The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Belz...]

Now, to address the point about their statement of the "2 stage transition process over decades" (has already been addressed many times btw). They have an option here. They have stated that they can have a quick (quicker), easy transformation process via a new PH. Now, when it comes onto the inevitable stage of the logistics of the changes they envisage, they have a choice- either they state, "We advocate a slow process over the coming decades", or "We advocate the engineering of a new PH". As sensible people, we know they can only go for one. This is of course, not to say that they do not deem a new PH, which will create the wartime environemtn for their changes to happen easily,propitious. It just means that they cannot publicly, overtly, call for the mass murder of US civilians, which is something we all know.

So, basically, the fact that they DIDN'T say it means that they meant it ? What kind of contradictory thinking is that ?

 

[mjd1982]

First off: if you want to continue to discuss this matter in this condescending fashion with sprinkling your replies with patronizing comments, ad hominems and "LMAO"s you might consider ignoring me altogether.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but LMAO's are simply a reflection of my natural reaction/state of mind when reading a post, the rest of which is crystallised in verbal form. It all constitutes a communication of a reaction nonetheless. But I will note your suggestion for future communication with you.

Next: there is no such thing as "my ilk". I am a relative scarce poster around here and the opinion I express is solely my own and is not endorsed by anyone around here, at least not to my knowledge. Unlike the Thruthers, we are not a group of people who form a movement.

The belief in the OT version of events is one that is, I presume, shared by most on this board, and is by far and away the minority view in the US. It could also be deemed, in the form it appears on this board, a counter reactionary group, since it is established counter to the reactionary group that is the CTers. Hence it can, loosely, be described as a movement. Ilk means a group of people sharing a common affliliation, hence it is acccurate.

I have refrained from calling you names or trying to counter your arguments using childish Internet abbreviations or self-righteous remarks. If there is something funny for you about my English it might be that it is not my first language. If you want we can switch this discussion to German any time you desire and I can throw some exotic words at you which make me look super-smart and you like an ignorant fool for not being able to decipher them immediately.

Gerne! Ich wuerde gern auf Deutsch diskutieren. Ich habe fur drei Monate in Passau studiert, du siehst (auch habe ich Deutsch an der Universitaet Oxford studiert). Aber ich habe kein Deutsch seit lange Zeit gesprochen, also muess ich mich ueben, glaub'ich.

Deine Sprachniveau ist doch beeindrueckend, wie alle Deutsche, besser als main Deutsch, das is klar.

Wir koennten weitermachen auf Deutsch, aber die anderen wuerden nicht verstehen, denk'ich...

I have also expressed before that I consider your language superb. I already think you are a smart guy, so you don't have to constantly rub it in. Now, in my experience the *really* smart guys don't go along all day trying to show other people how smart and superior they are, so I think a little understatement in your replies would actually help your case, unless of course, you thrive on your bloated ego or need to prostitute it in order to get some amends.

Now that I got my full admiration of you out of the way, can we agree upon refraining from childish nonsense a la "oh, boy" and take a look at our arguments instead?

Maybe you think you are not. I was referring to your original post, though. In that, as I pointed out earlier, you mention the word "fact" or "evidence" a good number of times without actually providing such. That you "infer" anything is your good right. But you do not do so in your OP. Instead, you are trying to build an entire case around why 9/11 MUST HAVE BEEN an inside job based (among other things which we haven't even addressed) on a few statements in a document which you INTERPRET in a certain way. While this approach might be valid for a political essay or an op-ed piece it is not something that you could use in any court of law.

This is precisely the opposite of what I have been saying for the entirety of this thread. Indeed if you see the OP, you will see that I have stated that the position of the Truth movement is that there is sufficient evidence of government complicity in 911 for there to be a new investigation into such. This is the founding premise of everything I say here. Hence, for instance, when I state that the intermediary betweem the Taliban and the US says that Bush refused to have OBL killed, while an OTer may state that he must have been lying, this is irrelevant to the point, that being that it forms an important piece of evidence. This is an internet forum, not a court of law, as you rightly allude, and so we have to proceed accordingly- look at evidence, and see if it is in any way serious. The point about the PNAC doc is not that it proves 911 was in inside job, as for some reason many people thnk i am arguiing, buut that it illustrates the propitiousness of 911 in the minds of the men who would be charged with protecting the US from such an event on and up to 911.

Now you will of course claim that this wasn't your intention, which of course begs the question what exactly that intention of yours is. If you want to impeach Bush this is the wrong place (not because we are all Bush acolytes but because this is not a place with any judicial powers). So what is it you want? What would you like to happen at the end, when you have convinced us all?

as above, an investigation

I am not debating the propitiousness part. It is irrelevant since it is nothing but an inference. I am debating your stance that 9/11 must have been the consequence of said mentioning, or, that the fact that this is mentioned in PNAC is evidence of 9/11 marking the execution of the PNAC document.

Again, as above. You need to debate the propitiousness, since if this was the case that they would have seen a new PH as such, then we must analyse their behaviours accordingly

If it was for me you could debate this point for another 1700 posts. I don't care. The document, as I understand it (interpret it, just as you), states that IN CASE of a catalyzing event the policy of change will eventually have to be adjusted (accelerated).

Lets be more precise. It will happen quicker. And the corollary of quicker in this context, is easier. It will happen quicker because the backlogs and upheavals that are referred to in the same paragraph will be easier to bypass. Thus if you want to argue that they didnt wat the transformation to happen quicker, you are also arguing that they wanted it to be harder (amongst other irrationalities outlined in #493)

That 9/11 THEREFORE MUST HAVE BEEN *THAT* catalyzing event that is mentioned in this doc is your inference. As I said before it is an inference that is not subject to falsifiability.

No, the point is that 911 was a catastophic and catalysing event, as pnac calls for. If you can illustrate how it has one or neither of these qualities, that is how you can falsify it

Hence it is *worthless* at least in a case of fact-assembling, unless you produce another document in which any of the signers explicitly states that THIS (9/11) WAS THE CATALYZING EVENT that PNAC referred to and that "they" have been waiting for.

Again, as above

As for the "ilk"-remark see above. You obviously did not understand the analogy. You cited a document, which contains vague and general guidelines for the direction and actions of American policy over the next decades to be EVIDENCE for an inside job on 911.

tell me how these are vague

I tried to explain to you, that contrary to what you said in your first post, your inference and interpretation of this document is opinion and not facts.

yes, and inference is admissible in sensible debate. Hence you can debate the inference.

Incidentally, others attempts to exclude inference from this debate is a perfect example of evasion of sensible debate

It is not a fact that the catalystic event mentioned in PNAC was 911. I agree in so far that it COULD have been. Pure and simple. By the same token, earth COULD have been created by god rather than by the big bang and ensuing gravitational forces.

If you are trying to argue that I am saying that they mentioned this event, thus they are guilty of it, you are wrong. I am merely stating that they deemed it propitious. Nothing else. Similarly, if the author of Genesis states that God looked at the world and thought it was good, then this is not proof that God created the world, or even that he looked at the world and thought it to be good; but simply that in the eyes of the author, Godlooked at the workd and deemed it good.

We have good evidence that the latter was the case, but it is still an inference which doesn't entirely exclude the first case. One of the central creationist arguments that earth was IN FACT created by god is the document called Bible, which, in vague and general terms describes the creation of earth by god. Without implying that you are actually a creationist, your train of thought in regard to 9/11 being a major event, predicted, orchestrated and executed (or acknowledged) by some specific, powerful entity (God, the GOV, Cheney, the CIA) is the exact same. IOW, it is as valid and as "useful" and as "proven" to say "earth was created by god" than to say "PNACs propitiousness statement referred to 9/11".

as above. Your points are all linked to the same misconception

 

[mjd1982]

And this letter from the PNAC to the president. Dated 1/23/2003




It sure doesn't seem like the WOT was what they had in mind. Maybe Bush didn't get the memo on how he was supposed to do things.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20030123.htm

As I have stated before, this is an example of execution, not of design. We all know about Bush's abilities of execution, so it shouldnt surprise us when he fails. Moreover, this is merely a smidgeon of the whole plan, the overwhelming proportion of which is being pursued.

 

[mjd1982]

No, the event that precipitated the US's going to war with Japan was Japan's going to war with the US. The Pearl Harbor attack was merely one manifestation of Japan's action.

Yes, the manifestation that propelled the US into full engagement in the war! Why must you keep hounding this insane point? Your thoughts on it are utterly irrelevant anyway, since evem if you do not believe that PH was th catalysing event that got the US into ww2, PNAC do believe it, and it is their mindset that we are looking at, not yours!

My point is that the US and Japan would still have been at war even if the Japanese had only attacked the Philippines, Guam, and Wake, rather than Pearl Harbor. Do you dispute this? If not, then you must concede that Pearl Harbor was not required for the US to enter the war against Japan, and thus clearly cannot by itself be considered "a catalyzing event that precipitated US involvement." Also, please explain how you believe that Pearl Harbor precipitated war between the other Axis powers and the US.

Ok, the US and Japan may wel have gone to war. Yet how you infer that this means that PH was not the event that catalysed them into war, is beyond me. I suspect the flat earth society will come calling for you soon. In any case, this is irrelevant, since as I have said, in the eyes of PNAC, (and the rest of the world), PH was indeed a catalysing event that got US into the war

Because I have a BA in American history, and have extensively studied World War II with particular emphasis on the Pacific War. But that's beside the point--the majority of knowledgeable, professional historians would tell you something similar. I imagine that doesn't matter to you, though, as you've evidently got everything all figured out.

Errr...

The attack spurred the U.S. into a declaration of war, and the United States officially entered World War II the next day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

The point is that the US would have joined the war whether Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor or not. See above.

No, this is not the point; the point is whther PH was the catalyst for US involvement in ww2.

No, this was not required, which was the point I was trying to make. FDR could have had a declaration of war without Pearl Harbor, or any Japanese attack at all; however, he elected to wait, in order to allow the Army and Navy more time to prepare.

It was required to gain the public backing that it subsequently did. They could have gone into war anytime he chose, more or less, but PH gave him the public support needed

It shows that Pearl Harbor was not required for the US to enter the war; Roosevelt could have simply asked for a declaration of war when he felt the military was ready. Also, I didn't say there were "movements for war in Congress"--I said that FDR "had the votes" had he chosen to ask for them.

No, but it was the catalyst for US involvement- hence why they entered the next day!

You are clearly attempting to twist what I wrote in an effort to belittle my argument. Pearl Harbor was a rallying cry for all Americans, both servicemen and -women and civilians. Perhaps you've heard the expression, "Remember Pearl Harbor?"

[qimg]http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/0/6/T/wwiip259.jpg[/qimg]

Hmmmm... this has a curious parallel with another event that happened quite recently, no?

Are you saying that Pearl Harbor was necessary for actual declarations of war on the Axis powers, or are you saying that American participation in the war would have been half-hearted without Pearl Harbor? If the former, this is wrong, as I have shown; if the latter, this is at best questionable.

Lol, neither! I am saying that it was the catalyst for US involvement in the war, and that it garnered public support for it. You may wanna resit that hstory BA

This is not a "basic historical fact." It is a popular misconception, a point that you seem unable to grasp because of your deep emotional investment in believing that the PNAC report is some sort of "smoking gun."

It is a statement of attitude towards a new PH

Please show an example where I claimed that inference is not admissible in a debate. Further, it's not an inference--it's clear from the following passage, as has been noted:

Well, you have attempted to belittle my use of inference just above

What was and is needed for the PNAC plan, first and foremost, is much more money, both from increased defense spending, and from canceling certain expensive programs. As shown below, this has not really happened.

Execution, not design- this is the 1st hurdle at which your point falls

Yes, that's why the JSF and the CVX have been canceled, because the PNAC plan has been so easy to push through, right? Also, you're not making any sense here. Why is a subterfuge needed to achieve this transformation? You've claimed that a shift in military thinking had already taken place, so who is being fooled?

As above, plus think about the need to get social and political opinion beind causes such as the Iraq invasion

Well, let's consider your honesty, mjd1982. Just as one example, you claimed that the large increase in defense spending after September 11 somehow achieved a goal of the PNAC plan, even after you were shown that virtually all of the money went for increased security (such as combat air patrols) and operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and not into transformation of the military. How can you claim with any degree of intellectual honesty that this is achieving the goals of PNAC?

Execution, not design.

The wars have been poorly executed, and hence funds have possibly not been available for other things. This is not to say they are not being pursued, actively, under the aegis of the WOT. Understand this distinction, and things will become clearer for you.

 

[mjd1982]

Opinion? What is? The fact that it has been contested? Have you not noticed how long this thread is? Seriously? And you still think you are not being contested?

The length of the thread is a perfect reflecton of the fact that issues are not being addressed. I have got tired of repeating myself, and of telling people to address points which they have no inclination to do. This is what has been taking up the space here. There are no serious challenges happening.

Exactly. You infered. They very clearly do not say what they want, they simply say what they think will happen given two different scenarios. All the rest is entirely your own opinion. Feel free to give some actual evidence to support it at any time, but simply claiming that you are the only serious person here does not magically make it true. Also, please note that there are still none of my collegeagues on this forum, so you really need to stop imagining that there are.

A perfect example of all of the points I have just made. I repeated to you, and the rest, many times so far that inference is admissible to sensible debate. To claim it is not is to try to evade sensible debate.

Yep, very easy. This is not a debate. We like facts and evidence, not waffling arguments about what kinds of opinion should be allowed. If you can't support your opinion then it carries no weight whatsoever. No-one is going to bother debating your inferences because that is all they are. Please bring some actual evidence to the table or just admit that you have nothing.

So you are stating that this is not a forum for debate now? Repeat the point about inference- how telling it is of your mindset...

Yes, the next adult step would be to say why. Oddly enough I did exactly that in the post you just replied to. I thought the bit where I said "a civilian terrorist attack on civilians is in no way similar to a military operation against military forces during a war" was fairly explicit really. Care to actually answer that point? After all, that's what an adult debater would do.

This has been answered time and time and time again. Read #493 (yes, another perfect illustration of my 1st point)

If you are a serious person here for serious discussion you will stop the pathetic patronising manner, since it is clear that most people here know far more than you about the events at hand.

nice gag!

For someone who tries to give the appearance of knowing so much about debate, you don't seem to know much about logical fallacies. That was not an ad hom attack. An ad hom would be saying that your arguments are wrong because you are a liar. I am saying that your arguments are wrong and you are a liar. There's an important difference. As for whether it was a lie or not, either you were lying or you made a claim having done absolutely no research whatsoever. Either way, it really doesn't make you look good.

And ad hom is an argument that tried to discredit it opposing argument by attacking the arguer (ad hom) rather than the point. Thus what you did was an ad hom

Your latter point is the most ironic piece of hypocrisy I have seen on this thread, It is you who has not done your research when commenting on what I said; "either you were lying or you made a claim having done absolutely no research whatsoever. Either way, it really doesn't make you look good."

Read it. There's nothing in it except your own personal opinion. No facts, no evidence.

as illustrated above, it is you who has not read this

Catastrophic in what sense? Military? Certainly not. Pearl Harbour was a military event. Which part of this do you find hard to understand? PNAC was talking about the military. A catastrophic military event could provide the impetus to drive military funding. No military catastrophy occured.

errrr... Ok, so if the japanese had bombed NY, it would not have catalysed entry to the war and hence an increase inmilitary spending an focus? What an absurd and desperate point

Catalysing? Not really. Has there been a massive change in military funding? No.

yes, it has increases significantly. #95

Has there been a change in how the military operates? No. In fact, 11/9 was actually the opposite of catalysing, since the changes planned for more technical wars were found not to work in the modern guerilla environment and so they have had to revert to older tactics.

again, read #95 and see (and hopefully understand) what changes are afoot. To repeatmyself again, the prime failing is tht you dont understand what the WOT constitutes; plus you cannot distinguish between execution and design

No, that is what you think PNAC really wanted. Your own inferences are not necessarily truth. Please stop pretending that you either know more than anyone else or are more intelligent than anyone else. You're only making yourself look silly.

Inference is admissible to debate, therefore eitheraccept it, or debate it.

 

[mjd1982]

Post #89 is a perfect example. You had plenty of places to go for your answers instead of this ridiculous thread. This only shows that you have no intention of looking for answers. You just want to argue for arguments sake. To belittle others to boost your own ego.

This post, like all OT posts here, has been dealt with by me at the top of the thread. I went through all the posts and responded to them accordingly.

This is a lie. Gravy, WildCat, Gumboot, Hokulele, DJM and Belz responded. You talk about honesty, yet you haven't shown much yourself.

Great gag. Please link me to these responses- note I said sensible responses

Your PNAC's "new PH" = 9/11 theory has been totally proven false. It has been shown that 9/11 has not been the "catastrophic and catalyzing" event to speed up it's recommendations when in fact the opposite has happened which has been shown in the above memos. So, can we now move on to WTC7?

You, as the rest of your camp, cannot distinguish betweem design and execution. Do that, and you will understand.

 

[mjd1982]

911 would have been viewed as propitious by AQ as well as PNAC. Hence it worked for both parties.

 

[mjd1982]

Simak, mjd doesn't realise that EVEN IF he were right about propitiousness, it wouldn't prove a thing about 9/11 being an inside job.

This is a step by step process. If the propitiousness can be realised, which it woudl be in any honest forum, then this will allow the sensible conclusion to be reached with minimal effort.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Standard troofer tactics. If the following were actually true:

.....when it comes to addressing the real hard facts, there is only one conclusion that a rational mind will come to, and it is that of the “Truth Movement” ....Namely, that there is sufficient evidence of US government complicity in 9/11 for an independent investigation to be held.

...would it REALLY be necessary to quibble about semantics for 49 pages?

ETA: Might I suggest we stop feeding the troll?

 

[JonnyFive]

mjd, if you're really interested in having an honest debate about these issues, please respond to the matters addressed in posts #697, #415, #1417, and #832.

 

[twinstead]

Great gag. Please link me to these responses- note I said sensible responses

It appears that the only sensible responses are ones that aren't contrary to your opinion.

You, as the rest of your camp, cannot distinguish betweem design and execution. Do that, and you will understand.

And YOU, as the rest of your camp, cannot distinguish between conjecture and fact. Do THAT, and YOU will understand.

 

[Belz...]

The belief in the OT version of events is one that is, I presume, shared by most on this board

Belief is not a factor, here.

and is by far and away the minority view in the US.

Evidence, please ? I have yet to see any indication that the truth movement is anything more than a fringe group of like-minded kool-aid drinkers.

Gerne! Ich wuerde gern auf Deutsch diskutieren. Ich habe fur drei Monate in Passau studiert, du siehst (auch habe ich Deutsch an der Universitaet Oxford studiert). Aber ich habe kein Deutsch seit lange Zeit gesprochen, also muess ich mich ueben, glaub'ich.

English, please.

that the position of the Truth movement is that there is sufficient evidence of government complicity in 911 for there to be a new investigation into such.

But there isn't. All you've done, so far, is state your interpretation of NON-WRITTEN words in the document in question. That is NOT sufficient for even suspicion.

This is the founding premise of everything I say here.

Indeed. And phantoms are seldom enough for a conviction.

This is a step by step process.

No, it isn't, because one does NOT follow from the other. EVEN if you were to convince me that it WAS propitious, it wouldn't give you ANY footing to argue the government's actual complicity in the event.

If the propitiousness can be realised, which it woudl be in any honest forum

I do believe THAT is an ad hominem.

then this will allow the sensible conclusion to be reached with minimal effort.

Ridiculous. Just because the death of my neighbor could be propitious to me, doesn't mean I'm a suspect when he does die.

 

[lapman]

Ok, the US and Japan may wel have gone to war. Yet how you infer that this means that PH was not the event that catalysed them into war, is beyond me. I suspect the flat earth society will come calling for you soon. In any case, this is irrelevant, since as I have said, in the eyes of PNAC, (and the rest of the world), PH was indeed a catalysing event that got US into the war

The catastrophic and catalyzing event that the PNAC is talking about has nothing to do with war. It is neither implied or inferred as such. The "new PH" the PNAC is referring to is the type of catastrophic and catalyzing event that causes the requirement of a radical change of military technology and doctrine. War and public opinion have nothing to do with it. 9/11 was not such an event. In fact, 9/11 and the ensuing WOT and Iraq war have had the opposite effect. The memos that have been posted is proof of that. 9/11 could not have been what PNAC was referring to, "by design," since it was a low tech attack. One other thing. Design mean nothing when the execution fails.

 

[lapman]

The wars have been poorly executed, and hence funds have possibly not been available for other things. This is not to say they are not being pursued, actively, under the aegis of the WOT. Understand this distinction, and things will become clearer for you.

Here again you show a complete lack of understanding of design and execution. The design and execution of the Iraq war and Afghanistan worked perfectly. It the lack of design of what to do afterwords that has kept us in Afghanistan and especially Iraq for so long. In Afghanistan, the capture of OBL was the only failure. However the overthrow of the Taliban succeeded. In Iraq, the mission was to overthrow Saddam and the Baath party. It was a complete success. It's the lack of any planing of what to do afterward, the constabulary role, that failed. Therefor the PNAC recommendations were not followed, so the "new PH" is irrelevant.

 

[Cuddles]

Other than to make the changes happen quicker. And of course, what is the corrollary to quicker? Easier. So if you are arguiing that they wanted the changes to happen slower, you are also saying they wanted the process to be harder. Explain.

Looks like we can add politics and economics to the list of things mjd doesn't understand. Quicker means easier? On which planet exactly? We are talking about proposed changes to the funding, organisation and operation of one of the entire US military, one of the biggest organisations on the planet. And you seriously believe that it is easier to quickly, as opposed to, say, over several decades as set out in the PNAC document? Ever wondered why governments and companies have 5 and 10 year plans rather than 5 week plans? Could it be because doing things very quickly is not the best way of doing them? This question just betrays your utter lack of comprehension about how the world actually works.

 

[Cuddles]

A perfect example of all of the points I have just made. I repeated to you, and the rest, many times so far that inference is admissible to sensible debate. To claim it is not is to try to evade sensible debate.

So you are stating that this is not a forum for debate now? Repeat the point about inference- how telling it is of your mindset...

Now you're nearly getting it. This is not a forum for pointless semantic arguments, which is what you seem to mean when you say "debate". It is a forum for evidence and debate about that evidence. If you think you have joined some kind of university debating society that is in any way interested in what you think is "admissable" then you are sadly mistaken. Please stick to actual facts, not your opinion about what something says that no-one else agrees with.

This has been answered time and time and time again. Read #493 (yes, another perfect illustration of my 1st point)

You can keep saying this as much as you like, you still haven't actually answered it. A military act of war is not a civilian terrorist attack and never will be.

nice gag!

It was not a gag. If you are here for serious debate you should at least pretend to be taking it seriously.

And ad hom is an argument that tried to discredit it opposing argument by attacking the arguer (ad hom) rather than the point. Thus what you did was an ad hom

I rest my case. You do not know what an ad hom attack is. I was not trying to discredit you, your own arguments have done that perfectly well all by themselves. Pointing out your other flaws in addition to dismantaling your arguments is not an ad hom. An insult, yes, but not ad hom in any way.

Your latter point is the most ironic piece of hypocrisy I have seen on this thread, It is you who has not done your research when commenting on what I said; "either you were lying or you made a claim having done absolutely no research whatsoever. Either way, it really doesn't make you look good."

You said that a 33% increase in spending was unprecedented. You were proven wrong by a simple Google search. Either you knew it was not unprecedented and lied about it or you failed to do the most basic research that a primary school student could be expected to manage. There is nothing vaguely ironic or hypocritcal in me pointing this out.

as illustrated above, it is you who has not read this

Illustrated above? No it isn't. You have claimed to have answered many things, but you have not actually done so. Simply claiming that it is answered above yet again still does not actually do so.

errrr... Ok, so if the japanese had bombed NY, it would not have catalysed entry to the war and hence an increase inmilitary spending an focus? What an absurd and desperate point

Would you like to point out where I said this? Or would you like to take that pile of straw somewhere else?

yes, it has increases significantly. #95

No, it hasn't. As I pointed out in my original post, which you still haven't actually tried to respond to despite your repeated claims, military spending has remained at its lowest levels since the end of WWII.

again, read #95 and see (and hopefully understand) what changes are afoot. To repeatmyself again, the prime failing is tht you dont understand what the WOT constitutes; plus you cannot distinguish between execution and design

I have still read it. Despite your apparent delusions, once I have read something I cannot go back an un-read it. I read it when it was posted and I will still have read it at every point in the future. Please stop telling everyone to go back and read things that they have already read and responded to.

And once again, just in case you actually didn't read the post you just replied to, the changes that were being put in place prior to 11/9 have actually had to be undone in many cases because it was found that they were not at all appropriate to the realities of war in the 21st century.

Inference is admissible to debate, therefore eitheraccept it, or debate it.

No. It is your opinion and is not supported by any evidence or any other person. It is up to you to support it or it will just be ignored.

Great gag. Please link me to these responses- note I said sensible responses

You, as the rest of your camp, cannot distinguish betweem design and execution. Do that, and you will understand.

Since you are such an honest and serious debater, please immediately withdraw your attribution of these comments to me. Lying about who said what doesn't seem to be the best way to get this honest debate you so desperately whine about not having.

 

[Augustine]

This is only true if all succeeding administrations continue the policy. Now, if the WoT is going to be as attractive as the War on Drugs, perhaps, but given its current ill standing, your presumption of inertia is based on

What? Exactly?

I can conceive of it ending, and returnig to a policy more similar to the Clinton era law enforcement style approach. Not hard to do. Look for a change in 2008.

DR, always enjoy your posts and experience. Did you see McCaffrey's recent report where he effectively said that the military needed to use 2008 as a planning horizon? What do you think about his assessment? I thought his report was pretty on-target, a lot of head-nodding on my end.

 

[lapman]

Why? Explain yourself, dont just make assertions. These assertions look all the more silly given that PH catalysed public and political opinon, not just military, which is the point of RAD. Again, very simple to understand.

Yes, simple to understand, but irrelevant when it comes to the PNAC reference.

right, well why is there then so much sabre rattling of invasion of Iraq? Again, a catastrophically slack reading of the doc...

...on your part. Iraq and the PNAC document have nothing in common.

Other than to make the changes happen quicker. And of course, what is the corrollary to quicker? Easier. So if you are arguiing that they wanted the changes to happen slower, you are also saying they wanted the process to be harder. Explain.

Wrong. Quicker is not necessarily easier. In terms of R&D and doctrine change, it's immensely harder, especially when the need of radical change in not required. Either way, the PNAC document did not make any type of implication that this was required, needed or wanted. You have been asked several times to show this in the document and you have yet to do so.

Oh, and learn the difference between imply and infer

Noted, and you do the same.

Well, interesting, but since there is nothing of substance there, I cannot really say anything more

A perfect example of how you ignore the content. You simply refuse to admit when you are wrong. Your post are becoming more and more condescending, which shows that you are losing the battle, so you switch tactics and claim that nobody is responding.

How was Vietnam a fault of design- the design in question being that the establishment of a US client regime in S. Vietnam would help US interests in the area and check communist expansion? How is this design wrong?

The design was to use military advisers to accomplish this. When this design was executed, it was found to be faulty so they had to change the design to include US troops and air power in a limited sense, which also proved faulty when executed.

Haha, which is very much on its way to happening!

Not necessarily true. Please provide proof.

Once again, since you have chosen to post with zero substance, I dont know what you expect me to say

Read: O crap, he's right. I better blow this off somehow.

Oh really? And how so?

The second reference illustrates how PH required a radical change in both technology and doctrine. Since the first reference also strictly refers to the military, it is directly related to the second reference.

Incidentally, if I refer to 2 broad analogies separately in a document, or indeed a piece of literature, you do know that this does not mean that both have the same import dont you?

Yes I do. Do you understand that in the PNAC document they do have the same import? If not, I'll try to use pictures so you'll be able to understand.

I suspect you dont, but understand this, and the point will become clearer to you.

I do perfectly. At some point, you will pull your head out of the brown spot that bubbles and see reality.

Again, understand the difference between a project being pursued in peacetime, and in wartime, and the haze will clear from your thinking. If it doesnt, let me know and I will try and explain it more simply for you.

see above

I suspect that you are not aware of the true meaning of "response".

Yes I do. Let me educate you:

re·sponse (rĭ-spŏns')
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English respons, from Old French, from Latin respōnsum from neuter past participle of respondēre, to respond; see respond.]

noun
The act of responding.
A reply or an answer.
A reaction, as that of an organism or a mechanism, to a specific stimulus.

In saying that your post #95 is a response, by definition, hence, by the true meaning.

Equally I suspect it is you who are not ready to "tackle" WTC7, in any useful meaning of the word.

Read: You debunked me on SLC, I'm not ready for you to do it again here.

So, let's talk about WTC7. Danny Jowenko made is comments based on the last 6 seconds of muted video and only told that WTC was on fire. Nothing else. The damage, as stated int the NIST documents, was not addressed since he had no knowledge of it. Studying the floor plan is not being well versed in what happened to WTC7. Studying all the information including the NIST documents is. As far as the eyewitness, any sound like an explosion that occured immediatly prior to the collapse of the main structure would have been the sounds of the roof collapse that started 8 seconds prior to the main structure collapse. Add to this the fact that there is no recorded sound of the so-called explosives which would have been heard for blocks, if not miles. Even the video that you will post of the collapse to try to show that there was too much sound has the clear sound of the collapse and then silence. So your assurtion that there was too much noise is false. Since there were thousands of gallons of diesel fuel in the building, comments like, "it's going to blow up" would make sense. Since there were distinct signs of immenent collapse, comments like, "it's going to come down" would also make sense.

Your turn.

 

[nicepants]

The belief in the OT version of events is one that is, I presume, shared by most on this board, and is by far and away the minority view in the US.

1 - Just because we don't believe the Government did it, doesn't mean we believe every facet of the OT.

2 - Are you trying to say that a majority of Americans believe the Government did it? (We'll need a source for that)

 

[Unsecured Coins]

here comes the 84% poll claim in 3, 2...