Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Deep Creek Hot Springs

The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (87% of Full)


Advanced

Re: SC38

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

February 28, 2007 11:36PM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20070228&articleId=4961

Neocon Imperialism, 9/11, and the Attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq

............What was this agenda? It was, in essence, that the United States should use its military supremacy to establish an empire that includes the whole world--a global Pax Americana. Three major means to this end were suggested. One of these was to make U.S. military supremacy over other nations even greater, so that it would be completely beyond challenge. This goal was to be achieved by increasing the money devoted to military purposes, then using this money to complete the “revolution in military affairs” made possible by the emergence of the information age. The second major way to achieve a global Pax Americana was to announce and implement a doctrine of preventive-preemptive war, usually for the sake of bringing about “regime change” in countries regarded as hostile to U.S. interests and values. The third means toward the goal of universal empire was to use this new doctrine to gain control of the world’s oil, especially in the Middle East, most immediately Iraq.

In discussing these ideas, I will include recognitions by some commentators that without 9/11, the various dimensions of this agenda could not have been implemented. My purpose in publishing this essay is to introduce a perspective, relevant to the debates about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, that thus far has not been part of the public discussion.............

............................Conclusion

The attacks of 9/11 allowed the imperialist agenda of leading neoconservatives to be implemented. Can we infer from this effect that the hope to have this agenda fulfilled was one of the motives for the 9/11 attacks? Of course not. One of the basic principles of criminal investigations, however, is the question: Who benefits? Those who most benefit from the crime are usually the most likely suspects. But an answer to that question cannot by itself be used as proof of the suspects’ guilt. The prosecution must also show that the suspects had the means and the opportunity to commit the crime. It must also present evidence that the suspects actually committed the crime---at least indirect evidence, perhaps by showing that they were the only ones who could have done it.

I have elsewhere presented evidence---what I first called prima facie evidence but now call overwhelming evidence148---that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by leading members of the Bush-Cheney administration. This evidence includes many reasons to conclude that the official accounts of the World Trade Center collapses, the attack on the Pentagon, the crash of United Airlines Flight 93, and the failure of the U.S. military to intercept the other flights cannot be true. This evidence also includes many reasons to conclude that The 9/11 Commission Report involved a systematic cover-up of dozens of facts that conflict with the official conspiracy theory about 9/11, according to which the attacks were conceived and carried out entirely by al-Qaeda---evidence that instead points to official complicity. One example of this evidence is the fact that the Commission changed by about 45 minutes the time at which Vice President Cheney went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center under the White House, thereby indicating that he could not have been responsible, as evidence suggests, for allowing the strike on the Pentagon and ordering the downing of UA 93.149

Many people, to be sure, feel that there is no need to examine the evidence that the attacks were arranged by members of the Bush administration because they feel certain, on a priori grounds, that it simply would not have done such a thing. Having addressed most of those grounds elsewhere, I have here dealt with only one of them, which is often phrased as a rhetorical question: What motive could they possibly have had for arranging attacks on their own citizens?

Having suggested that the motive was to have a pretext to turn the neocon agenda into national policy, I should add that it is probably only the neocons in office, and even only some of them, who should be suspected of involvement in the planning for 9/11. To say that 9/11 allowed the agenda of the neocons in general to be implemented does not imply that many or even any neocons outside the government were involved in the planning for, or even had advance knowledge of, the attacks of 9/11. About eight months after 9/11, for example, William Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote pieces urging the Bush-Cheney administration to undertake an investigation to see if the attacks might have been prevented. Gary Dorrien, reporting that this call “earned a sharp rebuke from Cheney,” adds that “the Bush administration had no intention of allowing an investigation on that subject.”

NO GENUINE INVESTIGATION has been carried out to this day. If Congress would authorize such an investigation, the American people, I am convinced, would see that the grounds for impeaching Bush and Cheney are even stronger than those that have been part of the public discussion thus far. They would also see that the reasons for opposing the war in Iraq are even stronger than those publicly discussed thus far, because it was from the start an imperialistic war based on a false-flag operation (as well as additional lies). They would even see that, although many critics of the administration have said that we should pull our troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan, our attack on that country was no more legitimate ( purpose being to build permanent military bases, and to protect energy piplines coming from the countries rich in oil and gas to the north of Afganistan )...................

I saw David Ray Griffin ( Author of The New Pearl Harbor ) on Free Speech TV recently, in an event with Ray McGovern, and others of the 9-11 Truth Movement. Mr Griffin is an excellent speaker, and a much needed 9-11 activist, who is working diligently with others to bring to the awareness of the general Amercan Public the knowledge that a monumental fraud has been perpetrated by parties in our government, regarding 9-11. This article is lengthy, but well worth your time, discussing in depth some of the more relevant issues regarding the deeper " truths " of the 9-11 event. The crimminals in our goverment who were involved with facilitating 9-11, just want you to believe thier lies about this horrific event, but true men of honor, are doing thier utmost best, to shine the light of a real, honest investigation on the countless glaring discrepancies that exist, in the " official explanation " of just what happened on 9-11, and why.
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

SC38

Wizard 1082February 28, 2007 10:29PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 929February 28, 2007 10:54PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 597February 28, 2007 11:36PM

Re: SC38

LaughingBear 669March 01, 2007 09:58PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 605March 02, 2007 08:16PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 791March 02, 2007 08:30PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 755March 02, 2007 09:45PM

Re: SC38

mojavegreen 730March 03, 2007 07:49PM

Re: SC38

Rick 881March 03, 2007 08:17PM

Re: SC38

mojavegreen 688March 03, 2007 08:51PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 622March 05, 2007 11:03PM

Re: SC38

mojavegreen 666March 06, 2007 07:31AM

Re: SC38

Paul P. 703March 06, 2007 05:27PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 684March 07, 2007 05:48PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 740March 07, 2007 07:07PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 661March 07, 2007 10:00PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 714March 09, 2007 01:35PM

House of cards?

mojavegreen 717March 09, 2007 06:08PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 596March 09, 2007 02:11PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 720March 10, 2007 09:32PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 1406March 10, 2007 10:10PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login