Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan

[Lauren Johnson]

The policy of pre emptive war was adapted POST 9/11. I suppose it was pushed through as an acceptable policy because waiting to be attacked first had devastating consequences.

The policy of preemptive war has nothing to do with a real threat of being attacked, it is purely a way to make wars of aggression tolerable to the public. In case of Afghanistan, the plan to invade was complete weeks before 9/11 and in case of Iraq the planning started immediately on 9/11, despite any evidence that Iraq posed any danger or had anything to do with 9/11. Both wars violated international law in the boldest way.
There is no justification for a preemptive war.

I suspect that the DOD has war plans for every nation in the ME for decades which are continuously being updated at local conditions and world alliances evolve. W's energy buds has meetings in the WH which were secret and it's likely that they discussed how to get at the oil in the ME and perhaps finishing off Sadam was as good an excuse as any.

The trouble with raising the notion of false flags all the time, is that the US policies actually provoke locals around the world who are victims of the US corps and MIC to push back.

Expanding the empire is not easy for a democracy. It's not lawful. At best the US can advocate for free markets and so forth and boy do they ever do that... try to control the world economy, local economies and the resources around the world. Corporations don't play by the rules of nations. They are non state actors too. What has happened of course is that the MIC and the DOD has been the muscle for the corps... and now they are locked together in common interest... conquering and control of the world. DOD is not really about defending the US but advancing control and influence around the world... but it can't simply attack and take over a nation... They can't even do that when they try... witness Vietnam, and Iraq... and Afghanistan. The MIC uses the CIA to engage in black ops... criminal activities to advance US *interests*... read corporate interests. They assassinate and run drugs and weapons and manage coups and insurgent groups like the Contras... they bribe placed puppets in developing countries. All of this is well known. And the locals occasionally kick back and they are EXPECTED to kick back. The US has re configured its strategies to fight insurgencies... because no nation is going to attack the US... no cause for a retribution. 9/11 would do fine for them... any excuse and of course it would be compared to Pearl Harbor and advocate for a similar response - WAR.

The historians knew this, the think tanks knew it and the right wing ones had wet dreams about an attack on the US to be able to point to Pearl Harbor. Didn't work for Khobar towers, USS Cole, or Nairobi Embassy. US people did not clamor for an attack... Who was the DOD to wage war on when a rubber boat exploded next to the Cole?

Sure they exploited 9/11 and considering how many people were killed the demand for blood was easy to fulfill. Out came their war plans... and they've been years and years in the making. That's what the tens of thousands who work in the pentagon are doing... planning for wars!

A DPF Challenge: What is the flaw in this argument? I have some ideas, but I don't have a lot of time now.