Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:19 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you guys underestimate the neocons. Sure, the Iraq war now looks like a mess, and it could be argued that the neocons who instigated this war are dumb and incompetent for not anticipating what would happen or being so completely wrong about the WMD.

Here's the thing: the neocons are not dumb, and they DID see all this coming, just like those of us who criticized the war before it even started. The problem is, they didn't care that this would happen. It was a neccessary step along the way to accomplish their goals. They knew full well that the Iraq war would not be over in a week or two, despite their public statements to the contrary. I had posted a turkish news report before the war, in which the American ambassador to Turkey was quoted as saying the US would remain in Iraq for 20 years. Back then, rednecks called me nuts, and ridiculed the turkish media for making up fairy tales. A few months later, the official estimate of how long the US would remain in Iraq suddenly increased, from weeks, to months, to years, to decades. Soon after, the first reports of permanent US bases surfaced.

Although Bush and co now pretend these are recent developments, brought on by an "unexpected" insurgency, and an "invitation" by the new Iraqi (puppet) government to keep US troops in Iraq, the secret plan had always been to establish a PERMANENT US foothold in Iraq - long before anyone in the US wanted to believe it. By now it's common knowledge that the US will establish permanent bases there. But before the war, those of us who knew it was coming, thanks to the article in the turkish newspaper, were treated like conspiracy nuts.

When we complained about how dumb Americans are for believing the garbage in Powell's UN speech about Anthrax factories and mobile labs, it wasn't that Powell really didn't know better. He DID know better. Remember those reports of him privately yelling "I'm not reading this bullshit?"

The Downing Street memos confirm once again what we have known all along: The Iraq war was a huge scam. Bush and co had planned all along to invade Iraq and deliberately cooked up an excuse to invade.

That much has come to the surface by now. They calculated and deceived in cold blood, and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people have died as a result.

To believe they could never be so evil as to kill 3000 Americans in a false flag operation is naive in my opinion. There is absolutely NOTHING these people are not capable of.

The other reason why some people don't want to believe the possibility that Bush and co might be behind 9/11 is because we look at them as incompetent fools for screwing up Iraq so badly, getting the intelligence all wrong, etc.

But that is not the case. They brilliantly scammed, schemed and lied us to the point where we are today. They deliberately cherrypicked intelligence reports to create the figleaf for the invasion. It's not that they were dumb or incompetent. They were cunning, ruthless, and deceptive.

These people (not Bush) are absolutely brilliant. When Rumsfeld and co now act all befuddled and say "Ahh, shucks, who could have seen this coming?" they're lying once again.

They KNEW the Iraq war would not reduce terrorism, but increase it. Just as those of us who opposed the Iraq war, knew this all along. But combating terrorism was NEVER the reason for this war. If even armchair critics like us could forsee what would happen, and dozens of US and UK experts came forward before the war to warn Bush and co of what would happen, it's naive to believe they were really so out of touch with reality that they didn't know what was going to happen.

The Iraq war never made sense from a "war on terrorism" standpoint. It only made sense from a "we need their oil" standpoint. The neocons are not a bunch of hapless numbnuts. They are exactly where they wanted to be, and did exactly what they wanted to do, for reasons they will never admit publicly, because colonial wars for resources are no longer politically correct.

It's difficult to wrap your mind around just how unbelievably ruthless, coldblooded and immoral their schemes are. It's easier to just tell yourself, "well, they're just a bunch of idiots who royally screwed up."

But as I've pointed out several times in the past, long before they got into power, the neocons have written books and policy statements about what they wanted to do, about American world dominace, control over the world's energy reserves, the American's public hesistance to support oil wars, and the need for a Pearl Harbor like event to get the ball rolling. These things can't just be dismissed as weird little coincidences. Not after these people have been exposed as criminal liars, whose lies resulted in the deaths of countless innocent people.

It may sound like a mind-boggling movie-like conspiracy, but I think 9/11 was a false flag operation. And whoever was responsible for the false flag Anthrax attacks, was also responsible for the false flag 9/11 attacks. Go read up on the Anthrax attacks and refresh your memory of what the notes said, who they were sent to, and how they referenced 9/11, and how the media was abuzz with speculation that Iraq was behind the Anthrax attacks. Then think of all the lies Bush and Cheney and co have told us to lead us to believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. To this very day, millions of Americans still believe that Iraq was behind 9/11.

If someone had wanted to cause a truly horrible disaster, and truly cripple the US, flying a plane into the nuclear powerplant 35 miles north of New York would have been far more devastating. It would be silly to assume the hijackers, whoever they were, didn't know that.

They just had a documentary about that nuclear powerplant on HBO. Some people like to claim that the cement walls of the powerplant could withstand a plane crash. The document proved that to be false, and the plane could have been crashed into any of the unprotected buildings and caused a core meltdown without ever having to penetrate any thick cement walls.

The resulting contamination would have made the entire city of New York uninhabitable for thousands of years. The airspace above the nuclear powerplant is not restricted or protected (even now, after 9/11) and one of the hijacked planes actually flew right over the powerplant as it approached the WTC. So, why not go for the target that would inflict maximum chaos and destruction?

Now look at the Anthrax attacks that happened one week later and referenced 9/11 in those handwritten notes as if both were committed by the same people. Why were only a handful of those letters sent? Why to media heads, rather than contaminate vital areas, like the food supply? Why were the notes made to look like they came from Arabs, although it has become clear that no Arab could have gotten his hands on this particular strain of Anthrax? There were far worse things they could have done with Anthrax. But they didn't. Just like the 9/11 attacks, they didn't go for maximum casualties or desctruction, they went for symbolism and hype instead. Whoever was behind 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks went for maximum media effect, as if the goal of both attacks was not to inflict maximum damage, but sway public opinion... create a bloodthirsty warlust in America, just as the neocons had written a few years earlier when they spoke of the need for a Pearl Harbor like event to get their policies started.

How many people had ever even heard the word Anthrax before those letters were sent to the media? And it just so happens that Anthrax was the main topic of Powell's speech about the need to invade Iraq. How convenient. As if the perpetrators of the Anthrax attack sent out those letters just so that Bush and co would have a convenient reason to invade Iraq, while keeping any actual damage from the Anhrax letters to a minimum, but getting maximum media coverage to make sure everyone in America knew how dangerous Anthrax can be, in time for ]Powell's UN speech. Would his speech have had the same effect on Americans if there had not been those Anthrax letters? Would anyone in America have cared about the little white vial Powell held up, if there hadn't been those Anthrax letters?

It was all part of the road that led us to invading Iraq. Today, thanks to the Downing Street memos, we know Bush and co had decided to invade Iraq long before he publicly admitted it, and thanks to Wolfowitz' interview in Vanity Fair we know that WMD were just an excuse they used to rally support for the war. But would that excuse have worked as well as it did, if there had not been those Anthrax letters? Anthrax letters that could not possibly have come from any Arabs, because it was a US strain of weaponized Anthrax to which only high US government officials with top clearance had access? And yet the Anthrax letters were made to look like Arabs sent them, and the letters referenced 9/11 as if the same people who sent the Anthrax letters were also the people responsible for 9/11.

Think about that for a while. Don't just dismiss it because you don't think the neocons could be ruthless enough or smart enough to instigate deception on such a grand scale.

To just assume that the Anthrax attacks and 9/11 are unrelated and it was just a coincidence that they happened at almost the same time or ignore that the latter attack (Anthrax) referenced the earlier attack (9/11) is pretty naive in my opinion.

Last edited by Mr. Perfect on Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:11 am; edited 15 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. Perfect
Reliable Source


Joined: 25 Nov 2003
Posts: 2303


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Mr. Perfect wrote:

It may sound like a mind-boggling movie-like conspiracy, but I think 9/11 was a false flag operation. And whoever was responsible for the false flag Anthrax attacks, was also responsible for the false flag 9/11 attacks. Go read up on the Anthrax attacks and refresh your memory of what the notes said, who they were sent to, and how they referenced 9/11, and how the media was abuzz with speculation that Iraq was behind the Anthrax attacks. Then think of all the lies Bush and Cheney and co have told us to lead us to believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. To this very day, millions of Americans still believe that Iraq was behind 9/11.


Here we go again:

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqbushattacks

Quote:

Sat Jun 18, 1:15 PM ET

Bush says US is in Iraq because of attacks on US

President George W. Bush defended the war in Iraq, telling Americans the United States was forced into war because of the September 11 terror strikes.

Bush also resisted calls for him to set a timetable for the return of thousands of US troops deployed in Iraq, saying Iraqis must be able to defend their own country before US soldiers can be pulled out.

"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.


You guys tell me... do you think those are the words of a complete moron who honestly doesn't know that Iraq didn't attack the US? Or are those words written by cunning propaganda experts who know how to create false impressions in the minds of the gullible redneck masses?

And you better believe that Bush and co would be using the Anthrax attacks in the same brilliant way in their speeches, as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq, if independent scientists had not discovered that the weaponized Anthrax was a strain only found in a handful of highly restricted US WMD laboratories.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEE ALSO:

Bush says US was forced into Iraq war because of September 11 attacks
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqbushattacks
portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319797.shtml

homepage: homepage: www.newsnation.net/forum/viewtopic.php