• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conspiracy Facts: The Poll

Was 911 propitious for PNAC policy?

  • Total voters
    91
  • Poll closed .

Brainache

Nasty Brutish and Tall
Brainache
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
17,795
Location
Canberra
In a possibly futile attempt to move mjd1982's Conspiracy Facts thread past a substantial stumbling block, I have decided to ask the forum to vote.

So: Has mjd demonstrated that 911 was propitious to the PNAC policy as set out in the RAD document?


If you don't know what I'm talking about then maybe you could read the 9/11 conspiracy facts thread, or not. The choice is yours, but I warn you if words like propitious and extended chains of acronyms offend you perhaps you should do something more constructive, like bog snorkeling.


ETA: This is a public poll.
 
Last edited:
Do people actually debate whether or not 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan was exactly what PNAC prescribed in their manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defenses"?

Oh boy, the level of sycophancy to try and spin blame away from the neo cons must be something to behold.

For the sake of debate, 9/11 was pulled off by OBL and AQ. It's still absolutely clear that this was a neo con dream come true that gave Bush a blank check so that the defense industry and assorted contractors could cash in on the extraordinary business of war and occupation.
 
But the actual plan as set out in the document which famously mentions a new Pearl Harbor is (as far as I can tell) nothing like what has happened since 9/11.

The plan calls for a particular course of action to reach the neo-con goals. 9/11 caused the USG to throw that plan away and start acting like a bunch of gangsters out for revenge. By doing this they have actually lessened their prestige and made much of the world more hostile to the US than they might have otherwise been.

So 9/11 was a complete disaster for US foreign policy and the neo-con authors of the PNAC document (amongst others).
 
Brainache said:
In a possibly futile attempt to move mjd1982's Conspiracy Facts thread past a substantial stumbling block, I have decided to ask the forum to vote.

So: Has mjd demonstrated that 911 was propitious to the PNAC policy as set out in the RAD document?


If you don't know what I'm talking about then maybe you could read the 9/11 conspiracy facts thread, or not. The choice is yours, but I warn you if words like propitious and extended chains of acronyms offend you perhaps you should do something more constructive, like bog snorkeling.


ETA: This is a public poll.
Click to expand...

All mjd has demonstrated is that he believes it was propitious.
 
Brainache said:
But the actual plan as set out in the document which famously mentions a new Pearl Harbor is (as far as I can tell) nothing like what has happened since 9/11.

The plan calls for a particular course of action to reach the neo-con goals. 9/11 caused the USG to throw that plan away and start acting like a bunch of gangsters out for revenge. By doing this they have actually lessened their prestige and made much of the world more hostile to the US than they might have otherwise been.

So 9/11 was a complete disaster for US foreign policy and the neo-con authors of the PNAC document (amongst others).
Click to expand...
Wel, impressed though I am that you have managed to spot and even understand the oft repeated "propitious" in my thread, you have neither spotted, nor understood the equally oft repeated refrain of "Learn to differentiate between design and execution".

This should not have been hard to understand, but never mind.
 
RedIbis said:
Do people actually debate whether or not 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan was exactly what PNAC prescribed in their manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defenses"?
Click to expand...

I'll believe it if you can show me the PNAC quote that says "we gotta invade Afghanistan and Iraq."

Can you?
 
mjd1982 said:
Wel, impressed though I am that you have managed to spot and even understand the oft repeated "propitious" in my thread, you have neither spotted, nor understood the equally oft repeated refrain of "Learn to differentiate between design and execution".

This should not have been hard to understand, but never mind.
Click to expand...

So the "design" that they devoted the entire document to was just trivial to them? The important part was the single sentence about the new Pearl Harbor? They spent all this time trying to push a plan that they didn't really think was all that important?

What you don't seem to understand is that because of 9/11 the PNAC "design" was not "executed". 9/11 rendered the whole typefest moot.

How can 9/11 be "propitious" to a policy which it destroyed?
 
I suspect that if the “New Pearl Harbour” that was 9/11 had been directly comparable with its ancestor (in other words, if it had been a straightforward attack from an easily defined foreign military power) as opposed to comparable in more of a metaphorical sense, then it would have been “propitious” for the Project for the New American Century.
 
I don't doubt that 9/11 benefitted certain political types in some ways, that doesn't mean they were behind it though.
 
Civilized Worm said:
I don't doubt that 9/11 benefitted certain political types in some ways, that doesn't mean they were behind it though.
Click to expand...

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.
 
RedIbis said:
I'm not very much interested in what is required for your belief. You might read the document and decide for yourself what it says.
Click to expand...

I read it and didn't see the part where it says "invade Afghanistan and Iraq."

You've obviously found the incriminating words. Quote it for me.
 
RedIbis said:
But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.
Click to expand...



Isn’t the idea “who benefits?” as opposed to “who benefits the most?” Further, doesn’t that stage come after evaluating the evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom