Excellent new 9/11 video

Padraig

Banned
droid said:
If the US is trying to forment civil war in Iraq, it would be in order to justify continuing occupation, and suspension of any sembalance of democratic process.
applaus.gif


Given the history of Guerilla warfare in the Mid-east, this approach is almost suicidally reckless, and smacks of desperation - not sublimey evil planning.

From our perspective it is reckless, desperate, criminal - but from their's it is all part of their - well-documented by now, from PNAC on - "evil planning," with countless historical precedents, as summarised below.

Death Mask: The Deliberate Disintegration of Iraq

[This from back on 2nd December 2005 - an extended version of a column appearing in the Dec. 2 edition of The Moscow Times.]

The recent revelations about the virulent spread of death squads ravaging Iraq have only confirmed for many people the lethal incompetence of the Bush Regime, whose brutal bungling appears to have unleashed the demon of sectarian strife in the conquered land. The general reaction, even among some war supporters, has been bitter derision: "Jeez, these bozos couldn't boil an egg without causing collateral damage."

But what if the truth is even more sinister? What if this murderous chaos is not the fruit of rank incompetence but instead the desired product of carefully crafted, efficiently managed White House policy?

Investigative journalist Max Fuller marshals a convincing case for this dread conclusion in a remarkable work of synthesis drawn from information buried in reams of mainstream news stories and public Pentagon documents. Piling fact on damning fact, he shows that the vast majority of atrocities now attributed to "rogue" Shiite and Sunni militias are in fact the work of government-controlled commandos and "special forces," trained by Americans, "advised" by Americans and run largely by former CIA assets, Global Research reports.

We first reported here in June 2003 that the U.S. was already hiring Saddam's security muscle for "special ops" against the nascent insurgency and re-opening his torture haven, Abu Ghraib. Meanwhile, powerful Shiite militias – including Talibanic religious extremists armed and trained by Iran – were loosed upon the land. As direct "Coalition" rule gave way to various "interim" and "elected" Iraqi governments, these violent gangs were formally incorporated into the Iraqi Interior Ministry, where the supposedly inimical Sunni and Shiite units often share officers and divvy up territories.

Bush helpfully supplied these savage gangs – who are killing dozens of people each week, Knight-Ridder reports – with American advisers who made their "counter-insurgency" bones forming right-wing death squads in Colombia and El Salvador. Indeed, Bush insiders have openly bragged of "riding with the bad boys" and exercising the "Salvador option," lauding the Reagan-backed counter-insurgency program that slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians, Newsweek reports. Bush has also provided a "state-of-the-art command, control and communications center" to coordinate the operation of his Iraqi "commandos," as the Pentagon's own news site, DefendAmerica, reports. The Iraqi people can go without electricity, fuel and medicine, but by God, Bush's "bad boys" will roll in clover as they carry out their murders and mutilations.

For months, stories from the Shiite south and Sunni center have reported the same phenomenon: people being summarily seized by large groups of armed men wearing police commando uniforms, packing high-priced Glocks, using sophisticated radios and driving Toyota Land Cruisers with police markings. The captives are taken off and never seen again – unless they turn up with a load of other corpses days or weeks later, bearing marks of the gruesome tortures they suffered before the ritual shot in the head. Needless to say, these mass murders under police aegis are rarely investigated by the police.

Earlier this year, one enterprising Knight-Ridder reporter, Yasser Salihee, actually found several eyewitnesses willing to testify to the involvement of the U.S.-backed commandos in 12 such murders. The offer was shrugged off by the Interior Ministry's spokesman – an American "adviser" and veteran bones-maker from the Colombian ops. In the end, it didn't matter; Salihee was shot dead by a U.S. sniper at a checkpoint a few days afterwards.

The Bushists may have been forced to ditch their idiotic fantasies of "cakewalking" into a compliant satrapy, but they have by no means abandoned their chief goals in the war: milking Iraq dry and planting a permanent military "footprint" on the nation's neck. If direct control through a plausible puppet is no longer possible, then fomenting bloody chaos and sectarian strife is the best way to weaken the state. The Bushists are happy to make common cause with thugs and zealots in order to prevent the establishment of a strong national government that might balk at the ongoing "privatizations" that have continued apace behind the smokescreen of violence, and the planned opening of Iraq's oil reserves to select foreign investors – a potential transfer of some $200 billion of Iraqi people's wealth into the hands of a few Bush cronies, the Independent reports.

The violence is already dividing the county into more rigid sectarian enclaves, the New York Times reports, as Shiites flee Sunni commandos and Sunnis flee Shiite militias in the grim tag-team of their joint endeavor. It's all grist for the Bushist mill: an atomized, terrorized, internally riven society is much easier to manipulate. And of course, a steady stream of bloodshed provides a justification for maintaining a substantial American military presence, even as politic plans for partial "withdrawal" are bandied about.

There's nothing new in this; Bush is simply following a well-thumbed playbook. For example, in 1953 the CIA bankrolled Islamic fundamentalists and secular goon squads to destabilize the democratic government of Iran – which selfishly wanted to control its own oil – and pave the way for the puppet Shah, as the agency's own histories recount. In 1971, CIA officials admitted carrying out more than 21,000 "extra-judicial killings" in its "Phoenix" counter-insurgency operation in Vietnam. (The true number of victims is certainly much higher.) In 1979, the CIA began sponsoring the most violent Islamic extremist groups in Afghanistan – supplying money, arms, even jihad primers for schoolchildren – to destabilize the secular, Soviet-allied government and provoke the Kremlin into a costly intervention, as Robert Dreyfus details in his new book, Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. Later, Saudi magnate Osama bin Laden – whose family firm helped kick-start George W. Bush's business career – joined the operation, and his men were sent to America for "anti-Soviet" terrorist training, as Greg Palast reports. And of course, these examples only scratch the scorched-earth surface of America's double-dealings in this deathly shadow world.

This bi-partisan policy has been remarkably consistent for more than half a century: to augment the wealth and power of the elite, American leaders have supported – or created – vicious gangs of killers and cranks to foment unrest, eliminate opponents and terrorize whole nations into submission. The resulting carnage in the target countries – and inevitable blowback against ordinary Americans – means nothing to these Great Gamesters; it's merely the price of doing business. Bush's "incompetence" is just a mask for stone-cold calculation.
 
D

droid

Guest
There are some good points in that article, but the conclusions he draws are a bit off the mark IMO, and theres a tell-tale sentence that kind of casts doubt over his entire hypothesis, if "Bush's "incompetence" is just a mask for stone-cold calculation." then how come "The Bushists may have been forced to ditch their idiotic fantasies of "cakewalking" into a compliant satrapy"?

Are we supposed to believe that Bush and Co. indulge in 'idiotic fantasies' whilst somehow at the same time basing their decisions on 'stone cold calculation'?

This is my point. If the US is actively involved in intercine warfare in Iraq, it is as a result of incompetent planning in the first place, not an 'evil plan'.

Things are just not working out as anticipated...
 

Padraig

Banned
droid said:
There are some good points in that article, but the conclusions he draws are a bit off the mark IMO, and theres a tell-tale sentence that kind of casts doubt over his entire hypothesis, if "Bush's "incompetence" is just a mask for stone-cold calculation." then how come "The Bushists may have been forced to ditch their idiotic fantasies of "cakewalking" into a compliant satrapy"?

Are we supposed to believe that Bush and Co. indulge in 'idiotic fantasies' whilst somehow at the same time basing their decisions on 'stone cold calculation'?

This is my point. If the US is actively involved in intercine warfare in Iraq, it is as a result of incompetent planning in the first place, not an 'evil plan'.

Things are just not working out as anticipated...

No. There is no "hypothesis" here; there are no "ifs" here - it is happening.

It is your circular logic that's off the mark here. Do you really understand what you're saying here? Because the Bushists can't predict the future they are therefore incompetent ... Control freakery run amok.

Can you predict the future?

It is precisely the Bushists "stone cold calculations" that are paranoid, lethal "idiotic fantasies." But they have a "rule-book" to fall back on, past covert black-ops strategy, as the article makes clear, their contingency plan ...
 

luka

Well-known member
oliver craner told me padraig is a mentalist and his sources are completely unrelaible,paranoid and absurd. is this true? i find the death squad stuff quite convincing but i followed the links to 9/11 hoax stuff and it does seem like paranoid lunacy so i'm in two minds.
 

luka

Well-known member
i think i'm going to chose to beleive in death squads but not in the bush regimes resonposibilty for 9/11
 
D

droid

Guest
No. There is no "hypothesis" here; there are no "ifs" here - it is happening.

Of course there is - the hypothesis is that things are going according to plan, that this is the desired product of carefully crafted, efficiently managed White House policy, and not a result of bad planning and incompetence...

IMO the author basically contradicts himself with the section I quoted and effectively disproves his own theory.

Padraig said:

It is precisely the Bushists "stone cold calculations" that are paranoid, lethal "idiotic fantasies." But they have a "rule-book" to fall back on, past covert black-ops strategy, as the article makes clear, their contingency plan ...

OK - I havent disagreed that its possible that the US is falling back on the tried and tested rulebook. But as you say its a 'contingency plan'. Why would you need to use the contingency plan if you hadnt fucked things up in the first place?

Can you predict the future?

Well - fwiw, Im no genius and I predicted that Iraq would fall within weeks, that there would be no weapons of mass destruction found, and the US would then face a sustained guerilla insurgency ala Beirut or Algeria. I was surprised at the sheer incompetence of certain acts such as the disbandment of the iraqi army, or the various well publicised attacks on journalists. I dont think I was alone in this, as I remember a lot of people mouthing the words 'vietnam' and 'morass' in the months leading to war...

The US has failed on a strategic, tactical and propaganda level in Iraq, and the entire region now faces massive destabilisation, with the prospect of the 'crown jewels' of mid-east energy resources falling into the hands of a popular shi-ite movement - thus unravelling over 50 years of careful and complex US intervention. Even Reagan managed to do better than that... look at US interventions in Nicuragua, Panama, Grenada, El Salvador and Haiti in the 80's.. even the humiliation of Lebanon was handled infinitely better than this mess.

Painting this disaster as a victory for neo conservative 'calculations' takes some fairly impressive selective blindness IMO. So what if they've fallen back to the Plan B 'Salvadorian option' (as I think John Negroponte put it)? Thats an act of desperation - not calculation, and is evidence of incompetence on a massive scale in the original planning of the war - not evidence of careful schemeing.

Luka said:
oliver craner told me padraig is a mentalist and his sources are completely unrelaible,paranoid and absurd. is this true? i find the death squad stuff quite convincing but i followed the links to 9/11 hoax stuff and it does seem like paranoid lunacy so i'm in two minds.

Padraig may be a mentallist ;) but at least he's not being paid to promulgate his political opinions...
 

luka

Well-known member
well to be fair to oliver he gets paid to do it because he is well informed, knowledgeable, principled and keeps up to date with whats going on so although i might not agree with his views i trust what he has to say about the reliability of certain sources and suchlike. if he says knight ridder and counterpunch are beneath contempt i tend to believe him, but i also want to seek confirmation from more balanced people, see.
 

Padraig

Banned
luka said:
oliver craner told me padraig is a mentalist and his sources are completely unrelaible,paranoid and absurd. is this true? i find the death squad stuff quite convincing but i followed the links to 9/11 hoax stuff and it does seem like paranoid lunacy so i'm in two minds.

In two minds? Does this qualify you as a mentalist?

Interesting the company you choose to keep: a neo-con fascist itching via his racist propaganda to criminally invade Iran ...

You're missing the point about 9/11: whether "they" were behind it or not makes no difference - the outcome is the same, the pathology is the same, a criminal pretext for mass invasion and slaughter, about to get worse, much worse, thanks in part to provocateurs like your esteemed buddy.


I want to call to the attention of the House the juxtaposition of two news stories. One [..] relating to 9/11. It says 'Federal officials where repeatedly warned in the months before the September 11, 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and Al-Queda were planning aircraft hijacking suicide attempts according to a new report that the Bush administration had been repressing'. And this from the front page of the Washington post, 'a newly leaked video recording the high level government deliberation the day before Katrina hit shows disaster officials emphatically warning President Bush that the storm posed a catastrophic threat to new Orleans and the gulf coast, and a grim faced Bush personally assuring state leaders that his administration was fully prepared [..] to help'.

Do we see a pattern here? 9/11? Katrina? They knew something was going to happen and they didn't act. They knew that if they went into Iraq that we were looking at a disaster, that there was no way we were going to be able to run that country. They know that global climate change poses a threat to the entire planet, nothing is being done, a pattern of recklessness, indifference, callousness. The implications are deadly for the people of the United States. - Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Even the normally cautious, sober Noam Chomsky now realises what is increasingly imminent:

"Under the current U.S. policies, a nuclear exchange is inevitable," the 77-year-old MIT professor said in his presentation, "Imminent Crises: Paths Toward Solutions." He spoke to an over-capacity crowd in BU's Osterhout Concert Theater.

There are dire consequences to the current direction of the U.S. foreign policy, said Noam Chomsky in a speech Saturday at Binghamton University. Among those consequences, he said, is a nuclear Armageddon.

=====>World in peril, Chomsky tells overflow crowd, Press & Sun Bulletin, March 5, 2006

But you're welcome to be pals with a psycho-creep ...
 
D

droid

Guest
luka said:
well to be fair to oliver he gets paid to do it because he is well informed, knowledgeable, principled and keeps up to date with whats going on so although i might not agree with his views i trust what he has to say about the reliability of certain sources and suchlike. if he says knight ridder and counterpunch are beneath contempt i tend to believe him, but i also want to seek confirmation from more balanced people, see.

But surely if he's being paid to promote a particular political viewpoint, then its in his interest to rubbish sources that disagree with this viewpoint?

How do you know Craners' think tank isnt specifically dedicated to quoshing questions about official involvement in 911? Unlikely sure - but who knows? And how can you trust his sources when he is contractually and dogmatically obliged to only present one point of view? Thats why hes obsessed about Iran - because he can only see the crimes of our 'official enemies', and that monthly paycheck of his doesnt encourage him to get his political vision tested....
 

craner

Beast of Burden
You've got to find the exact bit of text where I advocate either invading or bombing Iran before I answer that, buddy.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Under any circumstances? That's just silly. As circumstances stand now and look to stand for the forseeable future: no.
 
D

droid

Guest
Since you seem to be in the mood for answering questions Oliver, why not describe for us in detail the aims and operations of this organisation you work for, what it is exactly you do for them, and why any of us here should ever take your opinions seriously again? (assuming anyone did in the first place ;))
 

bassnation

the abyss
droid said:
Since you seem to be in the mood for answering questions Oliver, why not describe for us in detail the aims and operations of this organisation you work for, what it is exactly you do for them, and why any of us here should ever take your opinions seriously again? (assuming anyone did in the first place ;))

its one thing talking crap on a net forum but entirely another to propagate this poisonous right wing shit for a living. i can't respect someone who does that.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"if he's being paid to promote a particular political viewpoint"

But is this really true? What reason does anyone have to actually think this?
It sounds like a great job mind.
 

luka

Well-known member
its (the meeting that is)with that anne clywnn woman, the welsh mp. i know cos i asked him round to watch the footballl and he turned me down cos of her.

you know, noam chomsky gets paid for expressing his political opinions. if craner was writing to order as opposed to expressing his own views, which happen to match those of the ravelstein foundation your question would be valid, otherwise i'm not so sure.

he was moaning on the phone about you lot misrepresenting him. maybe you should read that worldwarfour blog before you say anything. mind you, i just like seeing him get abused becasue it makes me laugh so maybe you shouldn't read what hes written.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"noam chomsky gets paid for expressing his political opinions."

Well yeah but everyone knows that. There seems to be something sneaky about being paid to go on an internet board as an apparently neutral individual and promulagate views that you are paid to hold. If that is indeed what is happening, I've no reason to believe that it is.
 
D

droid

Guest
IdleRich said:
Well yeah but everyone knows that. There seems to be something sneaky about being paid to go on an internet board as an apparently neutral individual and promulagate views that you are paid to hold. If that is indeed what is happening, I've no reason to believe that it is.

http://www.dissensus.com/showthread.php?t=3187

Luka said:
its (the meeting that is)with that anne clywnn woman, the welsh mp. i know cos i asked him round to watch the footballl and he turned me down cos of her.

you know, noam chomsky gets paid for expressing his political opinions. if craner was writing to order as opposed to expressing his own views, which happen to match those of the ravelstein foundation your question would be valid, otherwise i'm not so sure.

Youve changed your tune! :)

he was moaning on the phone about you lot misrepresenting him. maybe you should read that worldwarfour blog before you say anything. mind you, i just like seeing him get abused becasue it makes me laugh so maybe you shouldn't read what hes written.

Oh - Poor Oliver.... That makes me laugh as well.... :D
 
Top