harbor=short. It's quite the coincidence that almost as soon as these PNAC guys get into power there's a "catastrophic and catalyzing event"...and the march to Baghdad is on. That doesn't prove anything I know, but it's a piece to the puzzle.

The point is that they were making a case that the Clinton Administration had so totally eviscerated the US military that diplomacy would no longer work.

I'm not getting you here on this statement...if the US military was "so totally eviscerated" wouldn't you want diplomacy over war...since the military was so weak and all.

Further, their point about Iraq was that there were numerous links between the Iraqi intelligence operatives and the mastermind of the FIRST radical muslim attack on the World Trade Center (Ramzi Yousef's plan to detonate a device in one building & have it topple into the other building), but that the Clinton administration refused to investigate the links between Iraq and the first WTC bombings.

Is there any proof to what you just said...or am I just supposed to take PNACs word for it?

So I'll repeat: PNAC NEVER called for ANY "Pearl Harbor" catastrophe - they were simply noting that because the Clinton adminstration had deliberately ignored the situation regarding Saddams plans for revenge, (even though Clinton's team believed that Saddam did in fact have WMD's and had completely rebuilt his military, and had ties to Ramzy Yousef).

The PNAC subsequently estimated the only way to now deal with the "Saddam revenge" situation was a regime change in Iraq. What you misquote is the part of the report that mentions this was unlikely to be accomplished short of Iraq pulling off a (succesful) "Pearl Harbor" like attack similar to what would have happened if Ramzy Yousef's attack had been successful on the same buildings that fell by the hands of muslim extremists on 9-11....

It's been PROVEN that Saddam had no WMD's and sweet FA for a military...he was no threat to anybody but his own people. PNAC wanted Iraqs oil, but Saddam wasn't a friendly so he had to go...this scenario has been played out many times before all around the world...it's all part of having that "dominant force" their so eager to have..or continue to have.

But the problem is that you seem to only think the threat of the new world order only comes from one side. While I am inclined to agree with you - I think that "side" is embedded deep in BOTH American political parties.

I don't know what you're basing your assumptions on, because I do agree with you...one party is as bad as the other and neither can be trusted.

It is the socialist/leftists within each party that is agtitating for the plan. The war in Iraq destabilized the region, because it destabilized Iran's power. We actually glimpsed what might have happened if our new liberal president hadn't helped the Iranian mullahs retain power.

That is why many of us our attempting to wrest power away from the globalists within EACH of the American political parties...the real conspiracy is that so many are missing this so badly...

So who are these socialist/leftist/globalists specifically?

The PNAC was not a radical group calling for the overthrow of this country -

Agreed...that already happened in 1913 with the passing of the Federal Reserve Act

it was a group calling for America to understand and accept it's leadership role

Please enlighten me as to what that "leadership" role is exactly.

That is such a FOOLISH proposition - it's a wonder that your able to find enough tinfoil to block out the light of truth for so long.

Sometimes you go and find exactly what you were looking for...but it doesn't make it true.

What makes you think I'm "looking" for anything....I just want the truth...and that's not going to come from any major news source or any politicians mouth...all I've done is scrutinize as much information as I could find, do some critical thinkning and come to a conclusion...and I conclude that 9/11 was an inside job.
+1 Awesome post.

Since the inception of the NFC South the team that finished last in the division has gone to the playoffs the next year...
...and Ive never been one to question history ;)

TheShadow

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2335
Offline
#29 : June 09, 2010, 05:37:25 PM


Quit beefing about the past and start hoping for the future
Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Was The BP Oil Spill A Staged Event??? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools