Was 9/11 All About Perpetual War? The "Long War" Policy.

[spooked911]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25126.htm

Without public debate and without congressional hearings, a segment of the Pentagon and fellow travelers have embraced a doctrine known as the Long War, which projects an "arc of instability" caused by insurgent groups from Europe to South Asia that will last between 50 and 80 years. According to one of its architects, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are just "small wars in the midst of a big one."

Consider the audacity of such an idea. An 80-year undeclared war would entangle 20 future presidential terms stretching far into the future of voters not yet born. The American death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan now approaches 5,000, with the number of wounded a multiple many times greater. Including the American dead from 9/11, that's 8,000 dead so far in the first decade of the Long War. And if the American armed forces are stretched thin today, try to conceive of seven more decades of combat.

The costs are unimaginable too. According to economists Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, Iraq alone will be a $3-trillion war. Those costs, and the other deficit spending of recent years, yield "virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors," according to a New York Times budget analysis in February. Continued deficit financing for the Long War will rob today's younger generation of resources for their future.

The term "Long War" was first applied to America's post-9/11 conflicts in 2004 by Gen. John P. Abizaid, then head of U.S. Central Command, and by the retiring chairman of the Joint Chiefs of State, Gen. Richard B. Myers, in 2005.

Is this simple insanity or deeper evil?

There are so many problems with the idea of Long War, it's hard to take this seriously. But clearly some evil fucks are promoting this idea anyway-- likely as disinfo, hiding a deeper uglier truth. One obvious problem of a Long War is that it is simply unsustainable-- such a prolonged, costly conflict is more likely to destroy the US than to result in any victory. Another major problem is that clearly there is a major conceptual flaw in a conflict that is projected to last so long-- if an enemy requires 50-80 years to defeat, perhaps it is the conflict that is the problem, not the enemy. Who is the enemy anyway? Whatever "extremist" or "terrorist" we decide is the enemy in whatever country we decide is a problem? Maybe the biggest problem is the sheer evil of contemplating essentially perpetual war-- a war which would lead to perpetual death, perpetual suffering, perpetual destruction of the planet and perpetual destruction of US society, sapping everything decent about this country. It is frightening to imagine what 80 years of war would reduce this country to-- a completely subservient, mindless, soulless, brainwashed population, a society of war slaves-- something far far worse than the current depressing state of affairs.

Who can honestly imagine that the US would survive such a war in any meaningful sense, and what sort of madmen would propose such nonsense? Isn't it more likely that this is all a ruse, meant to cover up a far deeper apocalyptic event? Even martial law, as horrible as it is-- what is the point? Martial law ultimately is not sustainable. So where's it all lead? To what end is all this suffering? Isn't there ultimately something deeper to all of this? The info here, gives some answers, I think--
http://anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com/

[Ohio Joe]

1. Thats some crazy shit

I did not know the anonymous physicist had become a birther.

[LARED]

2. You mean the award winning anonymous physicist

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/12/special-award-post-for-end-of-decade.html

Spooked is giving out awards. What a hoot.

[zappaman]

4. award?

I wonder what he got?
Maybe a solid aluminum trophy in the shape of a bunny cage?

[Ohio Joe]

5. The "Huminty" Award for Humanity...

ummmm.... alrighty then.

[zappaman]

3. crazy shit?

guess that's why he's the ANONYMOUS physicist....

[spooked911]

6. how do you feel about the "long war"?

don't care?

[whatchamacallit]

7. The only war they care about is the 9/11 Crusade

They are the defenders of the holy scriptures, handed down from on high by the president in the sky.

[SDuderstadt]

8. Maybe you and Spooked could form a support group..

for each other or something.

[whatchamacallit]

9. If Spooked has beer and some good smoke

I will join his group :)

[zappaman]

10. not sure

whatever Spooked has is definitely better than beer or smoke!

keep digging Spooked...you're almost there!

[SDuderstadt]

11. Are you angling for one of Spooked's "awards"? n/t

[spooked911]

13. actually, I am there

be nice if you could actually get there yourself

[zappaman]

14. Sorry, Spooked you're not "there" yet.

By "there", I mean evidence that all of your "what ifs" are actually true.
You could start with why you believe the planes that hit the WTC were actually "greenscreened" by showing us the EVIDENCE that leads you to the "no plane" conclusion.
I anxiously await your evidence.

[spooked911]

15. I've already pointed it out to you

hint-- there are plenty of links on this topic at my blog.

Not my problem if you don't want to go through it.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Actually, Spooked...

it IS your problem if your blog is so convoluted and boring no one wants to read it.

I'd be surprised if you had more than 3 regular readers, including yourself.

[BeFree]

29. Actually, sdud

No one reads anymore of your crap and I give thanks for that!!

[zappaman]

17. I looked at your blog, Spooked

But I couldn't find your evidence that the planes that hit the WTC were actually "greenscreened".
Could you help me out and post it here?

[spooked911]

19. what specific info are you looking for?

please be as specific as possible.

[zappaman]

20. EVIDENCE that no planes crashed into the WTC

not theories or suppositions...EVIDENCE please.

[spooked911]

21. not specific enough

what kind of evidence?

There's evidence of fake videos, planted plane parts, fake witnesses, witnesses who never saw a plane, etc.

[zappaman]

22. ok

let's start with the evidence for fake videos.
because "witnesses who never saw a plane" is hardly evidence.
just because someone didn't see something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
please show me the "fake videos"

[spooked911]

23. well, all the plane videos are fake

so just find one and look carefully at it.

If you want evidence for why they are fake, there are lots of clues, you can start here:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/05/111-reasons-why-i-am-no-planer.html

4) No wing tips breaking off in 2nd hit videos

10) The lack of significant deflected debris as “UA175” goes into the south tower
11) The lack of anything clearly breaking off the plane as “UA175” goes into the south tower
12) Discontinuous dust cloud pattern from “UA175” as it goes in the tower in the Hezarkhani video
13) The lack of any alteration in the course of “UA175” as it goes in the tower
14) The impossible behavior of “UA175” acting indestructible as it goes in the tower then shattering to bits once inside the tower
15) The lack of any explosion as the fuel-filled wings of “UA175” make impact with the thick steel columns of WTC2
16) The lack of any significant fire from the port wing of “UA175”
17) The explosions on tower façade away from impact site as “UA175” goes into the south tower
18) The abnormally large explosions produced by wingtips as “UA175” goes into the south tower
19) The way the wings of “UA175” initially slice into the tower in videos, cleanly with no deflected debris, with an unnatural straight edge along the spot of entry
20) The strange tube-like explosion that appears under the fuselage of “UA175” in the Hezarkhani video
21) Parts of the south tower hole become larger after plane has already passed through
22) The south tower hole is completely blocked by debris and broken columns, which contrasts the way the plane slips into tower without slowing or breaking up on video
23) The discrepancy in engine puffs (above wing versus below wing) between Fairbanks and Hezarkhani videos
24) Plane path discrepancies in different 2nd hit videos
25) Odd coloring/tinting in several 2nd hit videos
26) The readily available technology to insert digital objects, such as planes, into video (for instance see Ace Baker’s work)
27) The ability of the blue sky on 9/11 to act as natural blue screen
28) Live shot of 2nd hit is same camera feed for CNN, ABC, Fox—they all showed helicopter shot at same key moment
29) In live shot of 2nd hit, camera man “taken by surprise” by plane—plane suddenly enters frame—cameraman apparently not able to see plane approaching
30) Initial 2nd hit videos, particularly live shot, only show indirect view of tower hit; don’t see videos with plane going directly into tower until much later
31) Fox5 side-view shot of plane replayed on CNN, talking heads refer to plane going through the building, but view of plane is cut off by large banner at bottom of screen
32) Both the ABC/CNN/Fox live shot and the Fox5 shots of the 2nd hit have blackouts right after the explosion starts
33) Michael Hezarkhani not allowed to talk about his video by CNN
34) Michael Hezarkhani’s amazing ability to pan at the speed of a plane coming over his head from behind
35) The inconsistent story of where Michael Hezarkhani filmed his video
36) The bad acting/over acting of the voices in the “black plane” video
37) Frames of the black plane video appearing as Robert Clark photos
38) The Manos video where the woman rants about suicide bombers as the 2nd hit occurs and where the videographer also has a video of him and friends “sneaking” into Area 51
39) The Park Foreman video initially appearing as photo frames on CNN
40) Suspicious history of CameraPlanet, where many amateur videos appeared
41) The CBS video from the north where the plane comes in at a blatantly wrong angle to hit the tower, disappears behind the tower, then the explosion
42) The odd similarity of the Naka Nathtaniel and Park Foreman videos—in particular the same panning motion in both
43) Clear discrepancy in the Anthony Cotsifas photo with the position of the 2nd plane with 2nd hit videos
44) The inconsistent story of Evan Fairbanks and his video
45) Evan Fairbanks’ alluding to his video being unreal
46) The cartoon-like quality of the plane image in several second hit videos
47) The airframe anomalies in the plane in most 2nd hit videos
48) The fact that high resolution videos of the second hit have not been released
49) The fact that no one has taken up Ace Baker’s challenge for $100,000 for an original amateur 2nd hit video
50) David Handschuh (and others, e.g. Victor Cruzate) not seeing the plane despite being in position to see it
51) Many putative 2nd plane witnesses, when analyzed carefully, only saw the explosion or saw the whole thing only on TV
52) Several extremely improbable photos of “UA175” right before impact
53) The laughable Moshe Bursuker photo of the plane half in the south tower
54) Kathy Cacicedo, who saw the WTC from the southwest, saying the plane banked around the side of the tower—indicating a fly-by
55) Plane is smaller than should be in some 2nd hit videos, indicating a fly-by or flawed video fakery

[zappaman]

24. Wow!

Man, you would think the evil BUSHCO would have hired some professionals for this important job.
Guess they didn't count on your intrepid snooping, Spooked!
Reminds me of SCOOBY DOO..."And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids!"
Could it be that one day we will hear Dick Cheney himself, as he's being led away in chains, saying "And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that meddling Spooked!"?

[Ohio Joe]

12. I think...

It is pretty much a made up term. I don't see anything in the article to support the 80 year claim. I do see that a "small, self-perpetuating, self-anointed group of specialists" support it and I'm sorry but a "small, self-perpetuating, self-anointed group of specialists" does not our government make. I do see that it is no longer included in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. I also see that the article does not provide any links to back up it's claims or to give the reader any context, that always makes me suspicious.

I also think that the anonymous physicist is a raving loon that really needs to get a grip on reality.

[Mist]

18. It seems that ever since WWII so much of our economy has been devoted to war. We've been

in a long war for decades. It's good for SOME sectors of the economy, and supposedly keeps patriotism chugging along. But when a particular conflict goes on too long, the public starts looking more closely at the rationale, and gets agitated. I.e., the Vietnam war. But it seems that for decades we've practiced the "long war," in service of the economic takeover of various countries, as related by "economic hitman" John Perkins.

[deconstruct911]

25. Under the Bush regime

Drugs were "not part of the war"

10 years on, no end in sight. How can you win a war on foreign Muslim jihadist when you can’t win the war on a freaking poppy?

[deconstruct911]

26. Another note

Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraq army upon invasion. Critical part of a "long war" policy.

[ablewon]

27. It's both.

"Is this simple insanity or deeper evil?"

[rogerh7]

28. 911

Two conspiracy theorists die and go to Heaven. They are overjoyed when they find themselves standing before God.

One of the men says, "Finally! We can be told the truth!"

The other man says, "God, we know you won't lie to us! Tell us how arabs who weren't terrorists and could not fly a kite, did 911?

God paused, then said, "I'm sorry boys. Those attacks were planned and carried out by the U.S. government and sold to the masses by a media who called an orb a boeing 767. Your government was behind the attacks.

Hearing this, one of the conspiracy theorists looks at the other with eyes wide and says, "Wow... This is easier than we thought.

[teddy51]

30. lol Good job! n/t