Political Theory

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

Merlin — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:58:14 GMT

tfr000:

Well, no it doesn't work like that.

The US has several anti-ballistic missile radars pointed directly at the former Soviet Union, which is to say, at the North Pole. These would detect missiles coming over the horizon, and identify them as missiles by their flight dynamics. Then of course they would alert the US defenses. As far as thousands of Mach-2 capabale aircraft, we have no defense on US soil which could stop such a thing, haven't since about the 60's. There USED to be Nike missile batteries near major cities, now all long gone. No need for them, no country has such a force.

As far as 9/11, the anti-ballistic missile radars would never know what was going on. They're pointed AWAY from the US. I'm not aware whether US military commonly monitors US air traffic. I doubt it.

As far as I know every flight entering or leaving the US, from airliners to private monoplanes MUST be registered and the Air Force should be notified, else fighters are scrambled to intercept the flight.

Also from the 1990’s onward, the US military strategy has followed the “1-4-2-1” pattern. US forces should be large enough to simultaneously:

a) defend continental US,

b) keep a noticeable military presence in four theaters: western Europe, middle east, north-east Asia and south-east Asia,

c) fight two local wars and,

d) win one of them.

So, at any time the US army is well capable of defending its own territory. It is true that SAM batteries are no longer present but F-16 and F-15 fighters are stationed near all major cities and can be scrambled within minutes from notice.

Also keep in mind that roughly since 1999 Russia has been intruding in NATO airspace (including Alaska) so the US Air Force has every justification to be present in the States, not only abroad.

NORAD acknowledged that being unable to intercept (note: not shoot down, merely intercept, for strafing both engines of an airliner would force the aircraft to glide to the ground, potentially leaving no casualties at all) three of four airliners that had lost contact from 90 minutes or so was gross but hid behind the fact that that very day a major air force exercise was in act and the pilots had no way to know whether the hijackings where real or simulated. What a coincidence…

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

Hard Rain — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:33:52 GMT

twistedbydsign99:

Hard Rain:
The great thing about being attacked by an "evil" imperialist force is that when you respond your imperialism becomes "righteous".

Like at the alamo?

Yeah, the instances are repeated ad nauseum throughout human history. But the victors get to write history. I'm inclined to agree with Twain on this:

"Talking of patriotism, what humbug it is; it is a word which always commemorates a robbery. There isn't a foot of land in the world which doesn't represent the ousting and re-ousting of a long line of successive owners."

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

twistedbydsign99 — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:24:37 GMT

Hard Rain:
The great thing about being attacked by an "evil" imperialist force is that when you respond your imperialism becomes "righteous".

Like at the alamo?

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

Hard Rain — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:23:18 GMT

Kraig:

Yet all the aircraft carriers were conveniently out to sea and they also happened to be what won the pacific war. If you had a bit of military foresight I don't think it Pearl Harbor would have been a risk at all, I am confident that people in DC knew the attack was coming and let it play out purposefully. Japan was only interested in getting the US out of the Pacific so they could go about their empire business there without being bothered, even if the worst came out of it and the US lost the war there would still be extremely little personal risk to the politicians DC.

The great thing about being attacked by an "evil" imperialist force is that when you respond your imperialism becomes "righteous".

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

Kraig — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:10:57 GMT

Yet all the aircraft carriers were conveniently out to sea and they also happened to be what won the pacific war. If you had a bit of military foresight I don't think it Pearl Harbor would have been a risk at all, I am confident that people in DC knew the attack was coming and let it play out purposefully. Japan was only interested in getting the US out of the Pacific so they could go about their empire business there without being bothered, even if the worst came out of it and the US lost the war there would still be extremely little personal risk to the politicians DC.

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

tfr000 — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:26:52 GMT

Merlin:
NORAD command (supposed to be able to protect the US from a MASSED invasion of the former Soviet Frontal Aviation, counting thousands of Mach-2-capable aircrafts) stood idle. I think that such an attack would have impossible to carry out, even if Alexander the Great himself tried to.

Well, no it doesn't work like that.

The US has several anti-ballistic missile radars pointed directly at the former Soviet Union, which is to say, at the North Pole. These would detect missiles coming over the horizon, and identify them as missiles by their flight dynamics. Then of course they would alert the US defenses. As far as thousands of Mach-2 capabale aircraft, we have no defense on US soil which could stop such a thing, haven't since about the 60's. There USED to be Nike missile batteries near major cities, now all long gone. No need for them, no country has such a force.

As far as 9/11, the anti-ballistic missile radars would never know what was going on. They're pointed AWAY from the US. I'm not aware whether US military commonly monitors US air traffic. I doubt it.

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

fakename — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:45:20 GMT

Snowflake:
Also the enemy isn't so dangerous if you can fend him off even if he surprise attacks you.

well maybe but the indians, the mexicans, etc. weren't so dangerous and we attacked them pretty much all the time. The fact that there was an attack at all would be used to rouse the national honor and get people behind the war.

Snowflake:
Like a ton of the navy was destroyed in pearl harbor... gotta rebuild it. Guess its good for the MIC.

Perhaps roosevelt (or anyother leader) was really concerned about the MIC. Still, why risk losing a lot of your navy just to rebuild it? There must be some other less obvious motivation or reason altogether if we are to believe that any leaderx would neglect countryb.

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

Sieben — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:05:20 GMT

fakename:
Pearl Harbor would've been just as infamous or offensive had the americans won the battle and it would've been just as likely to get the US into war.

Like a ton of the navy was destroyed in pearl harbor... gotta rebuild it. Guess its good for the MIC.

Also the enemy isn't so dangerous if you can fend him off even if he surprise attacks you.

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

fakename — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:21:38 GMT

but why would a president allow his state to be harmed when he could find any number of options to create the same effect? Pearl Harbor would've been just as infamous or offensive had the americans won the battle and it would've been just as likely to get the US into war.

Unless of course roosevelt (or any hypothetical leader) was afraid of risking his best troops? Either way -it seems hard to accept that someone who is raised on altruistic ethics can ultimately just sell-out his own countrymen unless their was some greater cause.

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

twistedbydsign99 — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:01:53 GMT

Snowflake:
a link to an overview? Wiki say it not false flag :(

"Mr. Hanyok concluded that the NSA had initially misinterpreted North Vietnamese intercepts, believing there was an attack on August 4. Midlevel NSA officials almost immediately discovered the error, he concluded, but covered it up by altering documents, so as to make it appear the second attack had happened."

That was all I saw on wiki, everything else is non authoritative. There should be some actual declassified documents if alex jones is right.

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

Manic — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:01:49 GMT

Snowflake:

Manic:
Gulf of Tonkin incident, where USA again faked the attack to engage in Vietnam war.
Could I get a link to an overview? Wiki say it not false flag :(

It is a known fact. The Vietnamese goverment has been saying that for decades.
Several years ago report came out. Here is something I found by quick search.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j-5IKhFZ-bFe_Nc957JypHhNTMxQ

But he said that probably the "most historically significant feature" of the declassified report was the retelling of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.

That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson's sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam.

The author of the report "demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was 'unimpeachable,' but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that 'no attack happened that night,'" FAS said in a statement.

"What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It's a dramatic reversal of the historical record," Aftergood said.

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

twistedbydsign99 — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:54:46 GMT

Remember the maine?

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

K.C. Farmer — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:42:50 GMT

Knowing an enemy will attack and not doing something to stop it would not be a false flag operation. The false flag ops are to frame another nation or entity to advance a political or economic agenda. Letting an enemy attack freely - like FDR allowed at Pearl Habor - is just negligence for some political or economic gain.

Could the U.S. have known about the 9/11 attack beforehand? That was the opinion of the 9/11 Report, which led to recommendations to share intelligence data. The U.S. had information it could have used to predict and possibly prevent the attack. Could some agencies have had enough data but did nothing to stop the attack? It's possible.

Here are some things we know with respect to the early days of the Bush Administration:

1. The Clinton Administration had cut into the intelligence services, in the opinion of the Bush Adminstration.
2. The Clinton Administration had cut into Defense, in the opinion of the Bush Administration.
3. Bush, via his father, was well connected with people in the intelligence services who did not like the way thinks had gone during the 90's.
4. A good portion of the Bush Administration supported the idea of spreading democracy as a means of gaining a geopolitical advantage.
5. Donald Rumsfeld intended to reshape the military from a Cold War military to one capable of facing emerging threats - like terrorism and limited nuclear missiles from rogue nations.

There was plenty of motivation to change the status quo, and a 9/11 attack presented the justification to do so - at least justification the administration could sell to the American people.

There are unproven allegations that the U.S. Government, or some part of it, staged the 9/11 attacks utilizing al-Queda operatives. There was an established relationship between the CIA and bin Laden during the 1980s, so it's possible that al-Queda may just be a front organization for some U.S. Government group (known or unknown by the Administration). The end of the Cold War left the U.S. without a publicly identifiable enemy, so a terrorist organization would have been one of the means to establish a threat for a country where a portion of it's economy (not to mention a government) depended on such threats. There are many irregularities related to 9/11: lack of air defense (stand down condition), missing black boxes, a near-perfect set of events to take down three WTC buildings (including one that was not hit), a less-than-perfect hit on the Pentagon, lack of evidence available for independent investigation, etc. Such irregularities are not proof of a conspiracy, but there is enough there for some people to question what really happened. I also do not doubt there is a lot of disinformation out there.

As for false flag operations, they are extremely difficult to prove since by design they are meant to target other nations or entities. Doctoring evidence is very much a part of the false flag ops. False flag operations of the past did not have the knowledge of modern forensic evidence, and are easier to prove than more sophisticated operations of today.

The most probable use of false flag operations by U.S. Government operatives are more likely to involve third parties in order to instigate something that may benefit U.S. national interests (as deemed to be by the Administration).

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

Sieben — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:18:02 GMT

Manic:
Gulf of Tonkin incident, where USA again faked the attack to engage in Vietnam war.

Could I get a link to an overview? Wiki say it not false flag :(

Re: Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

Knight_of_BAAWA — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:35:00 GMT

Prateek Sanjay:
I don't believe it, but the US legislature back then was extremely isolationist and unwilling to interfere in external matters

Well, if you don't count lend-lease and all such, you might have a point.