View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

What's on the table?

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

What's on the table?

Postby Misha » 08 Oct 2012, 21:16

Hi Guys,

I thought I would start a thread which might show cases in history and present agendas that best exemplify how programs come about. Yes, we all know about PNAC as an example. However, are there any other cases which point to patterns or cognitive associations which entertains the possible groundwork for a political or geopolitical outcome?

Here is one example worth considering:

http://truththeory.com/2012/10/03/hilla ... inst-iran/
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42






Re: What's on the table?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 08 Oct 2012, 21:32

Misha wrote:Hi Guys,

I thought I would start a thread which might show cases in history and present agendas that best exemplify how programs come about. Yes, we all know about PNAC as an example.

We do? Not me.
I did find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_fo ... an_Century
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from 1997 to 2006. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4]


However, I don't really understand how Hillary laughing has anything to do with the above.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: What's on the table?

Postby Misha » 08 Oct 2012, 21:55

Thanks for replying, NinjaPuppy. Am I clear that you do not believe that PNAC's stated agenda (goal) was not "to promote American global leadership" under the guise of military strength and moral clarity? Did we not get military strength and moral clarity with the trumped up WMD lies concerning Iraq?

Yes, I do not know why Hillary is laughing? However, is Hillary providing another pretext for war? Is this another program?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: What's on the table?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 08 Oct 2012, 22:05

Misha wrote:Thanks for replying, NinjaPuppy. Am I clear that you do not believe that PNAC's stated agenda (goal) was not "to promote American global leadership" under the guise of military strength and moral clarity?

It's not that I believe or not believe. I am CLUELESS as to what PNAC is, does or otherwise stands for from the git-go. I would need some time to read and follow up with this to even start to understand.

Misha wrote:Did we not get military strength and moral clarity with the trumped up WMD lies concerning Iraq?

What? As far as I can remember, the only thing I got from the whole thing was a deck of playing cards so I could play along at home and my personal membership to the Baghdad Bob Fan Club.

Misha wrote:Yes, I do not know why Hillary is laughing?

Hey, it happens.

Misha wrote:However, is Hillary providing another pretext for war?

IMO, the only thing that Hillary can provide a pretext for is her own political future.

Misha wrote:Is this another program?

I don't understand the question.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: What's on the table?

Postby really? » 09 Oct 2012, 03:52

Misha wrote:Thanks for replying, NinjaPuppy. Am I clear that you do not believe that PNAC's stated agenda (goal) was not "to promote American global leadership" under the guise of military strength and moral clarity? Did we not get military strength and moral clarity with the trumped up WMD lies concerning Iraq?


How do you know these allegations of WMD were lies ? Are you privy to intelligence information the rest of us are not ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: What's on the table?

Postby Misha » 09 Oct 2012, 04:07

really? wrote:
Misha wrote:Thanks for replying, NinjaPuppy. Am I clear that you do not believe that PNAC's stated agenda (goal) was not "to promote American global leadership" under the guise of military strength and moral clarity? Did we not get military strength and moral clarity with the trumped up WMD lies concerning Iraq?


How do you know these allegations of WMD were lies ? Are you privy to intelligence information the rest of us are not ?


Really, Do your homework or are you just dissembling? If we had found Iraq's WMDs then the invasion would have been justified under the original pretext set forth by Secretary State Colin Powell. Where's the beef?

Scott Ritter and Joe Wilson (Niger allegations) were correct. No WMDs. Even William Safire (NY Times) acknowledge to Ritter he was correct.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: What's on the table?

Postby ProfWag » 09 Oct 2012, 05:41

really? wrote:
Misha wrote:Thanks for replying, NinjaPuppy. Am I clear that you do not believe that PNAC's stated agenda (goal) was not "to promote American global leadership" under the guise of military strength and moral clarity? Did we not get military strength and moral clarity with the trumped up WMD lies concerning Iraq?


How do you know these allegations of WMD were lies ? Are you privy to intelligence information the rest of us are not ?

Actually, for the most part I believe Misha is right on this one. Although we went into Iraq assuming WMDs were there but weren't, they did find remnants of a weapons program and stockpiles of weapons that had been ordered destroyed a decade earlier that weren't destroyed.
However Misha, "lies" is a pretty strong word for which I do not believe you have evidence for. False information and factually based assumptions that were wrong, maybe. But actual "lies," well, there's not much proof there of that.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: What's on the table?

Postby Misha » 09 Oct 2012, 08:13

'George Orwell once wrote, "in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." This is a fight against universal deceit....

This is still a nation where a citizen can get up every morning and shout at the top of his lungs that the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State are lying sons of bi****s, and survive to see the sun go down. I know. I do it most days. Don't take my word for it. Ask Valerie.'

--From former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, Page 267 from the book - "Fair Game."


Now ask, Misha. "They're lying bottom feeding sons of bi****s who have expended our nation's youth and wealth on lies."
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: What's on the table?

Postby really? » 09 Oct 2012, 22:09

ProfWag wrote:
really? wrote:
Misha wrote:Thanks for replying, NinjaPuppy. Am I clear that you do not believe that PNAC's stated agenda (goal) was not "to promote American global leadership" under the guise of military strength and moral clarity? Did we not get military strength and moral clarity with the trumped up WMD lies concerning Iraq?


How do you know these allegations of WMD were lies ? Are you privy to intelligence information the rest of us are not ?

Actually, for the most part I believe Misha is right on this one. Although we went into Iraq assuming WMDs were there but weren't, they did find remnants of a weapons program and stockpiles of weapons that had been ordered destroyed a decade earlier that weren't destroyed.
However Misha, "lies" is a pretty strong word for which I do not believe you have evidence for. False information and factually based assumptions that were wrong, maybe. But actual "lies," well, there's not much proof there of that.


We have short memories. Many other countries believe also Saddam had WMD's. If memory serves me well I recall the Clinton administration also believe Saddam had WMD's. Saddam also gassed a Khurdish town. I've never been to war, but I think that it is prudent to assume your enemy has superior weapons capability than not. I think the one fabricating an untruth here is Misha. To what end I can only guess and that end is to uphold a narrative that fits their view of this situation including 9/11.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: What's on the table?

Postby ProfWag » 09 Oct 2012, 23:52

Misha wrote:'George Orwell once wrote, "in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." This is a fight against universal deceit....

This is still a nation where a citizen can get up every morning and shout at the top of his lungs that the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State are lying sons of bi****s, and survive to see the sun go down. I know. I do it most days. Don't take my word for it. Ask Valerie.'

--From former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, Page 267 from the book - "Fair Game."


Now ask, Misha. "They're lying bottom feeding sons of bi****s who have expended our nation's youth and wealth on lies."

I sense a bit of hostility towards the U.S. government. I think that explains quite a few of your positions on the subject matter we've discussed.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: What's on the table?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 10 Oct 2012, 00:18

ProfWag wrote:I sense a bit of hostility towards the U.S. government. I think that explains quite a few of your positions on the subject matter we've discussed.

Of course it's going to explain someone's position on subject matter. Considering that the subject matter IS about the US Government, I'd say you're spot on here ProfWag. Are you sure you're not psychic???
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: What's on the table?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 10 Oct 2012, 00:33

It seems to me that what is "on the table" here is centered around the word "lies". Allow me to pick the word "lies" into tiny little pieces.

ProfWag wrote:However Misha, "lies" is a pretty strong word for which I do not believe you have evidence for. False information and factually based assumptions that were wrong, maybe. But actual "lies," well, there's not much proof there of that.

Yes, "lies" is a strong word but is it an appropriate word? That is the question. What is the definition of the word "lie"?
<I'll go with the Dictionary.com version for $100, Alex>
lie
[lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing. noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.


Well, #3 sure can fit in this instance.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: What's on the table?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 10 Oct 2012, 00:50

Next on my agenda is:
ProfWag wrote:I sense a bit of hostility towards the U.S. government. I think that explains quite a few of your positions on the subject matter we've discussed.

As I alluded to above, a persons position on a particular subject is usually based on feelings about that subject.

If you are totally sold on something, you usually don't go looking for answers or more information but if you are uneasy with something, you tend to dig for answers or information to verify your feelings or to find out if your feelings of doubt are justified.

When it comes to any information from the US Government, we know for a fact that information has been and always will be held back from the general population for reasons of 'National Security' and/or because it may otherwise damage the current status quo. IMO, that is a lie by omission and when I googled those words, this is what I got:

Wikipedia wrote:Lie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally


I would say that Misha's choice of words fits perfectly in this subject.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: What's on the table?

Postby Arouet » 10 Oct 2012, 01:34

Ninja, not sure you're reading that wiki quote correctly. It says to deliver a false-statement. A "lie by ommission" is not a statement.

(not that I don't think people in the government have never lied, just saying the lie by ommission doesn't fit the bill)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: What's on the table?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 10 Oct 2012, 01:52

Arouet wrote:Ninja, not sure you're reading that wiki quote correctly. It says to deliver a false-statement. A "lie by ommission" is not a statement.

(not that I don't think people in the government have never lied, just saying the lie by ommission doesn't fit the bill)

You are right. A lie by omission is NOT a statement. But it's still a "lie" as per the quoted Wikipedia definition.

I'm not questioning if the US government has lied or ever lied. I'm questioning if Misha's choice of words are appropriate in this topic. I believe that she is within acceptable parameters of at least one of these definitions.

I only chose my example of the US government keeping certain information "confidential" (or from the general public) as it is a proven fact that has been verified throughout history. Hence, "lie by omission".
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests