FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Who Did 9/11 - And Why?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
and i



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 302

PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i'm reading through it now. thank you for the link.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

and i said:
Quote:
i'm reading through it now. thank you for the link.

No worries - as you'll be able to tell, it was quite an interesting time... Smile

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
and i



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 302

PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah... I'm still putting pieces together and trying to determine what is what... I was one of those who was too shocked by the events of 9-11 to put the pieces together until years later... So... I don't have the insights that many folks here do. Which is why I'm glad to have found this forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mattster



Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

could the U.S. have done the 911 attacks because the U.S. dollar might have been on the verge of callapsing? Could they have done this because of this, because I remember hearing some top financial experts seriously questioning the stabbility and future of the U.S. dollar, about a year or two before the attacks happened.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not an expert on the US economy, but I'll give it a shot...

Mattster wrote:
could the U.S. have done the 911 attacks because the U.S. dollar might have been on the verge of callapsing? Could they have done this because of this, because I remember hearing some top financial experts seriously questioning the stabbility and future of the U.S. dollar, about a year or two before the attacks happened.

I don't think so. The dollar is artificially kept afloat now, but if I'm not mistaking the value of the dollar is less now than before 9/11, if it ever had any real value, being a debt-based currency. The US economy has been in steady decline for years due to over-spending (wars) and the current national debt is far greater than is ever possible to pay back to the Federal Reserve, which is neither federal nor a reserve. The perpetual war economy only serves the arms/oil/weapons industry and internatinal bankers, not the US, and 9/11 accelerated this looting of the US economy. Fractional banking allows banking institutions to give out loans ten times that of their current holdings in gold. The US "central bank" must be way passed this by now, but then again the Federal Reserve is largely controlled by the Bank of England (and others), where the real money is (and where it goes), and thus has really no allegiance to the US and the taxpayers who are financing this over-spending in "the war of terror".

Further, the Neo-conservative club has grown to believe in the Straussian deception they were taught, so the situation is pretty entrenched. Capitalizing on their perverted world view and plans in order to bring the US to it's knees has been part of the game plan, but most of them are probably too "blinded" to fully realize this. Remember, they are not pragmatists, they are (perverted) "idealists".

-DL-
(Neo-Actual) Wink

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:49 pm    Post subject: Whodunnit? Reply with quote

Deep Logos wrote:
Outline:
Just by analyzing what has taken place since 9/11-2001, one can clearly see what that act of false flag terror has facilitated in terms of policy implementation, preemptive aggression to ensure hegemony and fracture opposing entities, the curtailing of personal liberties, the centralization of power in the western block, legislation and propaganda to uniform geopolitical goals and opinion and the eventual death of nationalism. The game plan also involve creating/maintaining the facade of three seemingly opposing blocks, two of which are false (the west vs Russia/ China) and one fractured, easily controlled block (Middle East, Africa and South East Asia). This public picture must be maintained in order to control public opinion and prevent opposition to implemented changes.


Quote:
I have left out the obvious government agencies, their talking heads, and most elected officials for now, as they are in a sense the target of much critique as it is. That is of course not to say that they doesn't play a role (even major) in what took place.


First off, nice work everybody. The sudden explosion of new posters discussing zionist prophecy, alien encounters, and cartoon planes is encouraging... we must be getting somewhere!

Hey Deep - nice work with the overview and the list of potentially 'information bearing' individuals and organizations from the private sector.

I believe it is important to identify both the potential corporate and government sources of support for the operation.

I also believe, however, that it is fruitless to focus analysis on either one or the other, as not only do they work together far more tightly than as portrayed in the media, they shield each other from culpability due to their separate legal jurisdictions. In fact, I'd say that at this point in history, they are the same 'force'; whether a corporate or governmental 'entity' is seen is due to the jurisdictional perspective of the observer.

For example, corporate graft can potentially be shielded by the veil of national security, while unethical STATE activity can be hidden behind corporate rights guaranteed by a free market economy.

Now, imagine if one entity could appear to be either at will. Now, imagine an international version of this entity; able to utilize the security and defense apparatuses of the worlds wealthiest governments while enjoying all the protections offered to corporate entities by global 'free trade' agreements. The administrative officers of an entity such as this could plan, execute, and perceptually manage an international operation involving compartmentalized corporate and STATE resources with almost complete secrecy. The kind of secrecy you get in 'behind closed door' summit meetings.

Care to guess if such an entity exists, and what they call themselves? Wink

Here's a hint - it starts with the same letter as 'Gangster'.

With the question of 'Who did it' in mind, lets take a close, and obsessively pedantic look at how the G8 describe themselves. According to this year's G8 Summit website:

Quote:


G8 HISTORY

The G8 Group is an unofficial forum of the heads of the leading industrialized democracies (Russia, the U.S., Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Canada and Italy), where the European Commission is also represented and fully participates. This forum was designed to harmonize attitudes to acute international problems. The member states account for 49% of global exports, 51% of industrial output, and 49% of assets in the International Monetary Fund.

The history of the Group, which initially had consisted of seven members, began in November 1975, when the first meeting of the leaders of six countries met in Rambouillet at the initiative of President of France Giscard d’Estaing. Canada joined the Group a year later.

EU representatives have attended G7 meetings since 1977 (the European Union is always represented at G8 Summits by the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council). Russia was admitted to the Group at the Denver summit in 1997.

G8 is not an international organization. It does not rest on an international agreement and does not have formal admission criteria, a charter or a permanent secretariat. Its decisions are formulated as the political commitments of the member states.

But G8 has developed a stable procedure, with summits held regularly by rote in the partner states and the host country acting as the chairman of G8 for a calendar year. It organizes the summit and ministerial, expert and working meetings, elaborates the schedule and coordinates the routine work of the Group.

Discussions of the heads of state and government are held behind closed doors, with G8 Sherpas (personal representatives of leaders) being the only outsiders. Decisions are adopted on the principle of consensus.

The annual working cycle of the Group is focused on the preparations for and the holding of summits, the key event at the “club.” The Sherpas, who usually meet quarterly, lead and coordinate preparations.

The Sherpas lead the national teams that consist of political directors, foreign affairs and financial Sous-Sherpas, and other national experts. The Russian Sherpa is Igor Shuvalov, an aide to the Russian President.

Regular meetings of foreign and finance ministers play a major part in the preparation of summits, which entail also (by agreement) the meetings of environment, energy, labor and social development, healthcare, science and education, interior and justice ministers (prosecutors general).

G8 also has working and expert groups and task forces. As of now, there are the High Level Group on Nonproliferation, the Rome/Lyons Group (on terrorism and organized crime), the Counter-Terrorism Expert Group, the G8 Personal Representatives for Africa, the Global Partnership Senior Officials Group, the G8 Nonproliferation Experts Group (with a plutonium subgroup), the Nuclear Safety and Security Group, and several others. G8 holds an average of 60 to 80 functions annually.

In accordance with the decision of the G8 summit in Kananaskis in 2002, Russia will take the rotating chair of the group on January 1, 2006.


From: Official Website of the G8 presidency of the Russian Federation in 2006
http://en.g8russia.ru/g8/history/shortinfo/


Blah blah blah... just your usual generalized description of these international pageants of imperial pomp, right? Just a quick paragraph dashed off in the G8 publicity office?

Upon closer inspection, I think not - in fact, I think these words may be carefully chosen, and IMO, directly related to our discussion. Let's look closer:

Quote:
The G8 Group is an unofficial forum of the heads of the leading industrialized democracies (Russia, the U.S., Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Canada and Italy), where the European Commission is also represented and fully participates.


Ok. the G8 is an 'unofficial forum' of the most powerful dudes in the world. No official guidelines, no 'rules or regulations.' No official ethical standard, and most importantly, no official responsibility to anybody for the global consequences of G8 action.

In other words, an extremely private, self appointed 'club' interpreting and enforcing international law. Were they looking for a club motto, I might suggest, "We play, you pay."

Quote:
This forum was designed to harmonize attitudes to acute international problems.


Woah. Read that little detail again. This is what they say about themselves.

Quote:
This forum was designed to harmonize attitudes to acute international problems.


Beautiful isn't it? 'Designed to harmonize attitudes'. This group is designed to influence attitudes, not events. The group apparently doesn't convene to solve international problems, but rather, to manage the resulting 'attitude dissonance.'

Which I can understand, as recent world events have certainly given my attitude a permanently flatted 5th.

The point is, 'harmonizing attitudes' certainly sounds to me like an operation largely psychological in nature.

Quote:

The member states account for 49% of global exports, 51% of industrial output, and 49% of assets in the International Monetary Fund.


So, technically they only own half the playground. Together, I'd think that's enough to extort the milk money out of the other half.

Quote:
The history of the Group, which initially had consisted of seven members, began in November 1975, when the first meeting of the leaders of six countries met in Rambouillet at the initiative of President of France Giscard d’Estaing. Canada joined the Group a year later.

EU representatives have attended G7 meetings since 1977 (the European Union is always represented at G8 Summits by the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council). Russia was admitted to the Group at the Denver summit in 1997.



Ahh France - always so helpful and full of initiative! How you say, 'enabler'?
And Canada... slipping into the party fashionably late and unnoticed. Wink

Just kidding French people, relax - what's interesting is that the EU has been around since when? 1977?

Quote:
The European Union (EU) is an intergovernmental and supranational union of 25 democratic member states. The European Union is the world's largest confederation of independent states, established under that name in 1992 by the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty). However, many aspects of the Union existed before that date through a series of predecessor relationships, dating back to 1951.[1]

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU


DOH! . Make that 1951.

Quote:
G8 is not an international organization. It does not rest on an international agreement and does not have formal admission criteria, a charter or a permanent secretariat. Its decisions are formulated as the political commitments of the member states.


Oh, and they control the largest, deadliest, military industrial intelligence complex on the planet.

In other words, "Damn, it's good to be a gangster."

Quote:
But G8 has developed a stable procedure, with summits held regularly by rote in the partner states and the host country acting as the chairman of G8 for a calendar year. It organizes the summit and ministerial, expert and working meetings, elaborates the schedule and coordinates the routine work of the Group.


This concept alone deserves a dissertation, IMO. It's the ultimate global power structure - a moving target. A pyramid with a portable capstone. A supranational organization protected by the most heavily armed nations on earth. It truly is genius - impressive as it is evil.

Quote:
Discussions of the heads of state and government are held behind closed doors, with G8 Sherpas (personal representatives of leaders) being the only outsiders. Decisions are adopted on the principle of consensus.


Ok - does anybody else find something odd about this? Uh, Sherpa? Hello? WTF?

Isn't a sherpa like a dude who like, helps you cross the mountains or some shit? I'm picturing Bush and Putin each flanked by some kind of Himalyan tribesman with a walking stick and a goat on a rope. There must be an obvious explanation.

Quote:

Sher‧pa  [sher-puh, shur-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -pas, (especially collectively) -pa.
1.
a member of a people of Tibetan stock living in the Nepalese Himalayas, who often serve as porters on mountain-climbing expeditions.
2.
(sometimes lowercase) an expert chosen by a chief executive to assist in preparations for a summit meeting.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


From:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sherpa


Hmm. Not completely obvious, but I guess I sort of get it. It's a 'summit' meeting. A summit is the top of a mountain. You need a sherpa to help you 'get' to the top of a mountain. Especially if you have an important meeting there. The goat carries your laptop. Oddly poetic way of saying secretary, though - personally, I'd rather tell my mom I'm a 'Presidential Aide' than a 'sherpa', which she thinks is simply another word for 'stoner'.

Uh, this ain't no wedding planner, though - our sherpa friend SITS IN ON THE F*CKING SUMMIT MEETING! Sure, I can read global conspiracy into a grocery receipt, but I found this fact to be rather astounding.

I mean, the eight apparently most powerful human beings on earth go into a heavily guarded, private, locked room to discuss the future of the world ... along with eight other dudes that you've never heard of. Anybody? Odd? Uh.. Security Clearance Sherpa?

There are sixteen people that know what Pooty and Shrub actually say in that meeting. Eight of them we're completely sick of looking at, and eight of them we don't even know exist. Go ahead and google sherpa. Ten bucks if you can name all eight.

Decisions are adopted on the principle of whose consensus? The heads of state? The sherpas? Both? Ro-sham-bo?

Who does this Sherpa actually report to? Who picks the damn sherpa? Why do I suddenly sound like a complete lunatic?

Well, at least the US has a sharp sherpa... right? Don't we? Who is our sherpa? Is he a good sherpa? Has he sherpa'd before? Is he accredited? Does he even own a goat?

I just find this strange, and it makes me wonder about who is guiding whom on this dangerous climb to the summit. Traditionally, it is the sherpa's role is to make sure the climber makes it to the summit without falling from the precarious ledge and fatally landing on a lone gunman. Traditionally, travelers to remote mountain peaks do what ever the hell their sherpa says. Dissatisfied clients rarely request their money back.

Quote:

The annual working cycle of the Group is focused on the preparations for and the holding of summits, the key event at the “club.” The Sherpas, who usually meet quarterly, lead and coordinate preparations.


So, the work of the group 'revolves' around these super private summit meetings. I find the use of "club" completely horrifying in this context, but I'll let that one go - just a cute "nickname". Like "mob".

What is interesting is these sherpas work year round, leading and coordinating the preparations for this most important of private meetings. Apparently it would be a global disaster if the crepe paper didn't match the napkins.

Quote:
The Sherpas lead the national teams that consist of political directors, foreign affairs and financial Sous-Sherpas, and other national experts.


Ok, we've got sherpas now leading both the summit preparations, and the 'national teams' of political leadership.

And now we've got Sous-Sherpas! WTF? Of course, they're the financial ones, whatever that means. Ok, twenty bucks if you can name the G8 Sous-Sherpas. Twenty five if you can tell me what they do.

Quote:
The Russian Sherpa is Igor Shuvalov, an aide to the Russian President.


But of course, Igor Shuvalov. I'll bet Igor's got a hot goat.

Quote:

Regular meetings of foreign and finance ministers play a major part in the preparation of summits, which entail also (by agreement) the meetings of environment, energy, labor and social development, healthcare, science and education, interior and justice ministers (prosecutors general).


Ah ha. 'Preparation of summits' includes 'agreements' between 'finance ministers' regarding a variety of social issues... in fact, just about all social issues. Can you think of anything that isn't included in that list? Would a 'finance minister' also be referred to as an international banker?

Are these 'agreements' written down on paper say, like contracts? If so, who's signature authorizes these agreements between finance ministers?

What is really going on behind the closed doors of the Summit, the "club's" key event? Is it perhaps something involving 8 Montblancs and 8 witnesses?

Keep in mind this entire 'preparation' process is apparently lead by our trusty sherpas, whomever they may be.

Quote:
G8 also has working and expert groups and task forces.


At last, the JEWEL of my post! Working and expert groups and task forces. That pretty much says it right there IMO.

Whom do I think operationally 'pulled off' 911? My research has led me to this answer; one of the expert working G8 task forces.

Which one? I dunno, probably a really secret one, but here's a couple potential candidates.


Quote:

As of now, there are the High Level Group on Nonproliferation, the Rome/Lyons Group (on terrorism and organized crime), the Counter-Terrorism Expert Group, the G8 Personal Representatives for Africa, the Global Partnership Senior Officials Group, the G8 Nonproliferation Experts Group (with a plutonium subgroup), the Nuclear Safety and Security Group, and several others. G8 holds an average of 60 to 80 functions annually.


I'm partial to the Rome/Lyons Group, cause the name alone is just so Ian Fleming. The Counter Terrorism Expert Group is also an excellent choice, however. Obviously, there's a cool 50 in it for anybody with the right answer, but I think I've made my point - I think it was one of em.

Who would these task forces be comprised of? Who else would it be other than the absolutely most bad ass members of each G8 nation's intelligence services.

Basically, the 'CIA All Stars'.

Quote:
In accordance with the decision of the G8 summit in Kananaskis in 2002, Russia will take the rotating chair of the group on January 1, 2006.


So, it appears that important decisions are made about four years in advance. Well, I guess here in the US, we make important decisions every four years too, when we choose who we're gonna send up to that summit behind the sherpa.

I wonder if an important decision about 2001 would have then been 'prepared' in 94, or 98? It might be interesting to examine those two summits.

Who was the US Sherpa in 1998 again?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8494

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:49 pm    Post subject: James B. Steinberg Reply with quote

Quote:
Jerry Fletcher: I wonder if an important decision about 2001
would have then been 'prepared' in 94, or 98? It might be interesting to
examine those two summits.

Who was the US Sherpa in 1998 again?


Kick! Great post. Nailed the non-accountable G8.

So, here's the Sherpas for the G8 Birmingham Summit 1998:

Quote:
Leader and Sherpa

Canada:

Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister
Don Campbell, Personal Representative (Sherpa)

France:

Jacques Chirac, President of the Republic
Jean-David Levitte, Personal Representative (Sherpa)

Germany:

Helmut Kohl, Chancellor
Jürgen Stark, Personal Representative (Sherpa)

Italy:

Romano Prodi, President of the Council of Ministers
Roberto Nigido, Personal Representative (Sherpa)

Japan:

Ryutaro Hashimoto, Prime Minister
Koichi Haraguchi, Personal Representative (Sherpa)

Russian Federation:

Boris Yeltsin, President
Alexander Livshits, Personal Representative (Sherpa)

United Kingdom:

Tony Blair, Prime Minister
John Holmes, Personal Representative (Sherpa)

United States:

William J. Clinton, President
James B. Steinberg, Personal Representative (Sherpa)

European Union:

Jacques Santer, President
Sir Leon Brittan, Vice President
Jim Cloos, Personal Representative (Sherpa)

http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/summit/1998birmingham/delegation.htm

Interesting Dude.

Quote:


James B. Steinberg
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies - Brookings Institute

Expertise
National security, U.S. foreign policy, international relations, intelligence, information technology

Education
J.D., Yale University, 1978; A.B., Harvard College, 1973

Background
Current Position(s): Dean, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas; Board of Directors, Pacific Council on International Policy; International Advisory Board for the International Programs Committee of the Governing Board of the National Research Council; Board of Directors, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; Member, President's Council on International Activities, Yale University

Previous Position(s): Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution; Senior Advisor, Markle Foundation; Deputy National Security Advisor to President Clinton; Director, Policy Planning Staff, U.S. Department of State; Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Analysis, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, U.S. Department of State; Senior Analyst, RAND Corporation; Senior Fellow, International Institute for Strategic Studies; National Security and Military Affairs Counsel, Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)

http://www.brookings.edu/scholars/jsteinberg.htm

Biography of James B. Steinberg
http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/steinbergbio.html

Building Intelligence to Fight Terrorism
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb125.htm

Preventive War, A Useful Tool
http://breakfornews.com/forum/posting.php?mode=reply&t=753

http://breakfornews.com/forum/posting.php?mode=reply&t=753

SENATE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE TESTIMONY
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_hr/021403steinberg.html

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rosalinda



Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 355
Location: Mexico

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:56 am    Post subject: "America" Reply with quote

It seemed that immediately after the attacks of 911, the media and politicians
stopped saying "The United States" or "The United States of America"
and began to refer to the place simply as, "America".

This can not have been an accident and is indicative of the intention
to degrade the quality of national sovereignty and philosophical virtue
the country might still derive from its unique Preamble to its Constitution.

_________________
"It is through beauty, that one proceeds to freedom." - Friedrich Schiller
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:24 am    Post subject: G8 <-- Sherpa --> NATO Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
Interesting Dude.


Indeed.

Jimmy the Sherpa certainly appears to be leading the discussion in 1996 as the State Dept. begins 'Advancing' the 'Adaptation' of NATO to face the 'challenges' of a 'new century'.

Here's his speech regarding NATO in 1996 - about, oh, five years before the 'war on terror' begins.


Quote:

US Department of State Dispatch > July 15, 1996

Advancing Nato's Adaptation - speech by Policy Planning Staff Director James B. Steinberg to the Atlantic Council about the changing nature of NATO's role - Transcript

Thank you for that kind introduction. For decades, the Atlantic Council has performed an invaluable service promoting greater understanding of America's stake in Europe. I particularly want to take this opportunity to salute you personally, General Goodpaster, for your own service to our country and your continuing commitment to a strong transatlantic alliance.

You mentioned my predecessor, George Kennan. The hardest part of my job is coming into the office every morning, seeing his picture on the wall and being constantly reminded of the high standard he set. I try very hard to live up to it. That standard was particularly high on matters of European security, where the extraordinary efforts of Mr. Kennan and General Marshall left a lasting legacy for the United States' own security. In that spirit, I would like to discuss with you our Administration's recent transatlantic initiatives and how they contribute to advancing President Clinton's goal of a democratic, undivided Europe.

Let me begin by recalling another June day, just seven years ago, when Austrian and Hungarian leaders gathered at their border, snipped the first holes in the Iron Curtain, and transformed the continent. Over the next months and years--only a blink of history's eye--the Berlin Wall fell; the Soviet empire collapsed; new democracies were born; and the sharp, chiseled lines of the Cold War dissolved into a Jackson Pollock painting.

These changes posed both opportunities and challenges for NATO. After all, the Atlantic alliance was conceived as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism. But NATO always has been more than just a defensive alliance. Even as NATO held the line against the Soviet Army, it drew France and Germany together. It helped integrate Italy and, eventually, Spain into the community of democracies. It gave shattered economies the confidence to recover. And it provided the essential framework for transatlantic cooperation on a wide range of common concerns.

Throughout its history, NATO has shown a remarkable ability to adapt to change. It enlarged to take in Greece and Turkey in 1952, Germany in 1955, and Spain in 1982. The Harmel Report of 1967, with its parallel strategy of defense and detente, was a creative response to the changing European landscape of the mid- to late 1960s, just as NATO's double-track decision on theater nuclear forces was an effective response to the challenges of the late 1970s and early 1980s.

It was in this spirit that the alliance quickly began to respond to the tumultuous changes released by the end of the Cold War. Only eight months after the fall of the Berlin Wall and 17 months before the end of the Soviet Union, the alliance set forth new goals at its London Summit in July 1990.

NATO declared that it no longer considered Moscow an adversary and announced a new program of cooperation with the states of central and eastern Europe. Just as important, alliance leaders called for a restructuring of NATO military forces and a reorientation of NATO strategy.


Also known as 'getting together to pick a new common enemy' before the world realizes you're completely unnecessary.

So, who on planet Earth is stupid enough to say BOO to both the US and Russia? Wha? Al Who?

Quote:
One year later, in Copenhagen, NATO foreign ministers declared "we do not wish to isolate any country, nor to see a new division of the Continent." At the Rome Summit of November 1991, alliance leaders approved a new strategic concept that dropped containment from the NATO strategy, declared no country to be an opponent or enemy, and made clear that crisis management would become an important mission for the alliance in addition to its core responsibility for defense of its members.

At that same Rome Summit, alliance leaders created the North Atlantic Cooperation Council--the NACC--and invited Russia and the other states of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact to join.

These strands of adaptation came together at the Brussels Summit in January 1994, when, at President Clinton's urging, alliance leaders adopted a broad strategy of cooperation with all of Europe and endorsed a three-point program for alliance reform.

First, they called for adapting NATO's internal structures, including support for greater European visibility and capability within the alliance and approval of the concept of Combined Joint Task Forces.

Second, they launched a strategy for external adaptation, including the Partnership for Peace, a strategy for enlargement and outreach to Russia and to Ukraine.

Third, they directed an examination of the full spectrum of NATO's roles and missions in the new security environment.

Of course, NATO's adaptation did not proceed in isolation. Since taking office, President Clinton has advanced a comprehensive strategy for European security. In addition to a revitalized NATO and a robust and permanent Partnership for Peace, it includes support for a broader and deeper European Union and a stronger OSCE. It includes giving Russia the opportunity to integrate into Europe's broad security and economic architecture. None of these is an end in itself, but each is critical to advancing the President's overall goal of a peaceful, undivided, and democratic Europe.

That goal remains within our reach. But the early euphoria that surrounded the collapse of the Soviet empire has been replaced by a more sober appreciation of the challenges, none more vivid than the tragic conflict in the former Yugoslavia. The Cold War has ended, but more people have died violently in Europe during the past five years than during the previous 50. As Secretary Christopher said in Prague this spring,
Europe's future will be shaped either by the divisive intolerance that left Bosnia in ruins or the democratic integration to which most nations in this region aspire.

This means that our definition of security must include--but also must go beyond--the military dimension. Security in Europe today is not only a matter of extending guarantees from the top down, it also is a matter of building democracies and market economies from the bottom up. That is why the international community's efforts at civilian implementation of the Dayton peace accords are so important and why we must continue to give the people of Bosnia a personal stake--a real interest--in peace.

Bosnia is also a clear example of NATO's continuing relevance to Europe's new security challenges. One year ago, we were trying to end the horrors of war; today, we are focused on securing the benefits of peace.

IFOR has not only brought hope to the people of Bosnia but also has demonstrated the possibilities of cooperation in support of peace and stability. IFOR has brought NATO allies together with 16 non-NATO countries from Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia in an effective and unified coalition for peace. And participation by Russia and the central European nations underscores both the ability of the alliance to build practical new partnerships and the essential role of these countries in the new security environment in Europe.

Last week in Berlin, the alliance took important steps to fulfill several key aspects of the 1994 Brussels Summit mandate. The centerpiece of Berlin was NATO's internal adaptation. Here our efforts have been guided by three objectives: to ensure the alliance's military effectiveness in Europe's changing security environment; to preserve the transatlantic link; and to develop the European Security and Defense Identity within the alliance.

As we have proceeded, we have rejected the false counsel of those who have argued that enhanced European capabilities would necessarily weaken America's engagement with Europe and undermine the effectiveness of the alliance. I believe that the results in Berlin demonstrate clearly that these three goals are in fact mutually supportive.

Our decisions in Berlin give NATO the means to help provide stability throughout Europe by being able to respond rapidly and effectively to a spectrum of crises that are likely to happen but the details of which cannot now be foreseen. We established the new Policy Coordination Group to meet the need for closer coordination of political and military issues as NATO embarks on new roles and mission. And we are giving NATO a permanent institutional capacity to plan, train for, and deploy complex operations such as IFOR through the Combined Joint Task Force concept. By permitting a more flexible and mobile deployment of forces, CJTF will facilitate NATO contingency operations and make it easier for members of the Partnership for Peace to join with NATO forces when the alliance responds to emergencies.


Which it never had before, ever, btw.

Quote:

Our decisions in Berlin also will allow our European allies to strengthen their capabilities within the alliance. We agreed on a process by which we can make NATO assets available for military operations led by the Western European Union and to develop European command arrangements within the alliance that preserve NATO's unity and transatlantic foundation.

Though much work remains to be done, we are confident that we can bring these decisions and commitments to life.
Progress in Berlin came in part because of President Chirac's decision to have France participate more closely in the work of NATO--and to pursue ESDI within the alliance. France has now rejoined the Military Committee, and earlier today its Defense Minister once again participated in a meeting of NATO Defense Ministers for the first time in 30 years. France's soldiers have a critical role under NATO command in Bosnia, and France is playing an indispensable part in our common effort to build a new NATO in a secure and undivided Europe.

Berlin also had important implications for external adaptation. First, we further strengthened the Partnership for Peace. We agreed to apply our experience in IFOR to future Partnership exercises and to its planning and training activities. We agreed to facilitate Partner participation in CJTF at an early stage. And we agreed to broaden and deepen the Partnership Planning and Review Process. This will advance our common efforts on interoperability, civil-military relations, and defense policy and planning. Second, by moving forward with internal adaptation, we enhanced our ability to include Partners in NATO activities and to implement the internal changes necessary to take in new members.

NATO's progress on internal adaptation is thus a further demonstration that the alliance is on track to fulfill its decision to take in new members. At present, 15 interested Partners are engaged in individual, intensified dialogues with the alliance, continuing the process established at the December 1995 NATO Ministerial. These dialogues help Partners and the alliance to determine what they each must do to prepare for enlargement. Based on the results of these dialogues, the alliance will decide on next steps at the NATO meeting in December.

NATO's external adaptation also means building new partnerships with Russia and Ukraine. We have a vital interest in integrating Russia into Europe's broad security and economic architecture. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO and the European Union have made progress in expanding cooperation with Russia. Russia has joined and participates actively in the Partnership for Peace. Russia and NATO have held consultations on key arms control issues, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the safe and secure dismantlement of nuclear weapons. Another positive note came last week with the agreement on equipment levels permitted on the north and south flanks of the CFE region. Cooperation in different fields of NATO activities is ongoing as, for example, in the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding on Civil Emergency Planning and Disaster Preparedness.

Our joint efforts in Bosnia demonstrate how important--and how successful--cooperation between Russia and NATO can be. Who would have thought that American and Russian soldiers would be patrolling together or that NATO and Russian officials would be planning together in a common mission for peace? Today those unthinkables are a reality.

Now we need to build on our practical experience in Bosnia to deepen the NATO-Russia relationship in a more formalized, broad-ranging fashion. Together, we should elaborate basic principles for security cooperation and permanent mechanisms for political consultations.

There is much we can do together. But in the end, the choice is Russia is to make--a choice covering both Russia's internal policies and policies toward its neighbors and the world.

This Sunday, the world will be watching as Russia holds its first presidential elections in the post-Soviet era. Far from fearing the result, we should welcome this important step toward consolidating democracy in Russia, which will benefit not only the people of Russia but also of Europe, America, and the world. Throughout this process, our interests and objectives remain constant: to keep our people safe and to lock in the gains for peace and freedom made possible by the Cold War's end.

Ukraine's emergence as a sovereign and prosperous democracy is also critical. That is why we value Ukraine's participation in IFOR and PfP, and why we want NATO and Ukraine to build an enhanced relationship. These efforts are paying off. As we were meeting in Berlin, for example, the U.S., Russia, and eight other nations were participating in a joint military exercise in the western part of Ukraine. Thanks to the Trilateral Agreement between the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine, the last Soviet-era nuclear warheads left Ukrainian soil just two weeks ago. And President Clinton has galvanized the international community's efforts to support Ukraine's economic reform.

Taken together, these initiatives underscore just how far we have come in our efforts to realize the full promise of the vision charted by such post-war giants as George Marshall and Jean Monnet. We are adapting Western institutions to meet the challenges of a new era. And we are working with partners to the east to extend the same benefits and obligations of the open economic and security order that has brought peace and prosperity to the West.

For half a century, the Atlantic community has been the leading force for peace and prosperity--for ourselves and for the world. But at the threshold of a new century, there is a new world to face--with challenges no less critical than those faced by our counterparts half a century ago. Without a strong Atlantic community, the prospects for a safer, more prosperous, and freer world in the coming century will fade. The world is too dangerous and our opportunities are too great for us to take this partnership for granted.

Let me once again thank you for this opportunity to speak and to encourage you in your own work to advance this important agenda.
COPYRIGHT 1996 U.S. Government Printing Office
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

From: Advancing Nato's Adaptation - speech by Policy Planning Staff Director James B. Steinberg to the Atlantic Council about the changing nature of NATO's role -
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_n29_v7/ai_18683184/print


Five years later, Jimmy's predictions of NATO's advancing adaptation seem eerily prescient:

Quote:

NATO and the fight against terrorism

Response to 11 September


On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, and for the first time in NATO's history, the Allies invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the Alliance’s collective defence clause.

The North Atlantic Council - NATO’s principal decision-making body - agreed that if it determined that the attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it would be regarded as an action covered by Article 5, which states that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

Earlier on the same day, NATO partner countries, in a meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, condemned the attacks, offering their support to the United States and pledging to “undertake all efforts to combat the scourge of terrorism”. This was followed by declarations of solidarity and support from Russia, on 13 September, and Ukraine, on 14 September.

On 2 October, Frank Taylor, the US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism, briefed the North Atlantic Council on the results of investigations into the 11 September attacks.

As a result of the information he provided, the Council determined that the attacks were directed from abroad and shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

Two days later, on 4 October, NATO agreed on eight measures to support the United States:

• to enhance intelligence sharing and co-operation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it;
• to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, assistance to Allies and other states which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism;

• to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory;

• to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism;

• to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism;

• to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO nations for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures;

• that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; and

• that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism.


Shortly thereafter, NATO launched its first ever anti-terror operation - Eagle Assist. On request of the United States, from mid-October 2001 to mid-May 2002, seven NATO AWACS radar aircraft were sent to help patrol the skies over the United States; in total 830 crewmembers from 13 NATO countries flew over 360 sorties.

This was the first time that NATO military assets were deployed in support of an Article 5 operation.

On 26 October, the Alliance launched its second counter-terrorism operation in response to the attacks on the United States, Active Endeavour. Elements of NATO's Standing Naval Forces were sent to patrol the eastern Mediterranean and monitor shipping to detect and deter terrorist activity, including illegal trafficking.

On 10 March 2003, the operation was expanded to include escorting civilian shipping through the Strait of Gibraltar.

In addition, although it was not a NATO-led operation, most of the NATO Allies also have forces involved in operation "Enduring Freedom", the US-led military operation against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

From: NATO and the fight against terrorism
http://www.nato.int/issues/terrorism/evolve_a.html


A flurry of 'adaptations' advance in the years immediately following:

Quote:
NATO and the fight against terrorism

How did it evolve?


The Alliance’s 1999 Strategic Concept already identified terrorism as one of the risks affecting NATO’s security. The Alliance’s response to September 11, however, saw NATO engage in actively in the fight against terrorism, launch its first operations outside Europe and begin a far-reaching transformation of its capabilities.

Response to September 11
On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, and for the first time in NATO's history, the Allies invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the Alliance’s collective defence clause.

Reykjavik – end of "out of area" debate
NATO’s immediate response to September 11 was further strengthened by a decision, at the Reykjavik meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in May 2002, that the Alliance will operate when and where necessary to fight terrorism.

Prague Summit – adapting to the threat of terrorism
At the 21-22 November 2002 Prague Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government expressed their determination to deter, defend and protect their populations, territory and forces from any armed attack from abroad, including by terrorists.

Istanbul Summit – strengthening NATO’s counter-terrorism efforts
At the 28-29 June 2004 Istanbul Summit, NATO leaders approved an enhanced set of measures to further strengthen the Alliance’s contribution to the fight against terrorism.

From:
http://www.nato.int/issues/terrorism/evolve.html


What'dya know?
I'd say Jimmy's like Super Sherpa. He's got that five year vision.

Nice to know Clinton was so worried about 'European Security' while furiously dismantling American defenses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking of non-accountability, whom exactly is responsible for this apparently expected expansion of NATO from a supposedly defensive national alliance to the global peace cops, militarily managing Lebanon, Afghanistan, with Iraq and Africa obviously on the upcoming agenda.

A pattern begins to emerging in the war on terror. 'Terr'ists' start it, reactionary national governments inflame it, but can't seem to finish it, and NATO steps in to handle the long term 'management'.

The managed media debate is focused on whether it's the terrorists or the corrupt governments who are at fault, which ultimately leads to only one conclusion - both 'institutions' really suck, especially compared to the efficacy of these 'conflict ending' supranational bodies like NATO, UN, and G8.

Meanwhile, the Imperialists continue to reek of baby powder and roses while confiscating resources and capital across the globe.

If there's any doubt as to 'who started it', it's certainly clear who ends up having to 'deal with it'.

Quote:
Germany urges NATO strategy shift in Afghanistan

Reuters Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:20am ET | | BERLIN (Reuters) -

NATO's strategy in Afghanistan has to change to focus on security and reconstruction, Germany's defense minister said on Thursday, hours before parliament is expected to extend the German mission there. Germany has close to 3,000 troops in northern Afghanistan. Lawmakers are widely expected to renew the...

[...]

From:
http://article.wn.com/view/2006/09/28/Germany_urges_NATO_strategy_shift_in_Afghanistan/


Quote:

NATO to manage U.S. troops in Afghanistan

12,000 soldiers to be affected as alliance consolidates authority
The Associated Press

Updated: 3:30 a.m. PT Oct 1, 2006
KABUL, Afghanistan - America’s direct control of military operations in Afghanistan will dwindle to a single air base within days as the NATO alliance assumes a nationwide command that places 12,000 more U.S. troops under its authority, a spokesman for the alliance said Sunday.

The expansion will consolidate military command under top NATO leader British Lt. Gen. David Richards and phase out the role of U.S. Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, whose troops will be transferred to NATO, said Mark Laity, an alliance spokesman in Kabul.

Of 40,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, only 8,000 U.S. troops will function outside NATO control: those tracking al-Qaida terrorists or involved in air operations, Laity said. The overall level of American forces will remain around 20,000.

“In a few days, on a date yet to be declared, you will see the completion of the steady expansion of ISAF,” the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, Laity said.

The b[]NATO expansion]/b] into the east wasn’t expected to happen for a few weeks. The alliance’s troops took command of southern Afghanistan just two months ago and have struggled to stem escalating violence.

A forthcoming NATO order will give the exact date of the handover that places 12,000 U.S. troops in eastern Afghanistan headed by U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Freakley under alliance command.

The NATO takeover caps an already historic expansion of missions for the largely European alliance that was created as a Cold War bulwark against the Soviet Union. NATO has seen 45 soldiers killed since arriving in August 2003. Its combat role in southern Afghanistan is the largest the alliance has ever undertaken.

“It is a big deal,” Laity said. “We’ve got an unprecedentedly complex mission here. In some areas it’s heavy combat. In other areas it’s law and order. And it includes everything in between.”

The Taliban have staged an unexpected resurgence and stepped up attacks, triggering major battles that have left more than a thousand dead in the past few months.
“I don’t believe the Americans are trying to extricate themselves. They’re trying to share the burden with their allies,” Laity said.

The move leaves Eikenberry’s role in doubt. ISAF spokesman Maj. Luke Knittig said Eikenberry may remain in Afghanistan but under the auspices of the U.S. Embassy.

“He won’t be in our chain of command,” Knittig said.
Eikenberry “may work with the U.S. ambassador. But no decision has been made,” said Knittig, a U.S. Army officer with NATO.

The command consolidation under NATO confines direct U.S. control to a single chief enclave: the sprawling American base at Bagram. A U.S. Army helicopter unit based at Kandahar airfield also will remain under American oversight, Laity said.
U.S.-operated prisons and interrogation centers at Bagram will remain under U.S. command, while NATO will continue to transfer its detainees to Afghan police.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15085146


From:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15085146/print/1/displaymode/1098/


Pretty classic - NATO steps in to 'manage' the entire country, except for the torture chambers, of course.

Those are conveniently left under the control of the 'interrogation experts'.

Nothing like a good 'torture scandal' to explain the unpredictable tides of 'public opinion'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course, 911 was an inside job!!! OBL inside a cave in Afghanistan, that is.

Why???

His stated reason was America's presence in Saudi Arabia and the western influence that represents.

How???

Since when has hijacking a plane been seen as being difficult??? Once you have the controls it then becomes a 255,000 lb cruise missle full of aviation fuel, just the thing to attack a tall building(it worked extremely well the only two times it was tried on 911).

Where was NORAD???

NORAD is a system for defending our shores from aircraft coming FROM THE OUTSIDE. They have never shot down a civilian plane over the US. It took them over an hour to intercept Paine Stewart jet AND THEY KNEW WHERE IT WAS. The first jets scrambled only a few minutes before the first impact, and even at supersonic speeds(not their normal cruise speeds) they would have barely caught the second one over NY city. To shoot it down there would have created massive destruction in any case.

W and company were too incompetent to smuggle a single WMD into Iraq, yet some say they smuggled tons of explosives into a busy building, either before or after the plane impacts, I don't buy it.

And finally, not a single bit of valid evidence for the use of explosives(or, indeed, the need for such) was found anywhere within the WTC complex, nor was there any PHYSICAL evidence for pools of molten metal(despite any claims). Natural forces of damage and fires is all that was required to bring those buildings down.

Now, before anyone accuses me of being a shill of the Gov't, know this. I think W is the worst president we have ever had. The lies, blunders and stupidity of his whole administration should have led to his impeachment years ago. The outing of a CIA operative is a TREASONABLE offense and he treats the Constitution worse than I treat toilet tissue.

But the plain physical facts are that OBL is solely responsible for those attacks, and the plane impacts and fires are all that was needed to bring down those buildings. And I will be happy to defend those statements in a civil debate, point by point with anyone who can agree to disagree agreeably. Flamers need not reply.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rustyh



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 489
Location: A Wonderful World

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy???

Just so i know where you are coming from...................2 questions.

1. Did a plane hit the Pentagon?
2.Did a plane crash in Pennsylvania?

Your views?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.