Current Events

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Malachi — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:14:41 GMT

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2013/04/nyt-fbi-hatches-terror-plots.html

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Malachi — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:02:58 GMT

http://www.globalresearch.ca/boston-suspect-arrested-stripped-naked-so-when-was-he-shot-and-killed/5332316

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Malachi — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:49:49 GMT

http://www.globalresearch.ca/contractors-at-boston-marathon-stood-near-bomb-left-before-detonation/5332069

who feels like playing detective and running down this lead?

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Aristophanes — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 00:17:36 GMT

Aristophanes I have to say I think your name calling is counterproductive.

ooooh, I don't care.

Aristophanes, didn't you claim in another thread that cops are liars? Yet in this thread's OP, you seem to be taking everything the cops have said on faith. Which is it? Do you blindly trust cops or not?

I don't think that it is impossible to learn things from establishment perspectives. It is about filtering what is true or relevant from the things that are misleading or irrelevant. When you read about how analysts think you see how they have to sort through politicians lies to find what is relevant. Sometimes analysts are looking at information that was crafted for them for the purposes of deception. Just think about it. Every piece of information can tell you something. See this.

plus, I don't think the boston bombing was planned so they aren't lying about it. The worst they could do is associated them with arab terrorists in order to further that narrative...

Your question is phrased as a 1 or a 0. Why don't you ask JJ for an answer like that?

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Aristophanes — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 00:15:28 GMT

actually what neocons want has jack shit to do with what the US intends at the time.

I never claimed that they did. In fact I'm pretty sure that I named them specifically as an "aberration" within the nationalist faction of US policy. I told you that the TC and neoliberals still had more influence in the 80s than the neocons. Bush Sr. was a TC politician. He is/was not a nationalist.

government actions, intentions and plans can be judged as dumb or smart.

Prove that inanimate things or collective things can have intentions. You're a libertarian, or at least you think you are I assume, but you think like a collectivist, no? and as you call me a moron... or should I link you to some papers written on whether or not we can even say "collective" action/intention etc. How versed are you in action philosophy? Cause that is where I'll take you if you want...

The norm in implemented US foreign policy is that it 1.) all but disregards its own national interest, 2.) most of the time actually works against it 3.) implements policies which actually contradict each other. So tell me, genius, is that smart, or dumb?

It is called democracy. That is what you described in that paragraph. An executive under the influence of various sometimes competing interest groups.

1 - is not true, again you've never actually looked at the papers and studies that have been conducted according to the national interest. Look back at my last posts, I mentioned several.

2 and 3 are the same thing (so you don't need to claim to have three talking points, two of them the same). And I'm not gonna argue there. All you have to do is look at why we continued the Vietnam war to see the contradiction in virtually all policy (win a war to maintain credibility by fighting a war that decreases our credibility)...that doesn't mean that geostrategy is "not a thing." It just means that the people who get ahold of the reigns every once in awhile fuck up in accordance with it. if the bush Jr wars would have been successful (if the governments had formed to the wishes of the neocons) then the strategy might look saner.

My guess is you've never ever read anything at all on long-term politics and that is why you are so bent out of shape. "There cannot possibly be any reasoning by governments, they are all dumb." You're a worthless ideologue that sees in black and white.

arbritrary decisions of the revolving door

haha, yeah. It might be arbitrary to you. The interest groups involved probably don't think that, however.

What you claimed was that the US (not the neocons who are irrelevant to US Iraq policy under Bush I)

Did you listen to Clark? he said wolfowitz wanted in 1991 when he was depunsecdef wanted to go back into Iraq...

What you claimed was that the US (not the neocons who are irrelevant to US Iraq policy under Bush I) was decided on reinvading sometime in the future, even as much as 10 years or more into the future, if Saddam was still in power and if Iraq could be sufficiently weakened before that.

I already said that it worked out that way. and watch the clark video I posted.

You also claimed sanctions were instituted with a view to this future, potential invasion, specifically to make certain there would be less Iraqis alive that could resist it.

All I said was that the sanctions were designed to decimate the population. From a military POV it is easy to infer the benefits of a decreasing population...they knew the effects 2/3 years into the sanctions as well...It was during the Clinton administration that the neocons entrenched themselves in the bureaucracy. And they did have a plan to go back in in 1991 (according to Clark) that was made official as a suggestive think tank in 1997.

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Autolykos — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:18:38 GMT

Aristophanes, didn't you claim in another thread that cops are liars? Yet in this thread's OP, you seem to be taking everything the cops have said on faith. Which is it? Do you blindly trust cops or not?

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Marko — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:28:02 GMT

I think you'll find that the neocons had been in the bureaucracy from Bush Sr. through Clinton. only Bush Jr. gave them head of DoD and cabinet positions (rather than "deputy undersecretary of defense," as Gen. Clark mentions, if you'd watch those videos... R-tard). Also, having a broad geostrategy is not the same as having specific plans for the inner workings of each of the like 10 wars they wanted to start.

You don't know shit. Actually the neocons have been in positions of (some) power for far longer. In fact they were extremely influential in determining what the US did in Central and South America since the Reagan years in the 1980s. Bush Sr., however, had a particularly low opinion of them and regarded them as a bunch of dangerous crazies (Quote: "the crazies in the basement"), and wouldn't let them close to having power in a matter like Iraq. So yea, actually what neocons want has jack shit to do with what the US intends at the time.

how can a nonexistent thing have human-like qualities? And since it is a fact, you could probably prove it, huh?

You're a moron, aren't you? Government actions, intentions and plans can be judged as dumb or smart. There is what goes into policy proposals made by individuals, which may be smart or dumb. And then there is the actual implemented policy, which is a mix of improvisations, arbritrary decisions of the revolving door of (as a rule, extremely thoughtless and short-term minded) presidents and their inner circles, and a series of adopted policy proposals from a diverse mix of authors with competing visions and agendas as well as residual buerocratic inertia. When you combine everything together the actual implemented policy is extremely dumb. If the actual implemented US foreign policy of the last twenty years would actually be writen down as a single policy proposal it would be deemed idiotic and incoherent.

The norm in implemented US foreign policy is that it 1.) all but disregards its own national interest, 2.) most of the time actually works against it 3.) implements policies which actually contradict each other. So tell me, genius, is that smart, or dumb?

Well, I already said that i didn't mean to imply that in 1991 they were planning the 2003 invasion. It just worked out that way. but, you bet your ass State and Defense knew what the sanctions would do. The main thing Iraq used chlorine for was to CLEAN THEIR WATER. you cripple strategically significant resources. just like in the Korean war were NATO blew up dams in order to flood rice fields; the purpose was to kill civilians through starvation.

Don't strawman and don't lie. I nowhere said you need to prove they were bent on an invasion exactly in 2003. What you claimed was that the US (not the neocons who are irrelevant to US Iraq policy under Bush I) was decided on reinvading sometime in the future, even as much as 10 years or more into the future, if Saddam was still in power and if Iraq could be sufficiently weakened before that. You also claimed sanctions were instituted with a view to this future, potential invasion, specifically to make certain there would be less Iraqis alive that could resist it.

Now, is this a fair re-statement of what you claimed earlier, or not? And what are you going to back it up with?

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Malachi — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:06:19 GMT

Aristophanes I have to say I think your name calling is counterproductive.

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Aristophanes — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:11:29 GMT

Even if you could call their burning desire to invade Iraq a plan, they weren't behind the steering wheel of the American Empire in 1991. So that's not the plan of the America, it's a Christmas wish of the neocons.

I think you'll find that the neocons had been in the bureaucracy from Bush Sr. through Clinton. only Bush Jr. gave them head of DoD and cabinet positions (rather than "deputy undersecretary of defense," as Gen. Clark mentions, if you'd watch those videos... R-tard). Also, having a broad geostrategy is not the same as having specific plans for the inner workings of each of the like 10 wars they wanted to start.

And, again as clark mentions, the neocons planned on hitting all of the countries that went down in the Arab Spring. Are the neoliberalis behind Obama following the same plan, but doing a better job? YES. The answer is yes. They have had much more success in rolling the die than Bush had in forcibly moving pieces. Brzezinski is the one who suggested we use Islamic movements as cover for proxy wars...he was one of Obama's professors at Columbia (Obama wrote his thesis on soviet nuclear disarmament and Brzezinski is a Russo-phobe) and his first term NS Adviser. What did we do in Libya? What are we doing in Syria? We're using fucking islamic sects as fucking cover for fucking proxy wars. What I outlined IS the US medium to long term geostrategy. Clark even says, way more specific than I could get, is to prevent China and Russia from establishing ties with regimes that will not compromise with the US and Israel.

I don't care if people in government are smart or dumb. Either way, the government itself is dumb, and that's a fact. American government more than most. Are you going to dispute it?

hahaahaahahhaahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

how can a nonexistent thing have human-like qualities? And since it is a fact, you could probably prove it, huh?

So, yes, I'll dispute that and say than non-extant things cannot have ~~human~~ features. At all. Dumbass. And I've got to say, it's pretty libertarian to group everyone together and call them dumb like that. you're truly a great thinker, moralist, and symbol of libertarianism. Now, go read your Ayn Rand.

and specificaly instituted them in order to kill people in order to make its invasion of Iraq which it had already decided upon at the time easier,

Well, I already said that i didn't mean to imply that in 1991 they were planning the 2003 invasion. It just worked out that way. but, you bet your ass State and Defense knew what the sanctions would do. The main thing Iraq used chlorine for was to CLEAN THEIR WATER. you cripple strategically significant resources. just like in the Korean war were NATO blew up dams in order to flood rice fields; the purpose was to kill civilians through starvation.

or else we have very little to talk about

General Clark straight up SAYS we were planning to go back into Iraq in the video if you'd watch it you dumb fucking hillbilly. you don't have anything to talk about because you don't know what you are talking about. you're just an ideologue.

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Marko — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:50:18 GMT

In connection to the bombers these two takes seem the most likely to me so far: 1, 2.

Also I should say this points to it being more of a pseudo-terrorism act. You have individuals who are pychologicaly alienated from society lashing out and grandstanding and searching to assert their identity, when they're actually rootless and detached from their people. It's more Anders Breivik, than the IRA.

Also I should say I think this sort of pseudo-terrorism is something quite new, and would have been out of place outside our contemporary era and culture.

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Malachi — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:21:42 GMT

Being a social construct all bias is cultivated, rather than inherent.

race and gender bias is inborn.

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Marko — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:18:53 GMT

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot, PNAC and the neocons wanted to go into Iraq, in official capacity, six years before the war (they are an aberration within nationalist policy makers though), but my guess is that they all didn't just decide one day in 1997 to invade...

Big freaking news. Yea, the sky is blue, the grass is green, and the neocons want to invade everyone, all the time. According to the neocons there is never a bad time to invade someone, and an invasion is never early.

That is quite distinct, however, from 1.) being capable of formulating elaborate plans, and 2.) from being in control in Washington.

Even if you could call their burning desire to invade Iraq a plan, they weren't behind the steering wheel of the American Empire in 1991. So that's not the plan of the America, it's a Christmas wish of the neocons.

Yeah, everyone in the government is dumb.

I don't care if people in government are smart or dumb. Either way, the government itself is dumb, and that's a fact. American government more than most. Are you going to dispute it?

They are mostly cultivated biases.

No shit, Sherlock. Being a social construct all bias is cultivated, rather than inherent.

Point is these biases remain long after they cease to make geopolitical sense. Or in some cases do not even arise in connection to it.

Bottom line show that the US in 1991 knew the sanctions against Iraq are going to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, and specificaly instituted them in order to kill people in order to make its invasion of Iraq which it had already decided upon at the time easier, or else we have very little to talk about.

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Aristophanes — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:27:59 GMT

What did Wolfowitz tell him in 1991?!?!

found the rest the rest of it.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

yeah, I arrived at almost that same conclusion, but independently.

Thanks, Malachi!

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Malachi — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 05:59:54 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Aristophanes — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 05:08:54 GMT

There is no plan, there is just a bunch of implacable biases (anti-South American nationalist, anti-Communist, anti-Arab nationalist, anti-Iranian, anti-Russian, anti-Serbian, anti-Chinese), and an addiction to exercising power.

Or could it be that anyone who stands in our way we term anti-xxx? They are mostly cultivated biases.

You do not think that US has any long-term geostrategy? I'm not saying they planned any of it for any particular time in the future, just at some point. Look up Kissinger's State Dept. paper on "controlling the population in the third world." The policy was started in 1967. The plan didn't work, but they were attempting long term strategy based on World Bank projections. Look at Brzezinski's strategy of turning China against Russia. We've been pursuing his suggested policies since the mid 80s regarding Chinese energy exploration and he himself said it was a 50-75 year time frame for effectiveness. Look up the War and Peace Studies Project group; it was a series of long term strategy suggestions from 1940 that ended up putting the skeletons of IMF, WB, and UN together.

The US has long term strategy; to the extent that they can hold it together is another question. We have been pursuing preponderance for almost 20 years and it is obvious that it cannot work forever. not that history won't tell us that.

The idea the moronic American Empire

Yeah, everyone in the government is dumb. There is nothing to learn from them. No bias there.

Also, if you are referring to the 10 year planning of the crippling of Iraqi infrastructure and army capabilites (like we knew in 1991 that we'd go back to Iraq in 12 years)...it just worked out that way for 2003, but it was a policy designed to decimate the population...

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot, PNAC and the neocons wanted to go into Iraq, in official capacity, six years before the war (they are an aberration within nationalist policy makers though), but my guess is that they all didn't just decide one day in 1997 to invade...