• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The return of lethal fascism

Cal

Well-known member
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2006/09/09/the_return_of_lethal_fascism

The return of lethal fascism
By Bill O'Reilly
Saturday, September 9, 2006

Seventy years ago this month, Adolf Hitler began seizing the assets of German Jews. He had waited until the summer Olympics in Berlin were finished and the world had seen the might of the Third Reich. Already, Hilter had established concentration camps for "undesirables" and forced many Jewish professionals out of their jobs. He had also harassed Catholics and Protestants who dared speak against his racist policies.

The parallels between the rise of fascism in pre-World War II Germany and the rise of Islamic fascism today are startling. And just as it was in the 1930s, the world is refusing to confront the growing danger.

Iran, a nation committed to wiping Israel off the map, is defying the United Nations by refusing to obey the nuclear disarmament treaty. Hitler defied the League of Nations and rearmed, creating a fierce military threat while openly advocating the diminishment of Jews and "Aryan racial purity." If Iran manages to obtain nuclear weapons, it, too, will become a menace to the entire world.

But many do not believe that. In fact, a recent Harris Poll taken in Europe shows that 30 percent of the 10,000 people surveyed believe the USA is the world's greatest threat to stability. Just 26 percent think Iran is the greatest danger to world peace.

But the most unsettling situation is here in the United States. According to polls taken in the 1930s, as many as 80 percent of Americans were against confronting Hitler at that time. Only Pearl Harbor caused public opinion to shift.

But today, five years after 9/11, many Americans still do not understand the worldwide jihad and buy into the false premise that there is no linkage between what is happening in Iraq, the policies of Iran, the murderous actions of al Qaeda, and the lethal anti-Jewish strategy of Hamas and Hezbollah.

While there are certainly rivalries and differences among all the Islamic fascists, their goals are very similar: Kill Jews and damage America.

So why is history repeating itself? Why can't we Americans wise up and see the Islamic fascist threat? I blame the news media first, and irresponsible politicians like Howard Dean second. The hatred the committed left-wing press has for President Bush is almost unprecedented. The liberal media is obsessed with Bush and devalue him 24/7. This means that even when the president is correct on policy, the Bush haters will not admit it. They have succeeded, especially overseas, in convincing millions of people that Bush is the world's greatest threat, not the fanatical Muslim jihad.

How dangerous is that? Then you pour Governor Dean on the fire. He and his far-left cadre actively undermine the war on terror. I can't read his mind, but if Ms. Cleo is still in business, I'm asking her if Dean actually wants the United States to lose in Iraq. I am betting he does as long as Bush is in power.

The Iranian mullahs, bin Laden, Hezbollah and the rest of the racist killers well understand that America is a divided nation. In the new book "The Looming Tower," it is well documented that bin Laden preached openly about America's lack of resolve. Time after time, the Islamic fascists have attacked; time after time the USA and world have failed to respond with a knockout punch.

And that is the crux of this matter. Americans are certainly entitled to debate the wisdom and effectiveness of the current campaign to defeat Islamic fascism, but defeat it we must. For if we don't, it is just a matter of time before more of us lie dead in the streets. Like Hitler and his evil ambitions of seven decades ago, the jihadists of today are not going to stop until we make them stop.

Somebody tell Howard Dean.
 

Kathy

Well-known member
I find that is pretty much useless trying to debate the issues with people who believe that the Islamic world is out to get us all. Just as with the Cold War with the Communists, they are living in a state of fear.

The article is trying to spin opinion again, not so long ago...it was fear Communism, today...fear Islam....

Meanwhile the freedoms which troops are supposed to be fighting for, are being taken away in the USA with the Homeland Security laws.

Since pressure from those trying to reveal the truth about 9 11 and all the other situations, like the missing TRILLIONs of dollars in the Departmet of Defense, illegal phone taps, torture of prisoners, ... is becoming more intense - the spin doctors like Bill O'Reilly are kicking into a higher gear (running scared).

Before you decide to live in this fear and have your gov./military nuke Iran first in a pre-emptive strike, you need to watch Alex Jone's documentary "TERROR STORM" and another documentary by the BBC called "Why We Fight".

IF you have highspeed internet, you can watch Terrorstorm for free on your computer, just go to video google.

There is a new documentary movie playing in theatres in the USA which I'm sure is the reason why O'Reilly choose to use the word FASCISM in his piece.

A 14 minute trailer of the documentary "America: Freedom to Fascism" can also be viewed on the internet at the video google site. It is 14 minutes of intense information, ranging from USA tax laws (or lack thereof) and it shines a light on the gag orders put on CIA and FBI agents who tried to warn of the coming 9 11 attacks.

Terrorstorm is about government sponsored terrorism. There are very important facts revealed in this documentary. Watch it, please.

O'Reilly spews the fear thought: "If Iran manages to obtain nuclear weapons, it, too, will become a menace to the entire world."

The simple fact here is this. The Iranian desire for nuclear power, and nuclear weapons is the same as why most countries developed them - they wish to have these weapons to deter other countries from invading them.

The 9 11 situ could just as easily have seen 4 planes flown into nuclear power stations across America (there are 104 in the USA). The damage would have been far more severe. But for reasons we don't know, this didn't happen. Instead buildings which Larry Silverstein had just taken over and insured for billions of dollars, were hit. Instead, the buildings housing the Security Exchange Commission with thousands of open cases under investigation were hit. Instead, buildings in which millions of dollars of gold were stored were hit, yet no where near all the gold was recovered.

Also on that same fateful day, select groups of politicians, military personal (including Generals) etc. were warned not to fly, many working at the WTC were warned not to come to work that day. This was similar to the bombing which took place in Oklahoma which housed the FBI office - they were told not to be in that building on that day also. The same company was hired to clean-up the debris from the WTCs as in Oklahoma.

You can choose to ignore evidence which is coming to the attention of Americans, and which has been in the spot-light in many European countries already; or, you can do some of your own investigations and make an informed decision about who orchastrated the 911 terror attacks. Get the video Loose Change II, or its coming version Loose Change - the final cut. (google it). Fellow Americans are trying to give you hope; Americans are trying to expose all the truth - you have everything to gain, and much to lose by ignoring these facts and the pertinent questions being brought forth by your fellow citizens (as well as others around the planet).
 

Steve

Well-known member
Instead, buildings in which millions of dollars of gold were stored were hit, yet no where near all the gold was recovered.

" $230 million in precious metals has been moved from the basement vaults of ScotiaMocatta Depository at 4 WTC, where it was stored on behalf of the New York Mercantile Exchange when the September 11 attacks brought down the twin towers.

said the metals had been relocated and were again available to guaranty delivery of futures contracts exchange traded at the COMEX metals division of the NYMEX.

"All of the silver, gold, platinum, and palladium stored in its vaults at 4 World Trade Center have been successfully relocated by an Exchange-approved carrier to a newly Exchange-licensed Brink's Inc depository in Brooklyn," they said.

"There were about 3,800 100-Troy-ounce registered gold bars in the underground COMEX warehouse. While gold is very dense, the task of loading the indestructible yellow metal onto armoured Brinks trucks was not nearly as cumbersome as moving the silver.

Experts said it would take some 50 tractor trailers to transport 30,000 1,000-ounce silver bars. "


instead of wasteing my time, and allowing you to try to mislead others I just grabbbed one of the many lies you told and disproved it.....had you checked even the simplest of facts you would see how mislead you actually are.......why continue to post out right lies?

are you afraid of the truth, that some Radical Islamic Muslums would kill you if they were given the chance.....if you doubt the truth as presented .......go to Iran, visit with a few....stop in and say hello to a few in Iraq....there are plenty that will discus this "peace" option with you in Afganistan....or do you just hate Americans so much that you would blame one of the worst events in our history on ourselves?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Kathy....it's no secret here that I despise GW and I am and have always been against this war and the way it all came about..

OK..now that you know that, no secret to anyone else who reads this, you seem to be more of a PR/Marketing person that just someone who has a opinion against the war, Bush etc.

You constantly refer to other personalities, documentaries etc.

That's all well and good but it's not telling us what really in your thoughts...ya know the ones you create on your own between your own ears!
 

Steve

Well-known member
no secret here that I despise GW and I am and have always been against this war and the way it all came about..

while I would agree that "debateing" how the Iraq war came about or is being faught is sometimes drawn down party lines.......only a few can say thier is any doubt how we entered Afganastan......(something Kathy disputes)....

On Sept 11 , 5 years ago we were attacked by Militant Radical Islamic terrorists.....and in response the United States ,...aligned with Nationalist Afgans destroyed the Talaban and most of the existing Al- Quiada...

so If I read your statement correctly kolanuraven, your saying you believe the garbage Kathy is spouting?,....that the American Goverment blew up the twin toweres and not Terrorists...
 

Tumbleweed

Well-known member
I came accross this article and thought it was interesting to read and think about. Since this thread is about fascism I thought I'd post it.


Published on Monday, August 28, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Reclaiming The Issues: Islamic Or Republican Fascism?
by Thom Hartmann


In the years since George W. Bush first used 9/11 as his own "Reichstag fire" to gut the Constitution and enhance the power and wealth of his corporate cronies, many across the political spectrum have accused him and his Republican support group of being fascists.

On the right,The John Birch Society's website editor recently opined of the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretap program: "This is to say that from the administration's perspective, the president is, in effect, our living constitution. This is, in a specific and unmistakable sense, fascist."
On the left, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. specifically indicts the Bush administration for fascistic behavior in his book "Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and his Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy."

Genuine American fascists are on the run, and part of their survival strategy is to redefine the term "fascism" so it can't be applied to them any more. Most recently, George W. Bush said: "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."

In fact, the Islamic fundamentalists who apparently perpetrated 9/11 and other crimes in Spain and the United Kingdom are advocating a fundamentalist theocracy, not fascism.

But theocracy - the merging of religion and government - is also on the plate for the new American fascists (just as it was for Hitler, who based the Nazi death cult on a "new Christianity" that would bring "a thousand years of peace"), so they don't want to use that term, either.
While the Republicans promote the term "Islamo-fascism," the rest of the world is pushing back, as the BBC noted in an article by Richard Allen Greene ("Bush's Language Angers US Muslims" - 12 August 2006):
"Security expert Daniel Benjamin of the Center for Strategic and International Studies agreed that the term [Islamic fascists] was meaningless. "'There is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology as it was developed by Mussolini or anyone else who was associated with the term,' he said. 'This is an epithet, a way of arousing strong emotion and tarnishing one's opponent, but it doesn't tell us anything about the content of their beliefs.'"

Their beliefs are, quite simply, that governments of the world should be subservient to religion, a view shared by a small but significant part of today's Republican party. But that is not fascism - the fascists in the US want to exploit the fundamentalist theocrats to achieve their own fascistic goals.

Vice President of the United States Henry Wallace was the first to clearly and accurately point out who the real American fascists are, and what they're up to.

In early 1944 the New York Times asked Vice President Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"
Vice President Wallace's answers to those questions were published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan:
"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."
In this, Vice President Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)

As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." (The US dictionary definition has gotten somewhat squishier since then, as all the larger dictionary companies have been bought up by multinational corporations.)

Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled "The Doctrine of Fascism" he wrote, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." But not a government of, by, and for We The People - instead, it would be a government of, by, and for the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.

In 1938, Mussolini brought his vision of fascism into full reality when he dissolved Parliament and replaced it with the "Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni" - the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations. Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks like John Boehner and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.

Vice President Wallace bluntly laid out his concern about the same happening here in America in his 1944 Times article:
" If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. ... They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead."
Nonetheless, at that time there were few corporate heads who had run for political office, and, in Wallace's view, most politicians still felt it was their obligation to represent We The People instead of corporate cartels. The real problem would come, he believed, when the media was concentrated in only a few hands:
"American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information..."
Noting that, "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggested that fascism's "greatest threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States itself."

In Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel "It Can't Happen Here," a conservative southern politician is helped to the presidency by a nationally syndicated "conservative" radio talk show host. The politician - Buzz Windrip - runs his campaign on family values, the flag, and patriotism. Windrip and the talk show host portray advocates of traditional American democracy as anti-American. When Windrip becomes President, he opens a Guantanamo-style detention center, and the viewpoint character of the book, Vermont newspaper editor Doremus Jessup, flees to Canada to avoid prosecution under new "patriotic" laws that make it illegal to criticize the President. As Lewis noted in his novel:
"The President, with something of his former good-humor [said]: 'There are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!' The idea of the Corporate or Corporative State, Secretary [of State] Sarason had more or less taken from Italy." And, President "Windrip's partisans called themselves the Corporatists, or, familiarly, the 'Corpos,' which nickname was generally used."
Lewis, the first American writer to win a Nobel Prize, was world famous by 1944, as was his book "It Can't Happen Here." And several well-known and powerful Americans, including Prescott Bush, had lost businesses in the early 1940s because of charges by Roosevelt that they were doing business with Hitler. These events all, no doubt, colored Vice President Wallace's thinking when he wrote in The New York Times:
"Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness' ceases."
Thus, the rich get richer (and more powerful) on the backs of the poor and the middle class, giant corporate behemoths wipe out small and middle sized businesses, and a corporate iron fist is seizing control of our government itself. As I detail in my new book "Screwed: The Undeclared War Against The Middle Class," the primary beneficiaries of this new fascism are the corporatists, while the once-outspoken middle class of the 1950s-1980s is systematically being replaced by a silent serf-class of the working poor.
As Wallace wrote, some in big business "are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage." He added, "Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself."
But American fascists who would want former CEOs as President, Vice President, House Majority Whip, and Senate Majority Leader, and write legislation with corporate interests in mind, don't generally talk to We The People about their real agenda, or the harm it does to small businesses and working people. Instead, as Hitler did with the trade union leaders and the Jews, they point to a "them" to pin with blame and distract people from the harms of their economic policies.

In a comment prescient of George W. Bush's recent suggestion that civilization itself is at risk because of gays or Muslims, Wallace continued:
" The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination..."
But even at this, Wallace noted, American fascists would have to lie to the people in order to gain power. And, because they were in bed with the nation's largest corporations - who could gain control of newspapers and broadcast media - they could promote their lies with ease.
"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact," Wallace wrote. "Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy."
In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism the Vice President of the United States saw rising in America, he added:
"They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection." Finally, Wallace said, "The myth of fascist efficiency has deluded many people. ... Democracy, to crush fascism internally, must...develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels."

This liberal vision of an egalitarian America in which very large businesses and media monopolies are broken up under the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act (which Reagan stopped enforcing, leading to the mergers & acquisitions frenzy that continues to this day) was the driving vision of the New Deal (and of "Trust Buster" Teddy Roosevelt a generation earlier).
As Wallace's President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said when he accepted his party's renomination in 1936 in Philadelphia:
"...Out of this modern civilization, economic royalists [have] carved new dynasties.... It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction.... And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man...."
Speaking indirectly of the fascists that Wallace would directly name almost a decade later, Roosevelt brought the issue to its core:
"These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power."
But, he thundered in that speech:
"Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!"
In 2006, we again stand at the same crossroad Roosevelt and Wallace confronted during the Great Depression and World War II. Fascism is again rising in America, this time calling itself "compassionate conservatism," and "the free market" in a "flat" world. The RNC's behavior today eerily parallels the day in 1936 when Roosevelt said:
"In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for."
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Steve....don't see how you 'read' that from what I said.


No, I don't go for the conspiracy theories and all of that. No...no ...no.

My point that I was making to her , since she new here also, is that also I DO NOT like Bush nor his war whatsoever, this is NOT news to you or anyone else by this time in history....but that she's not making that statement , nor any statements from her own thinking.She's just quoting other people and TV shows to back up her statements. She's not thinking or using her own thoughts.

I believe in stating what YOU think...not what others think. I'm not big on this cut and paste and " quote', " quote", "quote" business.

She's a PR/marketing person sounds like to me not an independent thinker.
 

Kathy

Well-known member
How do we shape our opinions? By listening, reading, discussion and experience.

I have been trying to provide the readers of this board some information from which I formed my opinion. I did not find the information out for myself. Other individuals and groups have dedicated their time to looking for the evidence and providing it in a format for others to share.

As more people speak out, others who have been frightened of coming forward with their own concerns or information, are stepping out into the public.

Others like Kevin Ryan from the Underwriters Laboratory, have been out there for years.

Would I do this if I supported the wars in Iraq and Afganastan? I am not an American citizen and cannot vote in America. Any remarks I make are met with personal insults (ie: conspiracy nut). I don't agree with the some "official" explanations because I examined the evidence brought forward by others.

The insults leveled at me, attach me; but, I am not attaching people - I am questioning the evidence, and the looking for untold answers.

The 911 Commission did not dig deep enough into testimony of some individuals; it did not push them for complete answers.

The facts are separate from the person(s) who bring them forward. They deserve review based on what they are, not what we think of the people bring them forward. Questions which remain unanswered, deserve scrutiny and follow-up (preferrably by American authorities/citizens).
 

memanpa

Well-known member
Kathy said:
How do we shape our opinions? By listening, reading, discussion and experience.


I have been trying to provide the readers of this board some information from which I formed my opinion. I did not find the information out for myself. Other individuals and groups have dedicated their time to looking for the evidence and providing it in a format for others to share.

even if it is unfounded, and as has been pointed out you by accepting this information as whole truth without doing any of your own research just proves my point about you being just like a lemming

As more people speak out, others who have been frightened of coming forward with their own concerns or information, are stepping out into the public.

Others like Kevin Ryan from the Underwriters Laboratory, have been out there for years.

Would I do this if I supported the wars in Iraq and Afganastan? I am not an American citizen and cannot vote in America. Any remarks I make are met with personal insults (ie: conspiracy nut). I don't agree with the some "official" explanations because I examined the evidence brought forward by others.

but you never actually researched it your self so you are only spouting garbage that is some one elses opinion not yours

problem is you listen to wackos



The insults leveled at me, attach me; but, I am not attaching people - I am questioning the evidence, and the looking for untold answers.

no you are letting others do the looking and questioning then you try and spread thier rather unproven thoughts off as proof positive

The 911 Commission did not dig deep enough into testimony of some individuals; it did not push them for complete answers.

The facts are separate from the person(s) who bring them forward. They deserve review based on what they are, not what we think of the people bring them forward. Questions which remain unanswered, deserve scrutiny and follow-up (preferrably by American authorities/citizens).

then what are you doing wanting us american citizens to listen to YOU when you cannot even support the statements you make with your own honest opinion? could it be you are unable to form an opinion without guidence form other sources?[/b]
 

Cal

Well-known member
If there was any evidence of truthfulness to these conspiracy theories, MSNBC and C-BS would be all over them like stink on ..it.
 

memanpa

Well-known member
Cal said:
If there was any evidence of truthfulness to these conspiracy theories, MSNBC and C-BS would be all over them like stink on ..it.

to say nothing about the LIBERAL"S>!
KENNEDY AND BILLERY would have a field day!!!
 

don

Well-known member
i find it hard to believe there was an active conspiracy but i think yhe article posted by tumbleweed illustrates how the situation has been exploited by some interests in the us.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Late last night on FOX News they discussed the conspiracy theories
with knowledgeable people. Destroying the Twin Towers was not
a conspiracy of our government. So you can get off that kick, Kathy.
You're just wasting a lot of energy that would be better used doing
something constructive. JMO.
 

Tumbleweed

Well-known member
Has anyone heard of the Northwoods document? It was a plan put together by our government to stage some terrorist attacks then blame Cuba for them to justify going to war. That was in 1962 and came to light because of the freedom of information act. The plan was not carried out but the fact that our government put together this plan is a warning that we need to keep an eye on them and hold them accountable for their actions. I think the Northwoods document is a good reason for keeping an eye on them and asking plenty of questions.

This doesn't mean that I believe in the 911 conspiracy theory either. I do believe anyone who has doubts or questions about what happened that day should be able to stand up and ask their questions. Those who have answers for those questions should stand up and answer so these issues can be put behind us.

Below is a link to the declassified Northwoods document. I will also post a portion of it below the link. I think this is another document I've come accross that is some pretty interesting reading.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.

2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):

(1) start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.

(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.

(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.

(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).

7

Annex to Appendix
to Enclosure A

UNCLASSIFIED

TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN

--------------------[page 10; page 11:]--------------------

TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN

UNCLASSIFIED

(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.

(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).

(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.

(8) capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.

(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.

(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.

(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).

b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.

c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:

a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.

8

Annex to Appendix
to Enclosure A

UNCLASSIFIED

TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN

--------------------[page 11; page 12:]--------------------

TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN

UNCLASSIFIED

The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

5. A "Cuban-based, Castro-supported" filibuster could be simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation (in the vein of the 14th of June invasion of the Dominican Republic). We know that Castro is backing subversive efforts clandestinely against Haiti, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nicaragua at present and possible others. These efforts can be magnified and additional ones contrived for exposure. For example, advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. "Cuban" B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane-burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with "Cuban" messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and "Cuban" shipments of arm which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach.

6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.

9

Annex to Appendix
to Enclosure A

UNCLASSIFIED

TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN

--------------------[page 12; page 13:]--------------------

TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN

UNCLASSIFIED

7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio

10

Annex to Appendix
to Enclosure A

UNCLASSIFIED

TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN

--------------------[page 13; page 14:]--------------------

TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN

UNCLASSIFIED

stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

9. It Is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.

b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.

11

Annex to Appendix
to Enclosure A

UNCLASSIFIED

TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN

--------------------[page 14; page 15:]--------------------

TOP SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING NOFORN

UNCLASSIFIED

ENCLOSURE B

FACTS BEARING ON THE PROBLEM

1. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have previously stated* that US unilateral military intervention in Cuba can be undertaken in the event that the Cuban regime commits hostile acts against US forces or property which would serve as an incident upon which to base overt intervention.
 

Kathy

Well-known member
On Sunday September 10, 2006 CBC - Television showed two documentaries on 911, by separate producers.

The first "the Secret History of 911" in which the American military and other individuals were featured. It was a docu-drama with dramatized situations - so not really a documentary, but a docu-drama which methods other DVDs I have watched also utilize. Both sides of the situation are speculating some parts and providing facts in others.

The second program "The Toxic Legacy of 911" was an actual documentary and very well done, in my opinion. The producers interviewed firefighters, police officers and their families, as well as other individuals, MDs, etc.

The dust from the collapse of the buildings was extremely toxic, yet the EPA stated it was perfectly safe. With help from White House representatives, the EPA took precautionary statements out of press releases and LIED to the public.

Rescue workers and people who were exposed to large amounts of this dust are now sick, some have already parished.

After these two programs, the Sunday News program came on. They had a special 9 11 program with interviews with:

LEE HAMILTON, co-chair, 9/11 Commission, and co-author of "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission"

DYLAN AVERY, Writer/Director, "Loose Change"

DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, theologian, author of "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11"

JIM MEIGS, Editor-in-chief, Popular Mechanics, publisher of "9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To The Facts"

BOB McILVAINE, who lost his son Bobby in World Trade Center Tower One (coming soon)


WEBLINKS:

9/11 Commission Report
Report on the World Trade Center by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
NIST August 30, 2006 Fact Sheet: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
"9/11: Debunking the Myths" (Popular Mechanics article, March 2005)
Journal of 9/11 Studies
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Documentary: "Loose Change"
9-11 Research


I would suggest you go this page: http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/

(Sept. 10/06 CBC Sunday News)

and download the entire interviews. I can't say how long they will stay on their webpages, and they are lengthy. Only parts of each interview were shown.

The producer of "Loose Change", Dylan Avery, was interviewed and CBC Sunday News probably showed at least 10 minutes worth of the program during various parts. Loose Change is available on "video google".

In true "thought police" control, Monday September 11, say an all out attack on the film and its producers (Loose Change), including our local station QR77 Chum Network. I was embarassed for the radio-talk show hosts and their "guests" who applied their "prejudice" and "disgust" to anyone who might have questions about the events surrounding 9 11.

They specifically attacked Loose Change on radioprograms all around North America in a planned, co-ordinated attack. They intimidated anyone (or tried to intimidate) anyone who would phone in and speak of their concerns/questions about 9 11.

They tried to make it sound like "all the Conspiracy Theorists" were young adults with no education. They used tactics just like Steve on ranchers, by claiming the Consp. Th. all believe that no planes hit the Twin Towers, then spouted "don't they know there is video of those planes hitting the towers".

They think their listeners are stupid enough to fall for their lies about the credibility, background and beliefs of supporters of the 9 11 Truth Movement. The sad thing is, most listeners will take their lies for truths without doing their own examination of these sources.

It is just like in the book 1984. The assault is against "thought". An attack against "independent-individual thinking". If all so-called conspiracy theorists where African, Chinese, Moslem, Catholic, Jewish, Scottish, Native - then we could legally claim that their (the radio program host's/guest's) attack against them, was a hate Crime. But, since the attacks are directed towards "How people think/intelligence", these minions get away with their smear campaigns.

People are openly intimidated by their smear campaigns against "conspiracy theorists". This is why the internet has become such a valuable tool to citizens of such an oppressive compaign.

Attacks against the person, do not change the facts and the questions being brought forth by the 9 11 Truth Movement. Many of the people asking questions are well-educated older people who's credibility cannot be easily attacked; therefore, the smear campaign tries to teach the casual listeners that all CT's are young and uneducated and believe no planes hit the WTC towers. This is pathetic. I feel badly for those who will stand in the way of valid questions/concerned citizens. Why are these smear campaign supporters afraid of letting their government answer the questions?

The 9 11 Commission received only a couple million dollars to get to the bottom of the worst man-made disaster in the USA. The Stark commission to investigate the sexual exploits of Bill Clinton received around 30 million.

I hope you'll go to the CBC sites and read the interviews. Both "sides" are represented. Mr. Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9 11 Commission, admits to getting some things wrong, and not being able to answer others".
 

Cal

Well-known member
How about a little wager, say $100, that by...you pick a reasonable date... you conspiracy theorists nuts won't have proven a damn thing except that you're a bunch of kooks. The proof that you're right will be a breaking story in the leftwing mainstream press.
 

memanpa

Well-known member
count me in!!
KRAZY KATHY how about adressing the questions that have been asked you!!
do you have an opnion of your own NO! only those opinions that are someone else's
another question for you? how much are these kooks paying you to spread this CRAP!!!!
what is in it for them??
what is in it for you other that a paycheck?
must be a real depressing way to make a living :D
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Most forms of cover-ups take 50 years or more to discover, usually after the release of government documents like NORTHWOODS and the declassified 1943 memo to General L.R. Groves from nuclear scientists outlining the use of nuclear gases, like depleted uranium to keep lands out of the hands of the enemy.

As Oldtimer stated, and G. W. Bush also stated in a 2003 interview, in the future "we'll all be dead so who cares." I care, because my kids will be there, and my future grandchildren.

I've wagered something more valuable than money, my reputation.

If I got paid to do this, I wouldn't be wasting time on a rancher's forum. As raising cattle is my livelihood, I am attempting to point out the information being brought forward, which demands government answers, to my fellow ranchers.

I sit as a citizen of my country, Canada, and I am deplored that we will allow ourselves to be dragged into war (Afganastan) without investigating the valid questions surrounding 9 11 brought forward by many well-educated people. The 9 11 Commission said nothing about why Building 7 collapsed. And the co-chair stated in his interview with CBC reporter Soloman, that the 9 11 Commission was "set up to fail".

9 11 co-chair Lee Hamilton stated in his interview with CBC:

Hamilton: I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could.

Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right. So far, of the things that have been brought up challenging the report, to my knowledge, we have more credibility than the challenger. But I would not for a moment want to suggest that that’s always true, either in the past or in the future.

People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here.
So I don’t automatically reject all the evidence you cite. It may be we missed it, it may be we ignored it when we shouldn’t have - I don’t think we did, but it's possible.


Solomon: You write.. the first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' - my goodness, for the critics - who suggest that it was indeed set up to fail as some kind of obfuscation - you certainly dangled a juicy piece of bait out there in the river. Why do you think you were set up to fail?

Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.

We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don’t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.

The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.

So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed.


quote from CBC interview with David Ray Griffin:

Solomon: I guess it begs the question - there would be huge number of explosives that would... so I guess the theory is that also the buildings were rigged with explosives. Some say that, you know, controlled demolition is a huge job, when any building is taken down like this, specifically a huge building, it takes weeks and weeks to plant controlled explosives, and they have to be carefully planted - how would they do that in the World Trade Center in post '93, when the security had been tightened? I mean, not just lax security, but this would have to be a huge job to do this..

Griffin: That's exactly right, and so it certainly is not something al Qaeda operatives could have done, so that if there were explosives planted, it did have to be an inside job. And then if we ask 'well, how is that possible?', then we find something that the mainstream press has, for some reason, not seen fit to report, which is that this company Securacom, that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, one of its principals in the preceding years, when the new security system was put in, was Marvin Bush, the president's brother. And then Wirt Walker III, perhaps even more important, was the CEO, and his tenure existed up through 9/11. So there's no mystery how people could have gotten access.

Furthermore, we have reports from people in the World Trade Center, that in the days and weeks preceding 9/11, certain parts of the building were closed off, during which it was said repairs were being made, and engineers going in and out, and the power was down so all security cams were off, and so forth. So this is not a mystery how this could have been done.
 
Top