| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Red Vein Kratom |
| |||||||
 iglou enthusiast Registered: 03/08/02 Posts: 295 |
| ||||||
|
And George Bush 1 put forth an agenda of the New World Order over 10 years ago. That hasnt come to pass yet.
Well, they are still pushing for it. Case in point: PNAC I still fail to see why. What did they gain by this? Besides shattering the U.S. economy and giving conspiracy theorists something to talk about? The concept of a "new Pearl Harbor" is not mine. To answer your question why the empire-builders would desire such an event, see the PNAC document. Oh, no. Thats why we spend hundreds of millions of dollars every in the joint program with the Russians to monitor and destroy their nuclear weapons, as well as train their military to guard those that are operational. Simply a drop in the bucket. Quite telling of their intentions, given the magnitude of the problem over in the former Soviet Union versus the unknown and unproven existence of WMD in places such as Iraq. Do you do ANY research before you make statements? Yes, I do research. Do you? So, by your somewhat dubious logic, we should be invading France next? Hmm...Whadday think? Pas-de-Calais? Or should we try Normandy again? Put up to a cost-benefit analysis, a military campaign against France or Germany or Russia would be a utter failure, obviously. Other "punishments" however could be applied. There's a whole spectrum of possible "punishments" for those who dare cross the Washington Consensus. Pay attention as these "punishments" will gradually emerge against the so-called Old Europe. Could this be because Israel is the only stable, democratic, pro-U.S government in the region?? What should we be doing, Giving military aid to Syria? Iran? Blatant anti-semitism has no place here. Birds of a feather flock together. The American government has a long history with befriending and aiding bloody right-wing authoritarian regimes. Is it news to you that the United States has been the "Global Police Force" of the world since the end of WW2? Its not like this is something "New for '02". No, it is not "new" - rather, the police actions of the US are growing. Those in power desire more policing. See the PNAC. Get your mind out of your conspiracy theorist books, read a page or 2 of history, and maybe you'll be able to make a bit better of a point next time. Resorting to ad hominem attacks is the sign of someone who has no solid counter-argument. But regardless, this is not a "conspiracy theory" whatever that means. Simply a critique of the PNAC and an observation on how their Pax Americana agenda is materializing. Curious - did you even read the document or researched the subject of the PNAC further than what has been posted on this messageboard? Go ahead and lie.
| |||||||
|
silversoul7 Chill the FuckOu   Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
|
I went to their website today and looked at some of the old letters they sent, and notice that they no longer had Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, or Don Rumsfeld's names on them. I guess they figured out that having their names on there was likely to lead to suspicion of the administration's motives.
--------------------   "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire 
Edited by silversoul7 (05/02/03 12:18 AM)
| |||||||
|
iglou enthusiast Registered: 03/08/02 Posts: 295 |
| ||||||
|
at the same time their military were attacking and intimidating foreign and independent journalists?
Dream on. The nightmare is real, my friend. A Lethal Way To Dispatch News by Norman Solomom April 10 2003 In times of war, journalists can serve as vital witnesses for the people of the world. So it's especially sinister when governments take aim at reporters and photographers. A few weeks ago, when I was talking with a CNN cameraman, he recalled an overseas stint to cover events in the West Bank. Anger was evident in his voice: "The Israelis were shooting at us." When military forces are assaulting civilians, commanders often try to prevent media from telling true stories with pictures and words. Governments that maim and kill civilians are routinely eager to stop journalists from getting too close to the action. Those who persist are vulnerable to retribution. For a long time now, the U.S. government has been hostile toward the Al-Jazeera television network. Widely watched in the Arab world, Al-Jazeera's coverage of the war on Iraq has been in sharp contrast to the coverage on American television. As Time magazine observed: "On U.S. TV it means press conferences with soldiers who have hand and foot injuries and interviews with POWs' families, but little blood. On Arab and Muslim TV it means dead bodies and mourning." Back in 2001, with the United States at war in Afghanistan, the Pentagon bombed Al-Jazeera's bureau in Kabul. This year, during the lead-up to the war in Iraq, Al-Jazeera repeatedly informed the U.S. military of the exact coordinates of the network's office in downtown Baghdad. On April 8, a U.S. missile hit that Al-Jazeera office, taking the life of Tareq Ayub, a 34-year-old Jordanian journalist. A coincidence? A mere accident? I don't think so. The same day, a U.S. tank fired a shell at the Palestine Hotel, where most foreign journalists have been based lately in Baghdad. The assault killed Taras Protsyuk of the Reuters news agency and Jose Couso of the Spanish network Telecinco. Explanations from the Pentagon have not been credible. "U.S. Central Command first said troops came under fire from the (hotel) lobby, while the field commander said whatever fire had been headed toward his troops was wiped out with a single tank round into the upper floors of the hotel," the AFX news agency reported. "But after a journalist questioned why the tank shot the upper floors when fire had come from the lobby, Central Command issued a revised statement saying there had been 'significant enemy fire.'" However, the journalists who were eyewitnesses flatly contradicted that claim, saying no weapons fire had emanated from the hotel. "There was no shooting at all," said French TV cameraman Herve De Ploeg. "Then I saw the turret turning in our direction and the carriage lifting. It faced the target." He insisted: "It was not a case of instinctive firing." The U.S. government's response has been to scold journalists for trying to do their jobs. "We continue to warn news organizations about the dangers," said the Pentagon's Victoria Clarke, who added: "We've had conversations over the last couple of days, news organizations eager to get their people unilaterally into Baghdad. We are saying it is not a safe place, you should not be there." The key word in Clarke's statement was "unilaterally" -- as opposed to "embedded" with U.S. troops. Decoding the Pentagon's message to journalists isn't too difficult: If you don't play by our rules, you're much more likely to find yourself on a stretcher -- or dead. I certainly wouldn't argue with the father of the journalist killed by the U.S. missile that hit the Al-Jazeera office in Baghdad. "My son is a martyr who was killed as a result of America's so-called civilization in an attack on press freedom," said Naeem Ayub. He added: "They are attacking journalists to hide the truth." Civil libertarians in the United States worry aloud that government pressures and corporate dominance can have a "chilling effect" on freedom of the press. We should not forget that it can also be chilling for journalists to see their colleagues killed as part of a governmental pattern. The day after Tareq Ayub died, Al-Jazeera moved to evacuate its employees. "I believe that none of them is safe anymore, whether in Baghdad or the rest of Iraq," said editor-in-chief Ibrahim Hilal, "even those who are with American troops." No doubt the media spinners in Washington look forward to the departure of Al-Jazeera's journalists from liberated Iraq. ~~~~~~~ Does the US Military Want To Kill Journalists? by Robert Fisk April 09, 2003 First the Americans killed the correspondent of al-Jazeera yesterday and wounded his cameraman. Then, within four hours, they attacked the Reuters television bureau in Baghdad, killing one of its cameramen and a cameraman for Spain's Tele 5 channel and wounding four other members of the Reuters staff. Was it possible to believe this was an accident? Or was it possible that the right word for these killings ? the first with a jet aircraft, the second with an M1A1 Abrams tank ? was murder? These were not, of course, the first journalists to die in the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Terry Lloyd of ITV was shot dead by American troops in southern Iraq, who apparently mistook his car for an Iraqi vehicle. His crew are still missing. Michael Kelly of The Washington Post tragically drowned in a canal. Two journalists have died in Kurdistan. Two journalists ? a German and a Spaniard ? were killed on Monday night at a US base in Baghdad, with two Americans, when an Iraqi missile exploded amid them. And we should not forget the Iraqi civilians who are being killed and maimed by the hundred and who ? unlike their journalist guests ? cannot leave the war and fly home. So the facts of yesterday should speak for themselves. Unfortunately for the Americans, they make it look very like murder. The US jet turned to rocket al-Jazeera's office on the banks of the Tigris at 7.45am local time yesterday. The television station's chief correspondent in Baghdad, Tariq Ayoub, a Jordanian-Palestinian, was on the roof with his second cameraman, an Iraqi called Zuheir, reporting a pitched battle near the bureau between American and Iraqi troops. Mr Ayoub's colleague Maher Abdullah recalled afterwards that both men saw the plane fire the rocket as it swooped toward their building, which is close to the Jumhuriya Bridge upon which two American tanks had just appeared. "On the screen, there was this battle and we could see bullets flying and then we heard the aircraft," Mr Abdullah said. "The plane was flying so low that those of us downstairs thought it would land on the roof ? that's how close it was. We actually heard the rocket being launched. It was a direct hit ? the missile actually exploded against our electrical generator. Tariq died almost at once. Zuheir was injured." Now for America's problems in explaining this little saga. Back in 2001, the United States fired a cruise missile at al-Jazeera's office in Kabul ? from which tapes of Osama bin Laden had been broadcast around the world. No explanation was ever given for this extraordinary attack on the night before the city's "liberation"; the Kabul correspondent, Taiseer Alouni, was unhurt. By the strange coincidence of journalism, Mr Alouni was in the Baghdad office yesterday to endure the USAF's second attack on al-Jazeera. Far more disturbing, however, is the fact that the al-Jazeera network ? the freest Arab television station, which has incurred the fury of both the Americans and the Iraqi authorities for its live coverage of the war ? gave the Pentagon the co-ordinates of its Baghdad office two months ago and received assurances that the bureau would not be attacked. Then on Monday, the US State Department's spokesman in Doha, an Arab-American called Nabil Khouri, visited al-Jazeera's offices in the city and, according to a source within the Qatari satellite channel, repeated the Pentagon's assurances. Within 24 hours, the Americans had fired their missile into the Baghdad office. The next assault, on Reuters, came just before midday when an Abrams tank on the Jamhuriya Bridge suddenly pointed its gun barrel towards the Palestine Hotel where more than 200 foreign journalists are staying to cover the war from the Iraqi side. Sky Television's David Chater noticed the barrel moving. The French television channel France 3 had a crew in a neighbouring room and videotaped the tank on the bridge. The tape shows a bubble of fire emerging from the barrel, the sound of a detonation and then pieces of paintwork falling past the camera as it vibrates with the impact. In the Reuters bureau on the 15th floor, the shell exploded amid the staff. It mortally wounded a Ukrainian cameraman, Taras Protsyuk, who was also filming the tanks, and seriously wounded another member of the staff, Paul Pasquale from Britain, and two other journalists, including Reuters' Lebanese-Palestinian reporter Samia Nakhoul. On the next floor, Tele 5's cameraman Jose Couso was badly hurt. Mr Protsyuk died shortly afterwards. His camera and its tripod were left in the office, which was swamped with the crew's blood. Mr Couso had a leg amputated but he died half an hour after the operation. The Americans responded with what all the evidence proves to be a straightforward lie. General Buford Blount of the US 3rd Infantry Division ? whose tanks were on the bridge ? announced that his vehicles had come under rocket and rifle fire from snipers in the Palestine Hotel, that his tank had fired a single round at the hotel and that the gunfire had then ceased. The general's statement, however, was untrue. I was driving on a road between the tanks and the hotel at the moment the shell was fired ? and heard no shooting. The French videotape of the attack runs for more than four minutes and records absolute silence before the tank's armament is fired. And there were no snipers in the building. Indeed, the dozens of journalists and crews living there ? myself included ? have watched like hawks to make sure that no armed men should ever use the hotel as an assault point. This is, one should add, the same General Blount who boasted just over a month ago that his crews would be using depleted uranium munitions ? the kind many believe to be responsible for an explosion of cancers after the 1991 Gulf War ? in their tanks. For General Blount to suggest, as he clearly does, that the Reuters camera crew was in some way involved in shooting at Americans merely turns a meretricious statement into a libellous one. Again, we should remember that three dead and five wounded journalists do not constitute a massacre ? let alone the equivalence of the hundreds of civilians being maimed by the invasion force. And it is a truth that needs to be remembered that the Iraqi regime has killed a few journalists of its own over the years, with tens of thousands of its own people. But something very dangerous appeared to be getting loose yesterday. General Blount's explanation was the kind employed by the Israelis after they have killed the innocent. Is there therefore some message that we reporters are supposed to learn from all this? Is there some element in the American military that has come to hate the press and wants to take out journalists based in Baghdad, to hurt those whom our Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has maliciously claimed to be working "behind enemy lines". Could it be that this claim ? that international correspondents are in effect collaborating with Mr Blunkett's enemy (most Britons having never supported this war in the first place) ? is turning into some kind of a death sentence? I knew Mr Ayoub. I have broadcast during the war from the rooftop on which he died. I told him then how easy a target his Baghdad office would make if the Americans wanted to destroy its coverage ? seen across the Arab world ? of civilian victims of the bombing. Mr Protsyuk of Reuters often shared the Palestine Hotel's elevator with me. Samia Nakhoul, who is 42, has been a friend and colleague since the 1975-90 Lebanese civil war. She is married to the Financial Times correspondent David Gardner. Yesterday afternoon, she lay covered in blood in a Baghdad hospital. And General Blount dared to imply that this innocent woman and her brave colleagues were snipers. What, I wonder, does this tell us about the war in Iraq? ~~~~~ http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20030416.ra&start=1:15:07.6 US Marines raided the Palestine Hotel yesterday morning. That is where foreign journalists are staying, and is also where the US has set up a temporary operations base. Marines kicked down doors, rousing journalists from their beds and pointing M-16s in their faces, according to the Associated Press. Marines were seen guarding suspects in a hall and interrogating a man who said he is a cameraman. Marines press officer Sgt Jos? Guillen said the Marines were checking the hotel to ensure it was "100% safe." Yesterday I talked to Ezzedine Said, a reporter with Agence France Press reporter based at the Palestine Hotel. I asked him to outline what happened... Eliminating Truth - The Development of War Propagnada by David Miller
| |||||||
 Strumpling Neuronaut Registered: 10/11/02 Posts: 7,571 Loc: Hyperspace Last seen: 12 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I'm scared, guys. This sucks ass..
-------------------- Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me. In addition: SHPONGLE
| |||||||
|
Madtowntripper Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers  Registered: 03/06/03 Posts: 21,287 Loc: The Ocean of Notions Last seen: 3 months, 29 days |
| ||||||
|
"Curious - did you even read the document or researched the subject of the PNAC further than what has been posted on this messageboard?"
Okay, since your so up on the website, lets post some of the terrible and horrible things the website endorses.... 1. Enlargement of NATO to Eastern Europe. It seems this would be a foil to further American expansion, as NATO is an almost completely European interest now. 2. Against war with North Korea. That would spoil your whole "American Military Domination" theory. 3. AGAINST intervention in Kosovo. Ooops. Someone better call the back-up police team. And lets look at their mission statements. Which of these is so terrible? ? we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; ? we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; ? we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; ? we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Christ, the only one I see as being nominally questionable is the second part of the second. I'm sorry. I still fail to see any of said threat to America... -------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
| |||||||
|
iglou enthusiast Registered: 03/08/02 Posts: 295 |
| ||||||
|
1. Enlargement of NATO to Eastern Europe. It seems this would be a foil to further American expansion, as NATO is an almost completely European interest now.
The PNAC document was written in 2000 and formulated earlier in the 1990s. Correct, the political climate has changed - but we are not talking about now. If the document was refined and updated, the PNAC would surely suggest US involvement in NATO be modified. 2. Against war with North Korea. That would spoil your whole "American Military Domination" theory. The doctrine of an irrational militarism is geared toward weak nations who do not have WMD deterrents. Conquering such simple nations as Iraq creates a desired spectacle. North Korea supposedly has (or is close to) nuclear capabilities. That is why diplomacy is being allowed - they actually pose a threat to the US/South Korea. And lets look at their mission statements. Which of these is so terrible? I wish to restrain as much as possible a moral arugment empire-building. So, I'll hold back on that question. We obviously have opposing views on statism - and that's fine. The point I am trying to make is: the focus of US foreign policy under the Bush administration is one of empire, Pax Americana. WMD and international terrorism are but an opportunity and pretext for this movement. No "conspiracy theory" on my part - the PNAC document was created and endorsed by the movers and shakers of the Bush administration themselves. They admitted their meta-intentions.
| |||||||
|
Madtowntripper Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers Registered: 03/06/03 Posts: 21,287 Loc: The Ocean of Notions Last seen: 3 months, 29 days |
| ||||||
|
Alright. Fair enough. I apologize for jumping right on you, but it seems like 5 times a day someone is posting a reason here that the Illuminati or the Bilderberg Group are behind America's attempts at world domination. I was wrong in assuming you were automatically one of those.
That said,  , I'll agree that the Bush administration's focus in office, since 9/11, has been one of strengthening American interests, which I suppose could be loosely termed, empire building. As you said, we'll refrain from a moral argument, for now. I think America does have legitimate WMD concerns, after all, NOBODY wants a nuke in Los Angeles, Right?But yes, we have different views, and I appreciate the chance for some open debtate on the topic. Fun stuff..... -------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Red Vein Kratom |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Project for the New American Century (PNAC) |  ekomstop |
513 | 0 | 09/22/04 02:09 PM by ekomstop |
|
|
Project for a New American Century (PNAC) |  DNKYD |
810 | 8 | 12/19/04 12:23 PM by SoopaX |
|
|
Project for New American Century - global military dominance (  1 2 all ) |
 enotake2 |
3,806 | 30 | 02/21/04 07:07 PM by TheOneYouKnow |
|
|
CIA: American global dominance could end in 15 years. |  FrankieJustTrypt |
1,215 | 14 | 01/29/05 10:02 AM by Phluck |
|
 |
Americans murder Iraqi civilians: protesters, farmers, kids ( 1 2 3 4 5 all ) |
 Zahid |
6,780 | 89 | 09/28/04 11:00 PM by Phred |
|
|
Why is the military killing international journalists? |  RadioActiveSlug |
650 | 1 | 04/09/03 05:37 AM by PsiloKitten |
|
 |
The Negro Project!!! |  Ellis Dee |
815 | 5 | 04/08/02 11:38 PM by |
|
|
THE ANTI-ANTI-AMERICANS |  wingnutx |
1,693 | 17 | 08/27/03 01:49 PM by luvdemshrooms |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 3,299 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 46 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
