Len Colby Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 On the “JFK Assassination Research--and a public relations disaster” thread over at the JFK Forum Jim D. and I debated several points related to 9/11 most notably his claims regarding the PNAC ‘new Pearl Harbor” paper and ignored warnings that attacks were forthcoming. Since the thread has refocused on the assassination and Jimmy hasn’t replied to me I started this thread. According to him PNAC “called for new territories for the US to get involved in, like Central Asia” in the paper and that this would be one of the things hastened by “a New Pearl Harbor” [NPH]. I did some text searches, all citations below are to the PDF document page numbers, subtract 12 for page numbers of the print version. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf - There were no hits for ‘central asia’ - The only hit for ‘asia’ from the chapter [pgs 62 – 81] where the term NPH appeared was: “Moreover, as the importance of East Asia grows in U.S. military strategy, the requirements for range and endurance may outweigh traditional measures of aircraft performance.” [pg 75] - The only hits for ‘west asia’ were in an earlier chapter: “A decade’s experience and the policies of two administrations have shown that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new, long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia.” [pg 18] “The Kosovo air campaign eventually involved the level of forces anticipated for a major war, but in a theater other than the two – the Korean peninsula and Southwest Asia – that have generated past Pentagon planning scenarios.” [pg 21] - The only hit for ‘afghanistan’ was a mention of Clinton’s Tomahawk missile attack on AQ camps there in 1998 in an earlier chapter [pg 52] - Pakistan is the only other ‘---istan’ mentioned, the 1st hit was from an earlier chapter and the 2nd from the NPH one: “U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals –from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq –and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force.” “The Clinton Administration’s diplomacy, threats and pleadings did nothing to prevent first India and shortly thereafter Pakistan from demonstrating their nuclear capabilities…Thus, President Clinton lamented in June 1998 that he found sanctions legislation so inflexible that he was forced to “fudge” the intelligence evidence on China’s transfer of ballistic missiles to Pakistan…” [pg 64] - There were 8 hits for ‘middle east’ but none advocated or discussed invading any countries in the region or were in the NPH chapter. - There were 25 hits for ‘iraq’ including 4 in the NPH chapter and 8 for Iran, 3 of which were in the chapter, but none advocated or discussed invading those countries. - There were 60 hits for ‘gulf’ but only 2 from the NPH chapter. I read the ones from the chapter in full and skimmed over the others but none advocated or discussed invading any countries in the region. Both of hits from the chapter were in reference to the “Gulf War”. To make a long story short DiEugenio’s claim was made up. If he shows up he will huff and puff and point out the called for regime change in Iraq elsewhere but he won’t produce evidence in support of his claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 20, 2011 Author Share Posted May 20, 2011 Part II DiEugenio wrote: “Colby apparently wants everyone to ignore my post 373 where i specifically mentioned the warnings and footnoted them. The interested parties can look it up, I am not going to recycle it.” I looked into the “warnings” from Ahmed’s War on Freedom he cited. He wrote: “And they were specific about NYC and Washington and tall and important buildings. (The War on Freedom by Nafeez Ahmed p. 113) Even more amazing, one warning came in in May and specifically targeted the finance district in Manhattan. (ibid) Further, the Russian one said that pilots were being trained in the USA to run missions against tall buildings! (ibid, p. 114) There was a warning specifically about the WTC, being hit about September 9th. (ibid p. 115) There was another that had the right day that the Pentagon would be hit. (ibid p. 116) Further, the WH had been warned by Manila that these would not be independent attacks but part of a large plan called Project Bojinka. (ibid p. 117)” Let’s look at those one by one: - “they were specific about NYC and Washington and tall and important buildings. (The War on Freedom by Nafeez Ahmed p. 113)” Ahmed didn’t offer a citation for this on page 113 but introduced it with “We should recall that…” as if he had documented it earlier. Jim -I’ve done enough of your leg work find where he provided a cite. Also he said nothing about ‘tall’ buildings, get your facts straight. - “one warning came in in May and specifically targeted the finance district in Manhattan.” This was based on a claim by David Schippers, in an October 2001 interview with Alex Jones. He claimed to have gotten the information from FBI agents in Minneapolis and Chicago and passed word on to unnamed congressmen, friends of Ashcroft and DoJ officials. Schippers offered no corroboration for his claims and one must wonder why if he such information he didn’t go a more high profile source or why the agents themselves still haven’t come forward. MSM outlets like USAToday had published articles along these lines; Schippers had been Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment so obviously he could have gotten attention from important media outlets. AFAIK the only time he repeated this claim was when he was interviewed by Chicago Magazine in fall 2002, apparently he thinks OBL was responsible for OKC and TWA 800 as well. http://www.infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/October-2002/True-Believer/ - “Further, the Russian one said that pilots were being trained in the USA to run missions against tall buildings! (ibid, p. 114)” As with the above there is little corroboration for this. Supposedly Putin made such a claim when being interviewed by MS-NBC. Ahmed claimed further backing from a translation of a supposed Izvestia article published by Ruppert. Since Ahmed and Ruppert are not reliable I’d like to see the original and the supposed translation. Jim - Once again there was no mention of tall building, please try and keep your facts straight. - “There was a warning specifically about the WTC, being hit about September 9th.” LOL - As I said Ahmed is not reliable. There was no indication in the cited article as to when the “terrorist attacks” were supposed to occur or when the calls were made. Ahmed simply made up the September 9 reference. He omitted that: 1) the man was in jail pending deportation, 2) he “had not been believed” 3) he “was dismissed as mentally unstable”. The “law enforcement agency” was only identified as “US police” (I’m presuming NYPD or PAPD). So, a possibly crazy Iranian calls the NYPD (or some other US police department) from a German jail saying terrorists were going to attack the WTC but (apparently) nothing was done. OMG that just about proves the Bush administration was “in on it”. - “There was another that had the right day that the Pentagon would be hit. (ibid p. 116)” I could not find his cited source and all traces of the supposed statement on the Net cite Ahmed, so I want to see the original. But once again there does not seem to be any confirmation for the supposed warning. Garth L. Nicolson PhD, supposedly an eminent biologist, made the unlikely claim he and his wife received “three warnings of the attack on the Pentagon” and passed them on to his supposed contacts in the DoD. He didn’t identify the sources but implied two were among his “contacts in the retired intelligence community, including Special Forces, and domestic and foreign intelligence service” and one came from an unidentified “Head of State of a North African country…during a visit to Tunisia in July 2001. This head of state was travelling under cover and met with us at our hotel”. Some obvious questions are 1) how would retired intel agents and a North African head of state get such specific info? 2) if they did why would they tell the Nicholsons rather than appropriate USG officials? 3) why haven’t any of the sources come forward? 4) Why would a head of state travel incognito to visit them in their hotel? 911 Myths obtained the FBI’s summary of their interview with the couple. Some of the details vary according, for example to it Mr. Nicholson said he wasn’t present when his wife spoke to the African leader. But worse they seem to be nutjobs they claimed: a) “the actual "masterminds' of the attacks were unknown members of a conspiracy involving those who control the Vatican Bank and members of the Mafia” one of their sources ‘provided her information in the form of riddles, like the comic book character, "the Riddler"’ c) they “had been recently sprayed by an aerosol can of Yesinia pestis (black plague)” etc etc . According to the FBI “Dr N. Nicolson stated that she and her husband Garth took a trip to the island of Malta during the summer of 2001. While in Malta, they took a side trip to Tunisia.” This makes it sound like the trip to was spur of the moment making the notion they were secretly visited by the president or king of another country even more improbable. The FBI further reported “The USSS examined her passport and determined that she had an entry stamp for Malta but not for Tunisia. Dr. N. Nicolson's explanation was that Tunisia did not use entry stamps. Neither the FBI agents nor the USSS agents considered Dr. N. Nicolson to be credible.” http://911myths.com/images/2/2a/Team1A_BoxNA_NicolsonWarning.pdf - Further, the WH had been warned by Manila that these would not be independent attacks but part of a large plan called Project Bojinka. (ibid p. 117)” Jim is demonstrating his trademark confusion, Bojinka was a plot that was to have taken place in early 1995 but was foiled when Filipino police stumbled upon the plotters in Dec. 1994. “Manila” was not aware of any such new plot. Ahmed got that right [PGS 84 – 5] but for some reason wrote on PG. 117 that “the US was alerted to only a few months earlier” http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=operation_bojinka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) Part II DiEugenio wrote: “Colby apparently wants everyone to ignore my post 373 where i specifically mentioned the warnings and footnoted them. The interested parties can look it up, I am not going to recycle it.” I looked into the “warnings” from Ahmed’s War on Freedom he cited. He wrote: “And they were specific about NYC and Washington and tall and important buildings. (The War on Freedom by Nafeez Ahmed p. 113) Even more amazing, one warning came in in May and specifically targeted the finance district in Manhattan. (ibid) Further, the Russian one said that pilots were being trained in the USA to run missions against tall buildings! (ibid, p. 114) There was a warning specifically about the WTC, being hit about September 9th. (ibid p. 115) There was another that had the right day that the Pentagon would be hit. (ibid p. 116) Further, the WH had been warned by Manila that these would not be independent attacks but part of a large plan called Project Bojinka. (ibid p. 117)” Let’s look at those one by one: - “they were specific about NYC and Washington and tall and important buildings. (The War on Freedom by Nafeez Ahmed p. 113)” Ahmed didn’t offer a citation for this on page 113 but introduced it with “We should recall that…” as if he had documented it earlier. Jim -I’ve done enough of your leg work find where he provided a cite. Also he said nothing about ‘tall’ buildings, get your facts straight. - “one warning came in in May and specifically targeted the finance district in Manhattan.” This was based on a claim by David Schippers, in an October 2001 interview with Alex Jones. He claimed to have gotten the information from FBI agents in Minneapolis and Chicago and passed word on to unnamed congressmen, friends of Ashcroft and DoJ officials. Schippers offered no corroboration for his claims and one must wonder why if he such information he didn’t go a more high profile source or why the agents themselves still haven’t come forward. MSM outlets like USAToday had published articles along these lines; Schippers had been Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment so obviously he could have gotten attention from important media outlets. AFAIK the only time he repeated this claim was when he was interviewed by Chicago Magazine in fall 2002, apparently he thinks OBL was responsible for OKC and TWA 800 as well. http://www.infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/October-2002/True-Believer/ - “Further, the Russian one said that pilots were being trained in the USA to run missions against tall buildings! (ibid, p. 114)” As with the above there is little corroboration for this. Supposedly Putin made such a claim when being interviewed by MS-NBC. Ahmed claimed further backing from a translation of a supposed Izvestia article published by Ruppert. Since Ahmed and Ruppert are not reliable I’d like to see the original and the supposed translation. Jim - Once again there was no mention of tall building, please try and keep your facts straight. - “There was a warning specifically about the WTC, being hit about September 9th.” LOL - As I said Ahmed is not reliable. There was no indication in the cited article as to when the “terrorist attacks” were supposed to occur or when the calls were made. Ahmed simply made up the September 9 reference. He omitted that: 1) the man was in jail pending deportation, 2) he “had not been believed” 3) he “was dismissed as mentally unstable”. The “law enforcement agency” was only identified as “US police” (I’m presuming NYPD or PAPD). So, a possibly crazy Iranian calls the NYPD (or some other US police department) from a German jail saying terrorists were going to attack the WTC but (apparently) nothing was done. OMG that just about proves the Bush administration was “in on it”. - “There was another that had the right day that the Pentagon would be hit. (ibid p. 116)” I could not find his cited source and all traces of the supposed statement on the Net cite Ahmed, so I want to see the original. But once again there does not seem to be any confirmation for the supposed warning. Garth L. Nicolson PhD, supposedly an eminent biologist, made the unlikely claim he and his wife received “three warnings of the attack on the Pentagon” and passed them on to his supposed contacts in the DoD. He didn’t identify the sources but implied two were among his “contacts in the retired intelligence community, including Special Forces, and domestic and foreign intelligence service” and one came from an unidentified “Head of State of a North African country…during a visit to Tunisia in July 2001. This head of state was travelling under cover and met with us at our hotel”. Some obvious questions are 1) how would retired intel agents and a North African head of state get such specific info? 2) if they did why would they tell the Nicholsons rather than appropriate USG officials? 3) why haven’t any of the sources come forward? 4) Why would a head of state travel incognito to visit them in their hotel? 911 Myths obtained the FBI’s summary of their interview with the couple. Some of the details vary according, for example to it Mr. Nicholson said he wasn’t present when his wife spoke to the African leader. But worse they seem to be nutjobs they claimed: a) “the actual "masterminds' of the attacks were unknown members of a conspiracy involving those who control the Vatican Bank and members of the Mafia” one of their sources ‘provided her information in the form of riddles, like the comic book character, "the Riddler"’ c) they “had been recently sprayed by an aerosol can of Yesinia pestis (black plague)” etc etc . According to the FBI “Dr N. Nicolson stated that she and her husband Garth took a trip to the island of Malta during the summer of 2001. While in Malta, they took a side trip to Tunisia.” This makes it sound like the trip to was spur of the moment making the notion they were secretly visited by the president or king of another country even more improbable. The FBI further reported “The USSS examined her passport and determined that she had an entry stamp for Malta but not for Tunisia. Dr. N. Nicolson's explanation was that Tunisia did not use entry stamps. Neither the FBI agents nor the USSS agents considered Dr. N. Nicolson to be credible.” http://911myths.com/images/2/2a/Team1A_BoxNA_NicolsonWarning.pdf - Further, the WH had been warned by Manila that these would not be independent attacks but part of a large plan called Project Bojinka. (ibid p. 117)” Jim is demonstrating his trademark confusion, Bojinka was a plot that was to have taken place in early 1995 but was foiled when Filipino police stumbled upon the plotters in Dec. 1994. “Manila” was not aware of any such new plot. Ahmed got that right [PGS 84 – 5] but for some reason wrote on PG. 117 that “the US was alerted to only a few months earlier” http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=operation_bojinka ************************))))))))))))))00000000000000))))))))))))))))***************** +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE PNAC SONG +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Middle East and Asia here I come !!! Come as you are, as you were, as I want you to be. As a enemy, as a enemy, as an old Enemy. Take your time, hurry up, choice is yours, don't be late. Take a rest, as a enemy , as an old memory. Memory ah, Memory ah, Memory ah. What is yours now is mine,what is yours now is mine Come doused in Mud, soaked in Bleach, as I want you to be. As a trend, as a enemy, as an old Memory ahhh. Memory ahh, Memory ahh, Memory ahh. What is yours is now mine,what is yours is now nine Chorus: And I swear that I have a gun No, I have a gun No, I have a gun --Instrumental-- Memory ahh, Memory ahh, Memory ahh, Memory ahh. (have a Gun.) Chorus: And I swear that I have a gun,what is yours is now mine No, I have a gun No, I have a gun No, I have a gun No, I have a gun What is yours is now mind,what is yours is now mind.....Memory ahh..MIDDLE EAST/ASIA here I come !!!!!!!!! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ see http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080622113024.5rfe5v9s&show_article (what is yours is now mine...Memory ahh) Pipeline politics and again +++++++++++++++++++++++++ see below Pipeline politics taint U.S. war Chicago Tribune Mar 18, 2002 Abstract: Ahmed Rashid, who has reported on Afghan wars for more than 20 years as a correspondent for the Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph, carefully documents in his book how the U.S. and Pakistan helped install the Taliban in hopes of bringing stability to the war-ravaged region and making it safer for the pipeline project. Unocal pulled out of the deal after the 1998 terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were linked to terrorists based in Afghanistan. Full Text: An ongoing source of frustration and anger for many Americans is the lack of support the war on terrorism has received abroad. Other nations are considerably less enthusiastic about our use of “daisy cutter” and “thermobaric” bombs than we think they should be. Why is that? One reason is their media. Stories alleging imperial and commercial motives for the war on terrorism are rife. Outside this country, there is a widespread belief that U.S. military deployments in Central Asia mostly are about oil. An article in the Guardian of London headlined, “A pro-western regime in Kabul should give the U.S. an Afghan route for Caspian oil,” foreshadowed the kind of skeptical coverage the U.S. war now receives in many countries. “The invasion of Afghanistan is certainly a campaign against terrorism,” wrote author George Monbiot in the Oct. 22, 2001, piece, “but it may also be a late colonial adventure.” He wrote that the U.S. oil company Unocal Corp. had been negotiating with the Taliban since 1995 to build “oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea.” He cited Ahmed Rashid’s authoritative book “Taliban, Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia” as a source for this information. Rashid, who has reported on Afghan wars for more than 20 years as a correspondent for the Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph, carefully documents in his book how the U.S. and Pakistan helped install the Taliban in hopes of bringing stability to the war- ravaged region and making it safer for the pipeline project. Unocal pulled out of the deal after the 1998 terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were linked to terrorists based in Afghanistan. “The war against terrorism is a fraud,” exclaimed John Pilger in an Oct. 29 commentary in the British-based Mirror. Pilger, the publication’s former chief foreign correspondent, wrote, “Bush’s concealed agenda is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the Caspian basin, the greatest source of untapped fossil fuel on earth.” These harsh assessments are not just those of embittered ideologues. They are common fare. “Just as the Gulf War in 1991 was about oil, the new conflict in South and Central Asia is no less about access to the region’s abundant petroleum resources,” writes Ranjit Devraj in the Hong Kong-based Asia Times, a business- oriented publication. A popular French book titled “Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth,” which alleges that the Bush administration blocked investigations of Osama bin Laden while it bargained for him with the Taliban in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, is guiding much of the recent European coverage. Written by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, the book adds another plank to the argument that America’s major objective was to gain access to the region’s oil and gas reserves. According to the book, the Bush administration began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power. The parties talked for many months before reaching an impasse in August 2001. The terrorist acts of Sept. 11, though tragic, provided the Bush administration a legitimate reason to invade Afghanistan, oust the recalcitrant Taliban and, coincidentally, smooth the way for the pipeline. To make things even smoother, the U.S. engineered the rise to power of two former Unocal employees: Hamid Karzai, the new interim president of Afghanistan, and Zalmay Khalizad, the Bush administration’s Afghanistan envoy. “Osama bin Laden did not comprehend that his actions serve American interests,” writes Uri Averny, in a Feb. 14 column in the daily Ma’ariv in Israel. Averny, a former member of the Israeli Knesset and a noted peace activist, added, “If I were a believer in conspiracy theory, I would think that bin Laden is an American agent. Not being one I can only wonder at the coincidence.” Averny argues that the war on terrorism provides a perfect pretext for America’s imperial interests. “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created for the war, one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.” The Asia Times reported in January that the U.S. is developing “a network of multiple Caspian pipelines,” and that people close to the Bush administration stand to benefit. For example, the proposed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, linking Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, is represented by the law firm Baker & Botts. The principal attorney is James Baker, former secretary of state and chief spokesman for the Bush campaign in the Florida vote controversy. In 1997, the now disgraced Enron Corp. conducted the feasibility study for the $2.5 billion Trans-Caspian pipeline being built under a joint venture between Turkmenistan, Bechtel Corp. and General Electric, the article noted. There are many other connections, too numerous to recount here. No wonder the rest of the world is a bit skeptical about our war on evildoers. OOOOOOOOOOOOOO)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FROM WASHINGTON POST fAhmed Wali Karzai, the half-brother of Afghanistan’s president and boss of the strategically important Kandahar province, has been on the CIA payroll for over a decade. By the fall of 2008, Woodward says, “Ahmed Wali Karzai had been on the CIA payroll for years, beginning before 9/11. He had belonged to the CIA's small network of paid agents and informants inside Afghanistan. In addition, the CIA paid him money through his half-brother, the president.” (for how long?) 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 +++++++++++++++++ LAST BUT NOT LEAST +++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++ LAST +++++++++++++++++++++++++ BUT NOT LEAST, >>>>>>> FROM A MAY 1.2011 NEWSNET article http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mJN8EvJXWOoJ:tribune.com.pk/story/160367/gas-pipeline-afghan-parliament-approves-tapi-project/+TRIBUNE.com+TAPI&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com WHAT IS YOURS IS NOW MINE,WHAT IS YOURS IS NOW MINE !!!!!! memory ahh .......sg Edited May 22, 2011 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 21, 2011 Author Share Posted May 21, 2011 I don’t find it all surprising that while Laurel is avoiding the tread ‘like the plague’ Costello showed up with his drivel and worst of all off-topic drivel he has already spammed elsewhere. Outside this country, there is a widespread belief that U.S. military deployments in Central Asia mostly are about oil. An article in the Guardian of London headlined, “A pro-western regime in Kabul should give the U.S. an Afghan route for Caspian oil,” foreshadowed the kind of skeptical coverage the U.S. war now receives in many countries. Except that Unocal pulled out of the proposed pipeline project in 1998 and it was never built. Rather alternative pipelines were built through the south Caucus construction of which began in 2003 with preparations of course beginning before that and in some cases before 9/11. Even ignoring that the theory proposed here is incoherent; the US plotted to put the Taliban in power to build the pipeline then plotted to overthrow them for the same reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku%E2%80%93Tbilisi%E2%80%93Ceyhan_pipeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Caucasus_Pipeline http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/publications/concerns_timeline.pdf FROM WASHINGTON POSTfAhmed Wali Karzai, the half-brother of Afghanistan’s president and boss of the strategically important Kandahar province, has been on the CIA payroll for over a decade. By the fall of 2008, Woodward says, “Ahmed Wali Karzai had been on the CIA payroll for years, beginning before 9/11. He had belonged to the CIA's small network of paid agents and informants inside Afghanistan. In addition, the CIA paid him money through his half-brother, the president.” (for how long?) LOL, even Hamid Karzai being on the CIA would not be evidence that elements in the USG orchestrated 9/11 or “let it happen on purpose” - let alone his half-brother supposedly getting money from them. Karzai has long been pro-US if true this is not especially surprising. Get back to us with evidence OBL or anyone else in AQ got money from the US. +++++++++++++++++ LAST BUT NOT LEAST +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LAST +++++++++++++++++++++++++ BUT NOT LEAST, >>>>>>> FROM A MAY 1.2011 NEWSNET article http://tribune.com.p...s-tapi-project/ WHAT IS YOURS IS NOW MINE,WHAT IS YOURS IS NOW MINE !!!!!! memory ahh .......sg You posted a broken (parsed) link genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Len, Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Costello but never Laurel and Costello..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 (edited) I don’t find it all surprising that while Laurel is avoiding the tread ‘like the plague’ Costello showed up with his drivel and worst of all off-topic drivel he has already spammed elsewhere. Outside this country, there is a widespread belief that U.S. military deployments in Central Asia mostly are about oil. An article in the Guardian of London headlined, “A pro-western regime in Kabul should give the U.S. an Afghan route for Caspian oil,” foreshadowed the kind of skeptical coverage the U.S. war now receives in many countries. Except that Unocal pulled out of the proposed pipeline project in 1998 and it was never built. Rather alternative pipelines were built through the south Caucus construction of which began in 2003 with preparations of course beginning before that and in some cases before 9/11. Even ignoring that the theory proposed here is incoherent; the US plotted to put the Taliban in power to build the pipeline then plotted to overthrow them for the same reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku%E2%80%93Tbilisi%E2%80%93Ceyhan_pipeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Caucasus_Pipeline http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/publications/concerns_timeline.pdf FROM WASHINGTON POSTfAhmed Wali Karzai, the half-brother of Afghanistan’s president and boss of the strategically important Kandahar province, has been on the CIA payroll for over a decade. By the fall of 2008, Woodward says, “Ahmed Wali Karzai had been on the CIA payroll for years, beginning before 9/11. He had belonged to the CIA's small network of paid agents and informants inside Afghanistan. In addition, the CIA paid him money through his half-brother, the president.” (for how long?) LOL, even Hamid Karzai being on the CIA would not be evidence that elements in the USG orchestrated 9/11 or “let it happen on purpose” - let alone his half-brother supposedly getting money from them. Karzai has long been pro-US if true this is not especially surprising. Get back to us with evidence OBL or anyone else in AQ got money from the US. +++++++++++++++++ LAST BUT NOT LEAST +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LAST +++++++++++++++++++++++++ BUT NOT LEAST, >>>>>>> FROM A MAY 1.2011 NEWSNET article http://tribune.com.p...s-tapi-project/ WHAT IS YOURS IS NOW MINE,WHAT IS YOURS IS NOW MINE !!!!!! memory ahh .......sg You posted a broken (parsed) link genius. ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))oooooooooooooooo)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII not broken now.....Link not broken now.... see below.... NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mJN8EvJXWOoJ:tribune.com.pk/story/160367/gas-pipeline-afghan-parliament-approves-tapi-project/+TRIBUNE.com+TAPI&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ COLBY QUOTE Even ignoring that the theory proposed here is incoherent; the US plotted to put the Taliban in power to build the pipeline then plotted to overthrow them for the same reason. END COLBY QUOTE Incoherent,?, WHAT ?? ,Colby reads things not stated ??? Please put your reading glasses on Mr. Colby. Taliban created for creation of problems for CCCP. Once created Taliban would not let pipeline through at low price --- now fight Taliban. As for KARZAI,yes he is part of a meta-argument in that PNAC/911/Afghan pipline /Iraq Oil /Block Iran oil/control Middle Asia gas,oil are part of a Imperial Chess board. Smells like teen ,oh no ...Smells like Imperialism. As for UNOCAL...companies come and go ,however the Imperial Anglo-American plots/wars continue. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ COLBY QUOTE Get back to us with evidence OBL or anyone else in AQ got money from the US. END COLBY QUOTE COOOOOLLLOOOBY , OBL true believer ...its ZAWAHIRI, you see ZAWHHIRI was turned ....hes a ANGLO/AMERICAN asset....turned... do you understand the phrase "turned" ????? I figured this out on 9-12 ......because of an obscure story out of EGYPT day after 911. No need for CIA money,OBL money can be used. I posted about this small obscure story out of EGYPT on the Dellarosa site long,long ago sg ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++OOOOOOOOOOOO++++++++++ ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))++++++++++++)))))))))) )))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOO))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) from HERMES-Press Thursday, November 15 01:21 PM EST U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil - Say Authors By Julio Godoy, Inter Press Service PARIS, Nov 15 (IPS) - Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim. In the book ''Bin Laden, la verite interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction. Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''. The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia. They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that''. But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'', the authors claim. ''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris. According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad. To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency . The last meeting between U.S. and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain. On that occasion, Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for the U.S. government, met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad. Brisard and Dasquie have long experience in intelligence analysis. Brisard was until the late 1990s director of economic analysis and strategy for Vivendi, a French company. He also worked for French secret services, and wrote for them in 1997 a report on the now famous Al Qaeda network, headed by bin Laden. Dasquie is an investigative journalist and publisher of Intelligence Online, a respected newsletter on diplomacy, economic analysis and strategy, available through the Internet. Brisard and Dasquie draw a portrait of closest aides to President Bush, linking them to oil business. Bush's family has a strong oil background. So are some of his top aides. From the U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, through the director of the National Security Council Condoleeza Rice, to the Ministers of Commerce and Energy, Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham, all have for long worked for U.S. oil companies. Cheney was until the end of last year president of Halliburton, a company that provides services for oil industry; Rice was between 1991 and 2000 manager for Chevron; Evans and Abraham worked for Tom Brown, another oil giant. Besides the secret negotiations held between Washington and Kabul and the importance of the oil industry, the book takes issue with the role played by Saudi Arabia in fostering Islamic fundamentalism, in the personality of bin Laden, and with the networks that the Saudi dissident built to finance his activities. Brisard and Dasquie contend the U.S. government's claim that it had been prosecuting bin Laden since 1998. ''Actually,'' Dasquie says, ''the first state to officially prosecute bin Laden was Libya, on the charges of terrorism.'' ''Bin Laden wanted settle in Libya in the early 1990s, but was hindered by the government of Muammar Qaddafi,'' Dasquie claims. ''Enraged by Libya's refusal, bin Laden organised attacks inside Libya, including assassination attempts against Qaddafi.'' Dasquie singles out one group, the Islamic Fighting Group (IFG), reputedly the most powerful Libyan dissident organisation, based in London, and directly linked with bin Laden. ''Qaddafi even demanded Western police institutions, such as Interpol, to pursue the IFG and bin Laden, but never obtained co- operation,'' Dasquie says. ''Until today, members of IFG openly live in London.'' The book confirms earlier reports that the U.S. government worked closely with the United Nations during the negotiations with the Taliban. ''Several meetings took place this year, under the arbitration of Francesc Vendrell, personal representative of UN secretary general Kofi Annan, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan,'' says the book. ''Representatives of the U.S. government and Russia, and the six countries that border with Afghanistan were present at these meetings,'' it says. ''Sometimes, representatives of the Taliban also sat around the table.'' These meetings, also called ''6+2'' because of the number of states (six neighbours plus U.S. and Russia) involved, have been confirmed by Naif Naik, former Pakistani Minister for Foreign Affairs. In a French television news programme two weeks ago, Naik said during a ''6+2'' meeting in Berlin in July, the discussions turned around ''the formation of a government of national unity. If the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they would have immediately received international economic aid.'' ''And the pipe lines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would have come,'' he added. Naik also claimed that Tom Simons, the U.S. representative at these meetings, openly threatened the Taliban and Pakistan. ''Simons said, 'either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use another option'. The words Simons used were 'a military operation','' Naik claimed. Edited May 22, 2011 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 (edited) Len, Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Costello but never Laurel and Costello..... #########################??????????????????????###################################### COLBY FLAMES and BURTON corrects it ......well IMHO Tweedledum and Tweedledee AKA BURTON=COLBY I like the Walrus best," said Alice, "because you see he was a little sorry for the poor oysters." "He ate more than the Carpenter, though," said Tweedledee. "You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn't count how many he took: contrariwise." "That was mean!" Alice said indignantly. "Then I like the Carpenter best-if he didn't eat so many as the Walrus." "But he ate as many as he could get," said Tweedledum. This was a puzzler. After a pause, Alice began, "Well! They were both very unpleasant characters" I ask are Tweedledum and Tweedledee much different ??? Edited May 22, 2011 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Well, I corrected Len. The comedians are Laurel & Hardy, or later Abbott & Costello. I take it you dislike accuracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 22, 2011 Author Share Posted May 22, 2011 Len, Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Costello but never Laurel and Costello..... Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 22, 2011 Author Share Posted May 22, 2011 I don’t find it all surprising that while Laurel is avoiding the tread ‘like the plague’ Costello showed up with his drivel and worst of all off-topic drivel he has already spammed elsewhere. Outside this country, there is a widespread belief that U.S. military deployments in Central Asia mostly are about oil. An article in the Guardian of London headlined, “A pro-western regime in Kabul should give the U.S. an Afghan route for Caspian oil,” foreshadowed the kind of skeptical coverage the U.S. war now receives in many countries. Except that Unocal pulled out of the proposed pipeline project in 1998 and it was never built. Rather alternative pipelines were built through the south Caucus construction of which began in 2003 with preparations of course beginning before that and in some cases before 9/11. Even ignoring that the theory proposed here is incoherent; the US plotted to put the Taliban in power to build the pipeline then plotted to overthrow them for the same reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku%E2%80%93Tbilisi%E2%80%93Ceyhan_pipeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Caucasus_Pipeline http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/publications/concerns_timeline.pdf FROM WASHINGTON POSTfAhmed Wali Karzai, the half-brother of Afghanistan’s president and boss of the strategically important Kandahar province, has been on the CIA payroll for over a decade. By the fall of 2008, Woodward says, “Ahmed Wali Karzai had been on the CIA payroll for years, beginning before 9/11. He had belonged to the CIA's small network of paid agents and informants inside Afghanistan. In addition, the CIA paid him money through his half-brother, the president.” (for how long?) LOL, even Hamid Karzai being on the CIA would not be evidence that elements in the USG orchestrated 9/11 or “let it happen on purpose” - let alone his half-brother supposedly getting money from them. Karzai has long been pro-US if true this is not especially surprising. Get back to us with evidence OBL or anyone else in AQ got money from the US. +++++++++++++++++ LAST BUT NOT LEAST +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LAST +++++++++++++++++++++++++ BUT NOT LEAST, >>>>>>> FROM A MAY 1.2011 NEWSNET article http://tribune.com.p...s-tapi-project/ WHAT IS YOURS IS NOW MINE,WHAT IS YOURS IS NOW MINE !!!!!! memory ahh .......sg You posted a broken (parsed) link genius. ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))oooooooooooooooo)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII not broken now.....Link not broken now.... see below.... NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mJN8EvJXWOoJ:tribune.com.pk/story/160367/gas-pipeline-afghan-parliament-approves-tapi-project/+TRIBUNE.com+TAPI&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ COLBY QUOTE Even ignoring that the theory proposed here is incoherent; the US plotted to put the Taliban in power to build the pipeline then plotted to overthrow them for the same reason. END COLBY QUOTE Incoherent,?, WHAT ?? ,Colby reads things not stated ??? Please put your reading glasses on Mr. Colby. Taliban created for creation of problems for CCCP. Once created Taliban would not let pipeline through at low price --- now fight Taliban. As for KARZAI,yes he is part of a meta-argument in that PNAC/911/Afghan pipline /Iraq Oil /Block Iran oil/control Middle Asia gas,oil are part of a Imperial Chess board. Smells like teen ,oh no ...Smells like Imperialism. As for UNOCAL...companies come and go ,however the Imperial Anglo-American plots/wars continue. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ COLBY QUOTE Get back to us with evidence OBL or anyone else in AQ got money from the US. END COLBY QUOTE COOOOOLLLOOOBY , OBL true believer ...its ZAWAHIRI, you see ZAWHHIRI was turned ....hes a ANGLO/AMERICAN asset....turned... do you understand the phrase "turned" ????? I figured this out on 9-12 ......because of an obscure story out of EGYPT day after 911. No need for CIA money,OBL money can be used. I posted about this small obscure story out of EGYPT on the Dellarosa site long,long ago sg ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++OOOOOOOOOOOO++++++++++ ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))++++++++++++)))))))))) )))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOO))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) from HERMES-Press Thursday, November 15 01:21 PM EST U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil - Say Authors By Julio Godoy, Inter Press Service PARIS, Nov 15 (IPS) - Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim. In the book ''Bin Laden, la verite interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction. Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''. The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia. They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that''. But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'', the authors claim. ''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris. According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad. To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency . The last meeting between U.S. and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain. On that occasion, Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for the U.S. government, met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad. Brisard and Dasquie have long experience in intelligence analysis. Brisard was until the late 1990s director of economic analysis and strategy for Vivendi, a French company. He also worked for French secret services, and wrote for them in 1997 a report on the now famous Al Qaeda network, headed by bin Laden. Dasquie is an investigative journalist and publisher of Intelligence Online, a respected newsletter on diplomacy, economic analysis and strategy, available through the Internet. Brisard and Dasquie draw a portrait of closest aides to President Bush, linking them to oil business. Bush's family has a strong oil background. So are some of his top aides. From the U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, through the director of the National Security Council Condoleeza Rice, to the Ministers of Commerce and Energy, Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham, all have for long worked for U.S. oil companies. Cheney was until the end of last year president of Halliburton, a company that provides services for oil industry; Rice was between 1991 and 2000 manager for Chevron; Evans and Abraham worked for Tom Brown, another oil giant. Besides the secret negotiations held between Washington and Kabul and the importance of the oil industry, the book takes issue with the role played by Saudi Arabia in fostering Islamic fundamentalism, in the personality of bin Laden, and with the networks that the Saudi dissident built to finance his activities. Brisard and Dasquie contend the U.S. government's claim that it had been prosecuting bin Laden since 1998. ''Actually,'' Dasquie says, ''the first state to officially prosecute bin Laden was Libya, on the charges of terrorism.'' ''Bin Laden wanted settle in Libya in the early 1990s, but was hindered by the government of Muammar Qaddafi,'' Dasquie claims. ''Enraged by Libya's refusal, bin Laden organised attacks inside Libya, including assassination attempts against Qaddafi.'' Dasquie singles out one group, the Islamic Fighting Group (IFG), reputedly the most powerful Libyan dissident organisation, based in London, and directly linked with bin Laden. ''Qaddafi even demanded Western police institutions, such as Interpol, to pursue the IFG and bin Laden, but never obtained co- operation,'' Dasquie says. ''Until today, members of IFG openly live in London.'' The book confirms earlier reports that the U.S. government worked closely with the United Nations during the negotiations with the Taliban. ''Several meetings took place this year, under the arbitration of Francesc Vendrell, personal representative of UN secretary general Kofi Annan, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan,'' says the book. ''Representatives of the U.S. government and Russia, and the six countries that border with Afghanistan were present at these meetings,'' it says. ''Sometimes, representatives of the Taliban also sat around the table.'' These meetings, also called ''6+2'' because of the number of states (six neighbours plus U.S. and Russia) involved, have been confirmed by Naif Naik, former Pakistani Minister for Foreign Affairs. In a French television news programme two weeks ago, Naik said during a ''6+2'' meeting in Berlin in July, the discussions turned around ''the formation of a government of national unity. If the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they would have immediately received international economic aid.'' ''And the pipe lines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would have come,'' he added. Naik also claimed that Tom Simons, the U.S. representative at these meetings, openly threatened the Taliban and Pakistan. ''Simons said, 'either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use another option'. The words Simons used were 'a military operation','' Naik claimed. More drivel, how does any of this indicate 9/11 was an "inside job"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) COLBY QUOTE More drivel, how does any of this indicate 9/11 was an "inside job"? END COLBY QUOTE ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=====================+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ For what reason would the USA population support these invasions.....?....only if there was a "NEW" Pearl Harbor. http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/05/22/general-wesley-clark-reveals-plan-invade-iraq-syria-lebanon-lybia-somalia-sudan-iran-22858/ General Wesley Clark Reveals US Plan To Invade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran Posted by Alexander Higgins - May 22, 2011 at 4:08 pm - Permalink - Source via Alexander Higgins Blog UTUBE LINK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7cSjwkzka0 General Wesley Clark reveals the US plan to invade and take over 7 countries, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran, before we even invaded Afghanistan. The first part of the plan was revealed 10 days after 9/11 and was expanded to included the other nations. Clark is quoted as saying the invasion wasnt based on links to Al-Queda or any other intelligence reports but just because the US has an army that is great at taking over other nations. In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran Transcripts: [Wesley Clark] About ten days after 9/11 I went to the penatagon and I say secretary Rumsfield and Deputy Secretary Wolfweitz. I went down stairs to see some of the staff who used to work for me and one of the Generals called me in and said Sir, you have got to come in. Come in, you have got to come in and talk to me a second. I said Well, your to busy. He said, No, No, we have made the decision to go to war with Iraq. This was on or about the 20th of September [2001]. I said We are going to war with Iraq? Why [emphasis added]. He said, I dont know [crowd laughs] He said, I guess they dont know what else to do. [crowd boos]. So I said Well did they find come information connecting Saddam to Al-Queda? He said, No, No. There is nothing new that way, they just made the decision to go to war with Iraq. He said, I quess its like, we dont know what to do about terrorists but we have a good military and we can take down governments So I came back to see him a few weeks laters and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said Are we still going to war with Iraq? And he said Oh, its worse than that. He reached over on his desk and picked up a piece of paper. He said, I just got this down from up stairs from the Secratary of Defenses office today. This is a memo that describes how we are going to take out 7 countries in 5 years. Starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebenon. Then Lybia, Somalia and Sudan. Then finishing off Iran. [Amy Goodman] Go Through the countries again. [crowd laughs] [Wesley Clark] Well starting off with Iraq, then Syria and Lebenon, and Lybia, Somalia and Sudan. and back to Iran. Fast forward to today and we have indeed invaded and occupied Afghanistan. Intellegence reports were fabrictated to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to justify the ousting of Saddam Hussien.The released secret documents that revealed the intel reports were fabricated also revealed the invasion of Iraq was for the prize of oil. We are currently bombing Lybia as the war hawks push for authorization to send in ground troops. The US propaganda machine is also beating the war drum for an invasion of Syria. To make matters worse if the World War 3 Legislation that is being voted on in Congress is passed there will be no need to push out propaganda to justify the invasion of the rest of the countries on the list. The president will have full authority just to invade any country he wants XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Sociopaths Delight ------------------------- The COLBY does what COLBY can, Deeds quite impossible for one Man, But one prize is beyond his reach, The COLBY cannot master any true emotion: About a subjugated plain, Among its desperate and slain, The COLBY stalks with hands on hips, debating points till insane drivel gushes from fetid lips emotion ? what is that? glance in a mirror .......all flat Edited May 23, 2011 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 23, 2011 Author Share Posted May 23, 2011 COLBY QUOTE More drivel, how does any of this indicate 9/11 was an "inside job"? END COLBY QUOTE ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=====================+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ For what reason would the USA population support these invasions.....?....only if there was a "NEW" Pearl Harbor. Except that as spelled out above that's not what the paper said, perhaps you can attempt to do what Jim DiE.failed to, show where it called for invading other countries. General Wesley Clark Reveals US Plan To Invade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran Clark however has shown no signs of being a toofer drivel gushes from fetid lips In my experience obese people tend to be malodorous, is this another example of projection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) START COLBY QUOTE In my experience obese people tend to be malodorous, is this another example of projection? END COLBY QUOTE GOLLY... Colby is a fountain of knowledge. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PNAC It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to 100 billion dollars, to deny other nations the use of outer space, and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision. +++++ GOLLY offensively and preemptively sounds like invasion to me.....++++++++++++++++++++ ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.newsofinterest.tv/video_pages_flash/politics/misc_neocon_globalist/wolfowitz_pnac_nph.php UTUBE VIDEO This video clip describes Paul Wolfowitz's involvement in shaping the U.S. Neoconservative foreign policy implemented after the attacks of September 11, 2001, including his role in the creation of the PNAC document “Rebuilding America's Defenses” during the year 2000 which suggested a need for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event— like a new Pearl Harbor.” Following is a transcript of a video describing Paul Wolfowitz's involvement in shaping neoconservative foreign policy which was implemented after the attacks of September 11, 2001. While the video supplies important information about Wolfowitz's involvement with such organizations as “The Project for the New American Century,” the clip also contains techniques of 'disinformation' which attempt to reinforce the 'false left / right paradigm' by shifting blame away from most of the Republican Party, Democrats, and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. Elements of disinformation are explained in bold type within the following transcript... When George W. Bush took office in 2000, he brought with him Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary for Defense Paul Wolfowitz, all of whom have served together previously in the Administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Paul Wolfowitz in particular, had long been recognized as the intellectual force behind a radical neoconservative fringe of the Republican party. For years, Wolfowitz had been advancing the idea that the United States should reconsider its commitments to international treaties, international law, and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. [ Note: While the clip makes an effort to suggest that Wolfowitz is acting against elements of globalism, such as being opposed to international treaties and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, it is shown that the reality is the opposite, as Wolfowitz was the President of the World Bank between 2005 and 2007, and worked on implementing globalist economic configurations such as “public-private partnerships” which are common elements of global warming legislation. ] A radical plan for American Military Domination first surfaced during the administration of George H.W. Bush, In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, working in the Department of Defense, was asked to write the first draft of a new national security strategy, a document entitled “The Defense Planning Guidance.” The most controversial elements of what would later come to be known as the “Wolfowitz Doctrine” were that the United States should dramatically increase defense spending, that it should be willing to take preemptive military action, and that it should be willing to use military force unilaterally, with or without allies. This new reliance on Military force was necessary, according to Wolfowitz, to prevent the emergence of any future or potential rivals to American power, and to secure access to vital resources, especially Persian Gulf oil. Out of power during the Clinton Presidency, [ Note: While Wolfowitz was not technically a part of the Clinton Administration, PNAC was formed in 1997, and evidence does exist that Clinton had prior knowledge of the 9/11 Attacks during his Administration. Also, Al Gore was the first to implement the corporate structure of “public-private partnerships,” which shift decision making away from the electorate and transfer the power to unelected international corporations, and conversions to such structures are frequently implemented with the help of environmental fears which are often intentionally exaggerated. ] Wolfowitz and his colleagues affiliated themselves with a number of number of influential conservative think tanks. In 2000, they would craft yet another proposed national security strategy, this one published by a Right Wing think tank calling itself “The Project for the New American Century.” At its core, the document revived the Wolfowitz Doctrine. It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to 100 billion dollars, to deny other nations the use of outer space, and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision. But even these hard line conservatives knew that the Wolfowitz Doctrine was likely too likely to win the support of the foreign policy establishment, their own Republican party, and the American people. [ Note: It is true that certain members of the Republican party are opposed to neoconservative philosophies, and most who do support those policies are often accused of falsely attempting to give the impression of actually being conservative. Also it is shown that many Democrats are actually supportive of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, however they attempt to give the impression that they are not. ] In their defining document “Rebuilding America's Defenses,” written in September of 2000, a full year before the 9/11 attacks, they acknowledged: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. ...” One year later, that event would arrive... [ Wolfowitz was also the President of the World Bank between 2005 and 2007, and during that time he worked on implementing Globalist economic configurations such as “public-private partnerships.” He is an excellent example of a “Neocon Globalist,” due to his being heavily involved with both “Neoconservatism” and “Neoliberalism.” ] ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Greg Burnham on possible 911 foreknowledge Not Another Blue Ribbon Fiasco, Please By Greg Burnham 9-9-2 Two of the September 11th hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, were known to the intelligence community. The FBI was most certainly aware of them as a Bureau informant was one of their room mates. The CIA became aware of them by, at least, January 2000, if not sooner, because of an al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which both of these "Saudi National, hi-jackers-to-be" attended. FBI officials have, of course, insisted that if the CIA had passed along current intelligence about the two men, the bureau would have been better able to monitor and/or capture them. After they left Malaysia, Almihdhar and Alhazmi took flight-school lessons in San Diego. Both men moved in with a "tested" undercover "asset" in September 2000, who had been working closely with the FBI office in San Diego on terrorism cases related to Hamas, after he befriended them at a Mosque in San Diego. This "land-lord" even helped one of the terrorists open a bank account. A senior law-enforcement official told NEWSWEEK the informant never provided the bureau with the names of his two houseguests from Saudi Arabia. Nor does the FBI have any reason to believe the informant was concealing their identities. (He could not be reached for comment.) But the FBI concedes that a San Diego case agent appears to have been at least aware that Saudi visitors were renting rooms in the informant's house. (On one occasion, a source says, the case agent called up the informant and was told he couldn't talk because "Khalid"--a reference to Almihdhar--was in the room.) I. C. Smith, a former top FBI counterintelligence official, says the case agent should have been keeping closer tabs on who his informant was fraternizing with--if only to seek out the houseguests as possible informants." They should have been asking, "Who are these guys? What are they doing here?' This strikes me as a lack of investigative curiosity." About six weeks after moving into the house, Almihdhar left town, explaining to the landlord he was heading back to Saudi Arabia to see his daughter. Alhazmi moved out at the end of 2000. While that was developing in San Diego, what was the Agency doing? The CIA claims it was gathering more information about both men, such as: potential for violence, and similar "risk assessment" profiling. It turns out that the CIA discoverd, a few months after the bombing of the USS Cole, that one of the chief suspects in the Cole attack-- Tawfiq bin Attash -- was present at the "summit" and had been photographed with Almihdhar and Alhazmi. Why then did the Agency wait until Aug. 23, 2001, to send an urgent cable to U.S. Border and law-enforcement agencies identifying the two men as "possible" terrorists? Obviously, the CIA was too late. But how? Was it accidentally, incompetently, or deliberately? Allegedly, the bureau did not connect the dots between 9-11 and the San Diego connection until the informant heard the names of the Pentagon hijackers and called his case agent. "I know those guys," the informant purportedly said, referring to Almihdhar and Alhazmi. "They were my roommates." The joint House and Senate intelligence committees investigating the 9-11 attacks is tentatively due to begin public hearings Sept. 18, 2002. Difficulty in "getting to the bottom" of exactly what happened that allowed the attacks to be successful, has drawn support for legislation that would create a special blue-ribbon commission, much like that formed after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and after the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. If we've learned anything from the history of so-called, "Blue Ribbon Panels" it is this: They should NOT be employed to evaluate evidence that differs from the OFFICIAL PARTY LINE, as they won't even look for such evidence. Moreover, they will deny its existence even when it's staring them in the face. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This is most important 911 link to show inside job. NSA doesnt help CIA on Al-Qaeda terrorism. WHY ? http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=Barbara+McNamara&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go ++++++++++++++oooooooooooooooooooooo+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In June 2000, she received the US Intelligence Community’s highest award, the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal Barbara McNamara promoted out and up into the very important CACI board. --------------------------=====---------------------------- Barbara A. McNamara was the NSA's Deputy Director from October 1997 until her retirement in June 2000. She joined the agency in 1963 as a Chinese linguist. She served in several analytic, operational, and managerial positions in the Operational Directorate until 1983. McNamara became the first woman to be named Deputy Director of Operations in 1994. She was succedeed by William B. Black, Jr.. In June 2000, she received the US Intelligence Community’s highest award, the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal. . ... Currently, she is a board member of CACI. California Analysis Center, Incorporated also known as CACI is a United States-based private military contractor. ... Barbara McNamara (165 words) Barbara McNamara joined NSA in 1963 as a Chinese linguist. McNamara reached the highest civilian position at NSA in 1997 when she was named the Agency’s Deputy Director. McNamara received several prestigious awards, and in June 2000, she received the Intelligence Community’s highest award, the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal. Barbara A. McNamara Nominated to CACI Board of Directors (527 words) McNamara brings to the company extensive knowledge and insight into the intelligence community, with significant experience with the National Security Agency (NSA) and a broad understanding of U.S. intelligence agencies. McNamara was Deputy Director of NSA, the most senior civilian position in NSA, regularly interacting with a diverse set of U.S. and foreign organizations and individuals to build support for strategic initiatives. McNamara is a graduate of both the Armed Forces Staff College and the National War College. Edited May 23, 2011 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 23, 2011 Author Share Posted May 23, 2011 START COLBY QUOTE In my experience obese people tend to be malodorous, is this another example of projection? END COLBY QUOTE GOLLY... Colby is a fountain of knowledge. LOL you label me a sociopath with “fetid lips” but object when I reply. "PNAC It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to 100 billion dollars," Yes they called for the US to “INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.” Since defense spending at the time was 3.1% of GDP that works out to a 13 – 23% increase not very radical especially since it would simply be a return to 1996 levels and not beyond what we would expect with Republicans controlling the White House and the House and at times the Senate. This is something they would have gotten with or without 9/11 http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=ms_mil_xpnd_gd_zs&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+military+spending "to deny other nations the use of outer space," Where exactly did they do that? What steps towards this supposed objective were taken after 9/11? Even if true what would it have to do with invading countries in central Asia? and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision. +++++ GOLLY offensively and preemptively sounds like invasion to me.....++++++++++++++++++++ Show where they called for any of these things in the “new Pearl Harbor” paper (link above) http://www.newsofinterest.tv/video_pages_flash/politics/misc_neocon_globalist/wolfowitz_pnac_nph.phpUTUBE VIDEO This video clip describes Paul Wolfowitz's involvement in shaping the U.S. Neoconservative foreign policy Based on the transcript the only evidence cited is a single out of context quote from the PNAC report. Greg Burnham on possible 911 foreknowledge Not Another Blue Ribbon Fiasco, Please By Greg Burnham 9-9-2 Two of the September 11th hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, were known to the intelligence community. The FBI was most certainly aware of them as a Bureau informant was one of their room mates. Unfortunately Mr. Burnham has proven himself not to be a reliable source and failed to provide any citations for his claims. Though he was indeed an FBI informant there is no evidence Almihdhar and Alhazmi roommate knew they were terrorists or informed the FBI they were in town. This is most important 911 link to show inside job. NSA doesnt help CIA on Al-Qaeda terrorism. WHY ? http://www.historyco...ch=on&search=Go You think that “is most important 911 link to show inside job”? LOL that was “February 1996-May 1998” 3 – 5 years before the attacks. Show us evidence the failure to provide the transcripts allowed 9/11 to happen, and show us where the sources for this story (Bamford, Scheuer, and Rossini) indicate 9/11 was an “inside job”. The answer to your question can be found in one of the 3 sources from your linked page, “[the NSA’s] policy since its founding has been to never share raw data, even with other intelligence agencies.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/spy-factory.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 23, 2011 Author Share Posted May 23, 2011 START COLBY QUOTE In my experience obese people tend to be malodorous, is this another example of projection? END COLBY QUOTE GOLLY... Colby is a fountain of knowledge. LOL you label me a sociopath with “fetid lips” but object when I reply. "PNAC It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to 100 billion dollars," Yes they called for the US to “INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.” Since defense spending at the time was 3.1% of GDP that works out to a 13 – 23% increase not very radical especially since it would simply be a return to 1996 levels and not beyond what we would expect with Republicans controlling the White House and the House and at times the Senate. This is something they would have gotten with or without 9/11 http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=ms_mil_xpnd_gd_zs&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+military+spending "to deny other nations the use of outer space," Where exactly did they do that? What steps towards this supposed objective were taken after 9/11? Even if true what would it have to do with invading countries in central Asia? and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision. +++++ GOLLY offensively and preemptively sounds like invasion to me.....++++++++++++++++++++ Show where they called for any of these things in the “new Pearl Harbor” paper (link above) http://www.newsofinterest.tv/video_pages_flash/politics/misc_neocon_globalist/wolfowitz_pnac_nph.phpUTUBE VIDEO This video clip describes Paul Wolfowitz's involvement in shaping the U.S. Neoconservative foreign policy Based on the transcript the only evidence cited is a single out of context quote from the PNAC report. Greg Burnham on possible 911 foreknowledge Not Another Blue Ribbon Fiasco, Please By Greg Burnham 9-9-2 Two of the September 11th hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, were known to the intelligence community. The FBI was most certainly aware of them as a Bureau informant was one of their room mates. Unfortunately Mr. Burnham has proven himself not to be a reliable source and failed to provide any citations for his claims. Though he was indeed an FBI informant there is no evidence Almihdhar and Alhazmi roommate knew they were terrorists or informed the FBI they were in town. This is most important 911 link to show inside job. NSA doesnt help CIA on Al-Qaeda terrorism. WHY ? http://www.historyco...ch=on&search=Go You think that “is most important 911 link to show inside job”? LOL that was “February 1996-May 1998” 3 – 5 years before the attacks. Show us evidence the failure to provide the transcripts allowed 9/11 to happen, and show us where the sources for this story (Bamford, Scheuer, and Rossini) indicate 9/11 was an “inside job”. The answer to your question can be found in one of the 3 sources from your linked page, “[the NSA’s] policy since its founding has been to never share raw data, even with other intelligence agencies.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/spy-factory.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now