Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Pentagon's "Second 911"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 07:06 PM
Original message
The Pentagon's "Second 911"
I hope this isn't a dupe, but I searched here and couldn't find:


The Pentagon's "Second 911"
"Another (9/11) attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets"

by Michel Chossudovsky

August 10, 2006

One essential feature of "defense" in the case of a second major attack on America, is "offense", according to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff: "Homeland security is one piece of a broader strategy brings the battle to the enemy."(DHS, Transcript of complete March 2005 speech of Secr. Michael Chertoff)

In the month following last year's 7/7 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11.

This "contingency plan" uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11", which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran, while pressure was also exerted on Tehran in relation to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.

What is diabolical in this decision of the US Vice President is that the justification presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doingthat Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attackbut no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

more...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArti...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
democraticinsurgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. very scary
Especially these words:

"Another attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets, according to current and former defense officials familiar with the plan."

Alex Jones may be right. The neocons are planning the sequel right now. Time will tell if they are desperate enough to do it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. If they know how many of us doubt the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld
version of 911 and the "terrorist attacks" or "thwarted" attacks that have happened since, they are more likely not to do it. That's why we have to keep talking about it no matter how diabolical the opposition and their attempts to silence us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. agree. did you see this
poll on jerry springer's webpage on air america?

http://www.airamerica.com/springer/node/8340

even tho the poll question is phrased poorly--almost sarcastically so people don't vote yes...well, so far 65% voted yes they think bush is responsible for 9/11 & another 12% voted another response that says yes: 77% say yes. they changed the poll now, but it was up yesterday and i kept checking the votes on it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Good find, only 12% "no", even thought they
try to make it sound "kooky" (gatekeepers?). I think that is about what DU was in a poll on GD. Funny, those percentages don't seem to match the % OCT on this forum, how could that be?...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. oh wait...
here is the link for the poll and it says the poll is still open (it's the second one listed)

http://www.airamerica.com/springer/poll
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'm really nervous about this.
A little attack will make them look bad IMO. I think they're going to want a big one, to really shock the sheeple into submission. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall - and then a demigod with a loudspeaker to shout their plans from the moutaintops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. The Jon Benet Ramsey story is in the news again
so something's up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. My god will they just let that poor child,and now her mother rest in peace
Images of that little girl dressed up like a party doll everywhere you look just horrify me. No respect for the dead in our culture at all :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
8. To everyone that already replied:
If you think Cheney et al are secretly planning to orchestrate a Second 9/11 as an excuse to escalate our invasion of the Mid-East, why did they press to arrest the alleged liquid bomb terror suspects, rather than letting them go through with it?

(anyone else notice this is at least the second time in a week that a retired CIA officer is being quoted & believed in the September 11th forum?)

That said, there's nothing wrong or sinister with devising contingency plans in the event of a devastating attack - it would be criminal not to - but I'm equally concerned about the lack of planning/funds for prevention and domestic rescue and recovery.

To put this in perspective, remember the nuclear contingency plans that have existed for decades, as spelled out by Dr. Helen Caldicott. I'm glad there are activists for non-proliferation. Too bad d.avery and webfairy don't waste their time on stuff like that.

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/index.cfm

Don't be frightened as the powers that be would have you. Take their power away.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Let them go through with what?
Edited on Thu Aug-17-06 07:59 AM by seemslikeadream
There was no there there. Stirred up a little fear though, can't let a week go by without scarring the folks a little. And yes I noticed.

Did ya notice our country is being run by a mad man?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/08/17/bush...
As Bush rode up a hill, leading an entourage of sweating Secret Service agents and the reporter, he shouted to no one in particular: "Air assault!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. They can't get away with another 9-11
for the same reasons why they couldn't get away with planting WMD's in Iraq.

Their window of opportunity has closed. 9-11 was a one shot and they took full advantage of it. The only fly in the ointment is that not everything went as well as they have envisioned and they were not able to fully implement their plans. They tried again during Katrina, but thanks to our new found ability to get information out in real time with the internet, they didn't get away with militarizing NOLA either.

Now all they have left is the illusion of fear, hence the numerous terror 'threats'.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Once again they used terror for political gain....
It appears what happened was that a couple of months back the British government (probably Tony Blair) tipped the U.S. Government (Bush/Cheney) to the fact that they were possibly onto a terrorist cell were investigating and watching them, but they didn't have anything solid yet.

Bush/Cheney used this information for political gain in the context of the Lieberman/Lamont race, either by coming so close to letting the cat out of the bag that the British authorities got worried it would tip the alleged conspirators off, or by putting heavy duty pressure on the British government to break it at that time.

Bush/Cheney probably already knew there wasn't anything substantive to this alleged plot and wanted to get as much political mileage out of it that they could.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
10. Michel Chossudovsky believes in "weather war"
While the substance of the OP may be true, I don't give Chossudovsky much credibility. Do a google on him and you will find that in addition to 9/11, he writes about weather weapons, which I don't find credible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Well ....
Edited on Thu Aug-17-06 10:22 AM by Sinti
There have been references made to weather/climate being used as weapons as early as 1996.

There was a Weather Modification Bill in the Senate by Hutchison which you can see here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-...



There is a statement about genetic weapons, and weather in an answer from Secretary Cohen in 1997 here:
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970429d.htm

Weather as a force multiplier paper (Last updated in 1996)
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap15/v3c15-1.htm

It's not just for tinfoil hatters anymore, it's not sci-fi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
15. they tried to blow up chicago subway
but Cheney's patsies were intercepted by other foreign intelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Do you have information on the Chicago subway story?
Seems to me the only one who reported it was Tom Flocco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. no it wasn't him
it was on a few other sites (not CTs)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
18. Cheney receiving suspect briefings
Edited on Sat Aug-19-06 02:51 PM by seemslikeadream
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Intelligence_official...

Intelligence officials doubt Iran uranium claims, say Cheney receiving suspect briefings

Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: Friday August 18, 2006

The Bush administration continues to bypass standard intelligence channels and use what some believe to be propaganda tactics to create a compelling case for war with Iran, US foreign policy experts and former US intelligence officials tell RAW STORY. One former senior intelligence official is particularly concerned by private briefings that Vice President Dick Cheney is getting from former Office of Special Plans (OSP) Director, Abram Shulsky.

"Vice President Cheney is relying on personal briefings from Shulsky for current intelligence on Iran," said this intelligence official.

Shulsky, a leading Neoconservative and member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), headed the shadowy and secretive Department of Defense's OSP in the lead-up to the Iraq war -- helping to locate intelligence that would support the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq.

....

Several foreign policy experts, who wish to remain anonymous, have expressed serious concern that much like the OSP, the ID is manipulating, cherry picking, and perhaps even -- as some suspect -- cooking intelligence to lead the U.S. into another conflict, this time with Iran.
"Cheney distrusts the information being disseminated by CIA on Iran," said one former senior intelligence official. "The reports assembled by the Iranian Directorate at the Pentagon differ significantly from the analysis produced by the Intelligence Community. The Pentagon Iranian Directorate relies on thin and unsupported reporting from foreign sources."

In the build-up to the Iraq war, Cheney relied on intelligence almost exclusively from the OSP, which leveled allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was later debunked, but no OSP or DOD officials were held accountable for what many believe was a "deliberate effort" to mislead the nation into war.

New Uranium Allegations:

Adding to the similarities between the pre-war build up to Iraq, new allegations of Uranium transactions began aggressively circulating earlier this month. For example, in an August 6th Sunday Times of London article entitled "Iran's plot to mine uranium in Africa," Iran is alleged to have purchased Uranium from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

....

"This one was very radioactive. When we opened the container it was full of drums of coltan. Each drum contains about 50kg of ore. When the first and second rows were removed, the ones after that were found to be drums of uranium."
Experts familiar with both African mining and atomic energy have expressed serious concern about these allegations, which have been circulating for some time.

According to a source close to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the story is "highly unlikely" and "not well researched."

....

Expressing great frustration, one former high ranking intelligence officer said "it is all the Neocons." Asked about the allegations of the uranium transaction from Congo-to-Iran, this source remarked: "Total bullshit."

more

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Abram_N._Shu...

Abram N. Shulsky
From SourceWatch
Abram N. Shulsky, described as "a leading intelligence scholar,"<1> (http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?chunk=25&wauth... ) is Director of the Office of Special Plans.

According to Seymour M. Hersh's "Selective Intelligence" article published May 12, 2003 in The New Yorker (http://www.corruption.cc/article.php3?id_article=3790 ):

"The director of the Special Plans operation is Abram Shulsky, a scholarly expert in the works of the political philosopher Leo Strauss. Shulsky has been quietly working on intelligence and foreign-policy issues for three decades; he was on the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the early nineteen-eighties and served in the Pentagon under Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard N. Perle during the Ronald Reagan Administration, after which he joined the RAND Corporation."

"Abram Shulsky launched his career under the tutelage of Roy Godson, son of a leading AFL-CIO International Department counterinsurgent, Joseph Godson; and he first got into the 'intelligence business' as a staffer for Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) poster-boy Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan in the late 1970s, eventually becoming staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and, later, of President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB)."<2> (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3026dlc_n_cheney.... )

The following article was incorporated into the existing "Abram N. Shulsky" article on 8/29/03. It is presumed that the citation which follows it is the source for the information.

Abram Shulsky is said to be head of the Pentagon's Office of Special Operations, overseen by Douglas Jay Feith. He was an aide to former Senators Henry Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and worked in Reagan's Department of Defense in the 80s. He also worked for the Rand Institute, where he collaborated with I. Lewis Libby, now Richard Cheney's chief of staff, on a study called "From Containment to Global Leadership: America and the World after the Cold War." This study was an early draft of what has become the official Pentagon military strategy document.

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/22/dre...


:hi:

Obediah Obediah, Jah Jah sent us here to catch vampire
Obediah Obediah, Jah Jah sent us here to catch vampire
We have the chalice to light up Jah fire!
When i and i catch them vampire
i and i have to set them on fire


BANDULU: bandit, criminal, one living by guile
BANDULU BIZNESS is a racket, a swindle




Dick Cheney exposed Valerie Plame to cover up his association with A.Q. Khan's Nuclear Walmart. Read about it here: http://s93118771.onlinehome.us/DU/AMERICANJUDAS.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 17th 2019, 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC