It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Who 'skips' over Afghanistan as you wrongly claim, it was the first country invaded since 9/11. It has incredible geopolitical importance bordering Pakistan and Iran! Not only does it have massive geopolitical importance, it is the largest opimum producer in the world-
What do you mean, who skips over Afghanistan? You conspiracy theorists do. If you're claiming the conspiracy theorists aren't claiming Iraq and their oil wasn't the main target of this 9/11 false flag operation then you're lying. I've seen that claim so many times that it's become an integral component to your conspiracy stories. In fact this whole heroin bit is only a recent invention, and I'll wager that's because the "war for Iraqi oil" conspiracy fizzled out once US forces left Iraq and there was no more material to induce paranoia over.
Amazing that the Taliban banned the opium production and since the US invasion production levels have risen!!
Ah yes, another attempt at "Isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" innuendo dropping. Using innuendo to "prove" other innuendo is a poor argument; it's nothing but circular logic in that you're restating the original argument in different terms in order to prove itself. I think the fact that the US doesn't punish criminals by beheading them in public like the Taliban did goes further in explaining the rise in heroin production than any sinister secret plot to take over the world, don't you?
BUT, if you insist, what's good for the goose is good for the gander- where in the PNAC report does it say the heroin trade is a critical strategic resource for the US to implement Pax Americana? Point it out to me.
How can someone type so much into a reply without actually saying anything relevant to the topic in hand? I'm being serious-
You cannot say conspiracy theorists overlook Afghanistan, IT WAS THE FIRST COUNTRY INVADED AFTER 9/11. It began the 'War on Terror.'
Iraq and oil is just one of the many 'pieces' Wolfowitz refers to, the middle east and control of it consists a lot more than just Iraq, in fact, you seem to be making this up to undermine my VERY obvious point.
Who has ever said 9/11 was to solely invade Iraq, clearly as we have seen history play out over the last 11 years, many other regimes have been targeted and continue to be targeted as the region is 'transformed'.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Am I incorrect?
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Am I incorrect?
Yes you are incorrect.
Conspiracy theorists DO NOT overlook Afghanistan because as I have pointed out, Afghanistan holds very important geopolitical status and it is the world's largest opium productier, which has increased dramatically since the invasion began.
YOU are the one undermining the importance of Afghanistan, they would not have invaded it and fought the Taliban just for the sake of it.
Each country in the region is a piece in the puzzle, any country not in line with 'American interests' is targeted, that is essentially what the PNAC document was all about.
You talk about the insignificance of Afghanistan yet the CIA created Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets and get them out of Afghanistan during the cold war, yet you keep repeating this lie that it holds no importance in the region!
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by GoodOlDave
We will have to agree to disagree.
In my opinion, I do not overlook Afghanistan, I know it's history, all about Operation Cyclone and Al Qaeda's origins. Afghanistan, like many countries in the region, has been victim of countries fighting for control, both through outright military conflict and covert operations. Afghanistan is not some worthless piece of sand, it has incredible geopolitical importance.
The PNAC document in my opinion is a blueprint, an outline of American foreign policy to tackle countries that do not fall in line with 'American interests'. These countries have been targeted since 9/11, which served as a catalyst for 'American' foreign policy to take place in the 21st century.
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.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the
world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in
the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does
the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of
past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a
new century favorable to American principles and interests?
“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet
both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national
leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
“Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its
power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global
leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America
has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia,
and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite
challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th
century should have taught us that it is important to shape
circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they
become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us
to embrace the cause of American leadership.”
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.
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by GoodOlDave
You seriously want people to believe it is all coincidence and not related?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by GoodOlDave
You seriously want people to believe it is all coincidence and not related?
The threat of international terrorism had been growing for decades and we were a victim of our own naivete to think terrorists wouldn't be able to adapt to the 21st century. Once upon a time we all thought islamic fundamentalists were all illiterate nomads wandering around the desert on camels while swinging curved swords and screaming Allah Akbar, when in the real world they're college educated, speak multiple languages, travel the globe, and are more familiar with technology than you are. The longer we ignored the problem of islamic fundamentalism...and let's face it, we did ignore the problem before 9/11,...the greater the chance this attack on US soil or one similar to it was destined to happen regardless of whether someone wrote "New Pearl Harbor" or not.
So no, it's not a coincidence. The reason why it's not a coincidence is that conspiracy proponents refuse to believe that something so dramatic as the 9/11 attack could have been caused by something so simple as Islamic fundamentalism. They want there to be some other sinister secret plot behind the 9/11 attack equally as dramatic as the attack itself, but because there isn't even a microbe of any tangible evidence they start imagining equally dramatic, sinister secret meanings hidden inside otherwise unrelated events like someone writing "new pearl harbor". It isn't any more of a coincidence than it's a coincidence that people look at a featureless blob of ink on a Rorshach test and see images that reflect their own personality.
You yourself have to admit this is what's happening, at least to some extent. Do you genuinely think these supposed conspirators are so retarded that they'd really waste their time hiding images of a smashed world trade center in folded up twenty dollar bills, as was presented here a few weeks ago?
The Flight Termination System (FTS) is a fully redundant turn-key range safety and test system for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles.
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
The thread is about Paul Wolfowitz and his referencing of 9/11 as a 'Pearl Habour' event 3 days after the attacks. Given the PNAC had required a 'new pearl harbour', it at least raises some suscpicion, especially given Wolfowitz spoke about Pearl Harbour and America's 'poverty of expecations' in the summer of 2001.
When you also consider Rumsfeld and Zakheim were members of the same PNAC, it starts to take a giant leap of faith to believe these people were not at least complicit in what happened on 9/11.
Rumsfeld mentioned missing trillions in Pentagon spending one day before 9/11. It was fellow PNAC member Zakheim who was in control of Pentagon spending as Comptroller of the Pentagon! Just another coincidence?
A system that can remotely take control of aircraft. When we consider the flight path of the plane that hit the Pentagon, supposedly carried out by inexperienced hijackers, then we just have more questions and coincidences.
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Also, Rumsfeld, another member of the PNAC did announce 'missing' trillions in Pentagon spending one day before 9/11.
Do not cry hoax when the number of coincidences and number of suspicious facts make it impossible for you to deny at least some suspicion.
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Also, Rumsfeld, another member of the PNAC did announce 'missing' trillions in Pentagon spending one day before 9/11.
Do not cry hoax when the number of coincidences and number of suspicious facts make it impossible for you to deny at least some suspicion.
If you know anything about the so called missing $2.3 trillion you will know that this figure had been bandied about in the Clinton era long before GWB was elected.
And it is self-evident that the figure represents years of defence spending.
A read of Rumsfeld's speech of 10/9/01 will make it clear that he was complaining about the antiquated accounting systems at the Pentagon not being able to properly reconcile expenditure. Not that someone had swiped the money.
The fact that truthers are still clinging to this as being of some significance at 11 years plus just shows the poverty of their position.
Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by Alfie1
I think Sen. Byrds exact words were "The D.O.D.'s own auditors cannot account for 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions in one year alone....."
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Which is fine except Rumsfeld was PNAC as was Wolfowitz (see OP).
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by Alfie1
I think Sen. Byrds exact words were "The D.O.D.'s own auditors cannot account for 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions in one year alone....."
Please tell me how that is possible. Wonderer 2012's chart above shows the defence budget for 2000 was less than $400 billion and was even less in years immediately previous.
$2.3 trillion is far greater than any years total federal income.
Originally posted by Iwinder
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by Alfie1
I think Sen. Byrds exact words were "The D.O.D.'s own auditors cannot account for 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions in one year alone....."
Please tell me how that is possible. Wonderer 2012's chart above shows the defence budget for 2000 was less than $400 billion and was even less in years immediately previous.
$2.3 trillion is far greater than any years total federal income.
Its possible due to black budgets.
Regards, Iwinder