do you have a link for this... i would love something on this...i have always heard this but havent found any type of documentation (havet really looked in a while)
CJCSI 3610.01A
As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.
Fry issued CJCSI 3610.01A for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." The CJCSI further states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251871/site/newsweek/
the parts i found interesting were
Nor had Bush given any known instructions on how to respond to the attacks.
Combat air patrols were aloft, and a military aide was asking for shoot-down authority, telling Cheney that a fourth plane was "80 miles out" from Washington. Cheney didn't flinch, the report said. "In about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing," he gave the order to shoot it down, telling others the president had "signed off on the concept" during a brief phone chat. When the plane was 60 miles out, Cheney was again informed and again he ordered: take it out.
Then Joshua Bolten, after what he described in testimony as "a quiet moment," spoke up. Bolten, the White House deputy chief of staff, asked the veep to get back in touch with the president to "confirm the engage order." Bolten was clearly subordinate to Cheney, but "he had not heard any prior conversation on the subject with the president," the 9/11 report notes. Nor did the real-time notes taken by two others in the room, Cheney's chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby—who is known for his meticulous record-keeping—or Cheney's wife, Lynne, reflect that such a phone call between Bush and Cheney occurred or that such a major decision as shooting down a U.S. airliner was discussed. Bush and Cheney later testified the president gave the order. And national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice and a military aide said they remembered a call, but gave few specifics. The report concluded "there is no documentary evidence for this call."
NEWSWEEK has learned that some on the commission staff were, in fact, highly skeptical of the vice president's account and made their views clearer in an earlier draft of their staff report. According to one knowledgeable source, some staffers "flat out didn't believe the call ever took place." When the early draft conveying that skepticism was circulated to the administration, it provoked an angry reaction. In a letter from White House lawyers last Tuesday and a series of phone calls, the White House vigorously lobbied the commission to change the language in its report. "We didn't think it was written in a way that clearly reflected the accounting the president and vice president had given to the commission," White House spokesman Dan Bartlett told NEWSWEEK. Ultimately the chairman and vice chair of the commission, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean and former representative Lee Hamilton—both of whom have sought mightily to appear nonpartisan—agreed to remove some of the offending language. The report "was watered down," groused one staffer.
then there's an interesting article written by a former special ops sgt and west point teacher (of military science and doctrine) that uses this as a key point http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GOF110A.html
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
The reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki are used as examples in this argument are because they were unnecessary in the first place.
Of course this is debatable because it's already so widely accepted that these weapons were necessary in the canonical historical texts used in classrooms.
But after about 30 years most government documents get de-classified, that's why we constantly have to revisit our actions, because we only know the real intentions so many years later.
The reason two nukes were dropped is because we had to make sure both the plutonium and uranium type of nuclear weapons functioned in a combat scenario.
The nukes were not fired at Japan, they were fired at Russia. Why were there so many civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because we deliberately avoided conventional bombing in order to have a properly clean slate to test the effectiveness of the weapons.
In fact prior to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki the USA had levelled fully ten square miles of Japanese cities, and industry and military, we were running out of targets.
It wasn't to get the Japanese to surrender, it was to get the Japanese to agree on terms of unconditional surrender, including making the emperor step down, which we in fact didn't even pursue, the emperor stayed until the late 80's.
We made completely unrealistic terms for unconditional surrender as a way to prolong the war just long enough to test the weapons that would make us the pre-eminent world power afterwards, and afterwards Japan obviously had no choice but to capitulate to any demand we made.
But that's not to say we haven't learned our lesson, we've in fact learned how to use nuclear weapons that don't destroy cities, they just destroy hope, they leave men sterile, and woman barren, they cause massive increases in cancer, and they spread in the wind all over the battlefield. They do not discriminate friendlies from foes, they do not avoid drinking water, or babies and children. Today Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain a lesson only in how to be subtler with WMD's. We have no dis-armed, in fact we have barely scratched the surface of reducing those insidious weapons, and in the meantime while we still keep the hammers of god locked away in North Dakota silos, the breath of god, that evil green vapor that disperses from every missile and armor piercing round in the form of depleted uranium threatens daily to destabilize major populations around the planet, and cripples thousands of our own troops in every major conflict they are used in. The tragedies of the past have never taught us how to avoid the next, they have merely taught us how to hide the next tragedy.
I'm sorry that you are so miss-guided.
Your reason that both nukes were dropped is compeltely and utterly false. The reason two nukes were dropped is because Japan didn't surrender after the first one. We waited a full three days for them to surrender, but they did not.
Do you think we would have dropped the second bomb if Japan had surrenedered already? Seriously, I would like you to answer that question.
Wouldn't it be more plausible that if our true intentions were to test the two different types of bombs, that we would have dropped them simultaneously - therefore not taking the risk that Japan might surrender and therefore we could not test the second bomb? Seriously, I would like you to answer that question as well.
What do you mean the nukes were fired at Russia???? It looks as if they were dropped on Japan, but maybe I'm wrong.
And lastly, this one made me laugh.... what do you mean we made unrealistic terms for unconditional surrender? Isn't that an oxymoron or something???
Your reason that both nukes were dropped is compeltely and utterly false. The reason two nukes were dropped is because Japan didn't surrender after the first one. We waited a full three days for them to surrender, but they did not.
Do you think we would have dropped the second bomb if Japan had surrenedered already? Seriously, I would like you to answer that question.
Wouldn't it be more plausible that if our true intentions were to test the two different types of bombs, that we would have dropped them simultaneously - therefore not taking the risk that Japan might surrender and therefore we could not test the second bomb? Seriously, I would like you to answer that question as well.
What do you mean the nukes were fired at Russia???? It looks as if they were dropped on Japan, but maybe I'm wrong.
And lastly, this one made me laugh.... what do you mean we made unrealistic terms for unconditional surrender? Isn't that an oxymoron or something???
Sorry you are so jaded.
you persoanlly attack the guy because you disagree with him? "jaded" and "mis-guided"? unclassified documents and military officials have supported the story "eviltoasterelf" has presented... the evidence that supports using the atom bomb to win the "pissing" contest of global superiority with Russia is so overwhelming that there is no need to debate it
THE REAL DEBATE is the slaughter of nearly 200,000 CIVILIANS... these were civilain cities that were leveled, not military targets or ammo dumps... maybe you would change your tune if it was charlotte and raliegh that were laid to waste to ensure "unconditional surrender"
those 2 bombings of civilian targets were 2 of the greatest crimes against humanity this planet has ever seen. PERIOD
CJCSI 3610.01A
As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.
Fry issued CJCSI 3610.01A for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." The CJCSI further states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251871/site/newsweek/
the parts i found interesting were
Nor had Bush given any known instructions on how to respond to the attacks.
Combat air patrols were aloft, and a military aide was asking for shoot-down authority, telling Cheney that a fourth plane was "80 miles out" from Washington. Cheney didn't flinch, the report said. "In about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing," he gave the order to shoot it down, telling others the president had "signed off on the concept" during a brief phone chat. When the plane was 60 miles out, Cheney was again informed and again he ordered: take it out.
Then Joshua Bolten, after what he described in testimony as "a quiet moment," spoke up. Bolten, the White House deputy chief of staff, asked the veep to get back in touch with the president to "confirm the engage order." Bolten was clearly subordinate to Cheney, but "he had not heard any prior conversation on the subject with the president," the 9/11 report notes. Nor did the real-time notes taken by two others in the room, Cheney's chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby—who is known for his meticulous record-keeping—or Cheney's wife, Lynne, reflect that such a phone call between Bush and Cheney occurred or that such a major decision as shooting down a U.S. airliner was discussed. Bush and Cheney later testified the president gave the order. And national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice and a military aide said they remembered a call, but gave few specifics. The report concluded "there is no documentary evidence for this call."
NEWSWEEK has learned that some on the commission staff were, in fact, highly skeptical of the vice president's account and made their views clearer in an earlier draft of their staff report. According to one knowledgeable source, some staffers "flat out didn't believe the call ever took place." When the early draft conveying that skepticism was circulated to the administration, it provoked an angry reaction. In a letter from White House lawyers last Tuesday and a series of phone calls, the White House vigorously lobbied the commission to change the language in its report. "We didn't think it was written in a way that clearly reflected the accounting the president and vice president had given to the commission," White House spokesman Dan Bartlett told NEWSWEEK. Ultimately the chairman and vice chair of the commission, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean and former representative Lee Hamilton—both of whom have sought mightily to appear nonpartisan—agreed to remove some of the offending language. The report "was watered down," groused one staffer.
then there's an interesting article written by a former special ops sgt and west point teacher (of military science and doctrine) that uses this as a key point http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GOF110A.html
yes, let me correct myself...they were 2 of the greatest examples of cimes against humanity in world history
sorry, typo... busy day at work
you are correct
In all seriousness they don't even make the top 10 and with research they may not even make the top 100. Humans have a pretty ghastly history, 200,000 is pretty easy to top.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
In all seriousness they don't even make the top 10 and with research they may not even make the top 100. Humans have a pretty ghastly history, 200,000 is pretty easy to top.
we are talking about the instant evaporation of 2 major civilian cities
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no problem. the last article is a little long, the part i used as a reference for was...and he was a Master Sergeant in the special forces, taught military science and doctrine, tactics instructor at the Jungle Operations Training Center in Panama, and taught Military Science at West Point....
I have no idea why people aren't asking some very specific questions about the actions of Bush and company on the day of the attacks. Follow along:
Four planes get hijacked and deviate from their flight plans, all the while on FAA radar. The planes are all hijacked between 7:45 and 8:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time.
Who is notified?
This is an event already that is unprecedented. But the President is not notified and going to a Florida elementary school to hear children read.
By around 8:15 AM, it should be very apparent that something is terribly wrong. The President is glad-handing teachers.
By 8:45, when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the World Trade Center, Bush is settling in with children for his photo ops at Booker Elementary. Four planes have obviously been hijacked simultaneously, an event never before seen in history, and one has just dived into the worlds best know twin towers, and still no one notifies the nominal Commander in Chief.
No one has apparently scrambled any Air Force interceptors either.
At 9:03, United Flight 175 crashes into the remaining World Trade Center building. At 9:05, Andrew Card, the Presidential Chief of Staff whispers to George W. Bush. Bush "briefly turns somber" according to reporters.
Does he cancel the school visit and convene an emergency meeting? No.
He resumes listening to second graders read about a little girl's pet fucking goat, and continues this banality even as American Airlines Flight 77 conducts an unscheduled point turn over Ohio and heads in the direction of Washington DC.
Has he instructed Chief of Staff Card to scramble the Air Force? No.
An excruciating 25 minutes later, he finally deigns to give a public statement telling the United States what they already have figured out; that there's been an attack by hijacked planes on the World Trade Center.
There's a hijacked plane bee-lining to Washington, but has the Air Force been scrambled to defend anything yet? No.
At 9:30, when he makes his announcement, American Flight 77 is still ten minutes from its target, the Pentagon.
The Administration will later claim they had no way of knowing that the Pentagon might be a target, and that they thought Flight 77 was headed to the White House, but the fact is that the plane has already flown South and past the White House no-fly zone, and is in fact tearing through the sky at over 400 nauts.
At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 degrees over the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and the Pentagon is not evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air Force in the sky over Alexandria and DC.
Now, the real kicker. A pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at 460 nauts.
When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator.
This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on I-40 at rush hour by buying her a video driving game. It's horse shit!
There is a story being constructed about these events. My crystal ball is not working today, so I can't say why.
But at the least, this so-called Commander-in-Chief and his staff that we are all supposed to follow blindly into some ill-defined war on terrorism is criminally negligent or unspeakably stupid. And at the worst, if more is known or was known, and there is an effort to conceal the facts, there is a criminal conspiracy going on.
Certainly, the Bush de facto administration was facing a confluence of crises from which they were temporarily rescued by this event. Whether they played a sinister role or not, there is little doubt that they have at the very least opportunistically pounced on this attack to overcome their lack of legitimacy, to shift the blame for the encroaching recession from capitalism to the September 11th terror attack, to legitimize their pre-existing foreign policy agenda, and to establish and consolidate repressive measures domestically and silence dissent. In many ways, September 11th pulled the Bush cookies out of the fire.
And given them the green light to begin constructing a long-term scenario within which to establish fascistic control measures at home and abroad as a citadel for the ruling class in the catastrophic conjuncture that we are entering based on the end of oil.
......
no reason for it to take so long for a response. there should've been a reaction before the first plane hit, let alone 3
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
You guys don't even attempt to hide your contempt for the US. This thread didn't even have shit to do with 911, but since you couldn't make your point about the nukes used on Japan, you have to resort to another conspiracy theory.
I'll ask you again to answer my two previous questions.
i think the atomic attacks on japan are quite horrendous in the long history of world atrocities...
it wasnt a long drawn out genocide, it was quite quick and final... 2 cities gone in almost an instant
it was instant world news...reaching far corners of the globe in hours (again instant)
and it was cheered by the masses, as if their team had just scored the winning touchdown in the superbowl
and most importantly, it ushered in the most dangerous times of this planets history... the nuclear/atomic age... which is quite frankly the greatest threat to human survival we have ever faced, creating a weapons race and a nuclear buildup that can only be defined as psychotic and self destructive... so unlike a massive genocide, it actually has lead to the possible future extinction of the human race as we know it, instead of a particular race, or religious group (etc.)
You guys don't even attempt to hide your contempt for the US. This thread didn't even have shit to do with 911, but since you couldn't make your point about the nukes used on Japan, you have to resort to another conspiracy theory.
I'll ask you again to answer my two previous questions.
having a objective view of the world and its events does not equal contempt for a particular country... just call it how i see it?
ok, what are the 2 questions
ps... i hijacked my own thread, and apologized for it
i think the atomic attacks on japan are quite horrendous in the long history of world atrocities...
it wasnt a long drawn out genocide, it was quite quick and final... 2 cities gone in almost an instant
it was instant world news...reaching far corners of the globe in hours (again instant)
and it was cheered by the masses, as if their team had just scored the winning touchdown in the superbowl
and most importantly, it ushered in the most dangerous times of this planets history... the nuclear/atomic age... which is quite frankly the greatest threat to human survival we have ever faced, creating a weapons race and a nuclear buildup that can only be defined as psychotic and self destructive... so unlike a massive genocide, it actually has lead to the possible future extinction of the human race as we know it, instead of a particular race, or religious group (etc.)
Can you imagine the atrocities that would have been commited had the US been forced to invade main land Japan????? Can you even consider that in your biased analysis?
Besides, what happened in Japan is, in essence, what needs to happen in the Middle East - extremist need to be anhialated and humiliated. They need total defeat!
Can you imagine the atrocities that would have been commited had the US been forced to invade main land Japan????? Can you even consider that in your biased analysis?
Besides, what happened in Japan is, in essence, what needs to happen in the Middle East - extremist need to be anhialated and humiliated. They need total defeat!
if you have never seen "fog of war" i suggest that you chekc it out...blockbuster usually has a copy...if you really want i will ship you my copy to borrow
there was no need to invade, they were thoroughly defeated and isolated
Your reason that both nukes were dropped is compeltely and utterly false. The reason two nukes were dropped is because Japan didn't surrender after the first one. We waited a full three days for them to surrender, but they did not.
Do you think we would have dropped the second bomb if Japan had surrenedered already? Seriously, I would like you to answer that question.
Wouldn't it be more plausible that if our true intentions were to test the two different types of bombs, that we would have dropped them simultaneously - therefore not taking the risk that Japan might surrender and therefore we could not test the second bomb? Seriously, I would like you to answer that question as well.
What do you mean the nukes were fired at Russia???? It looks as if they were dropped on Japan, but maybe I'm wrong.
And lastly, this one made me laugh.... what do you mean we made unrealistic terms for unconditional surrender? Isn't that an oxymoron or something???
Well here is a pretty thorough document, read it or don't, your opinions obviously aren't going to change my mind, since I've done a lot of reading on it. Being two hours from Hiroshima these days is pretty good motivation.
What I mean when I say the nukes were fired at Russia is that the nukes were completely inconsequential in our war with Japan. The only reason those two cities had any industry left is because we deliberately did not bomb them conventionally. We literally had almost run out of anything resembling a military or industrial target.
Those weapons were fired to show Russia what it would cost them for further incursions into Europe after the fall of the Nazis.
The blockade's and air campaign of the USA made a land invasion not only implausible, but completely unnecessary in any sense. It wasn't the people of Japan who refused to surrender, it was a tiny minority of generals clinging to samurai and bushido codes of honor, who thought honor far outweighed life. The cabinet votes in Japan well before Hiroshima were 12-3 in favor of surrender, but not unanimous.
Japan also clung to the hope, that their quasi-ally in neutrality, Russia could step in and pursuade the USA to let them keep their Emperor. That hope was completely dashed when Russia invaded manchuria.
I'm sorry if my ability to read anything but my tenth grade history text book has made me question the cooker cutter rationale for what amounts to civilian genocide.
But no I am not jaded, because despite those horrific bombings, the USA has done what not many, if any countries have done as successfully since. Take an utterly defeated enemy, forgetting their own hatred for their enemies, and helped shape and build Japan into an industrial miracle. The USA stuck by Japan and now has an economic superpower for an ally in Asia. If Europe had not been so careless at Versailles, maybe World War II could have been avoided completely.
If the allies hadn't left the middle east to run itself in the aftermath of both World Wars maybe we wouldn't have half the problems we have in that region today.
All I'm saying is we should learn from all of these things.
I also notice that you had no response to the small diatribe I wrote about Depleted Uranium. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which I will admit, are debatable points to this day, represent a correct decision. What does the 400,000 Nagasaki bombs, or their direct weight in plutonium, fired by the USA and UK since 1992 spell? Necessities for victory - or a constantly shifting smoke, a permanently mobile ground zero, sweeping across the populations of our allies and enemies and causing an endless string of mind blowingly catastrophic fatalities.?
i think the atomic attacks on japan are quite horrendous in the long history of world atrocities...
it wasnt a long drawn out genocide, it was quite quick and final... 2 cities gone in almost an instant
it was instant world news...reaching far corners of the globe in hours (again instant)
and it was cheered by the masses, as if their team had just scored the winning touchdown in the superbowl
and most importantly, it ushered in the most dangerous times of this planets history... the nuclear/atomic age... which is quite frankly the greatest threat to human survival we have ever faced, creating a weapons race and a nuclear buildup that can only be defined as psychotic and self destructive... so unlike a massive genocide, it actually has lead to the possible future extinction of the human race as we know it, instead of a particular race, or religious group (etc.)
it was a joke
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
here's the official document
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
a brief summary of the part i referenced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Fry#CJCSI_3610.01A
CJCSI 3610.01A
As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.
Fry issued CJCSI 3610.01A for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." The CJCSI further states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251871/site/newsweek/
the parts i found interesting were
Nor had Bush given any known instructions on how to respond to the attacks.
Combat air patrols were aloft, and a military aide was asking for shoot-down authority, telling Cheney that a fourth plane was "80 miles out" from Washington. Cheney didn't flinch, the report said. "In about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing," he gave the order to shoot it down, telling others the president had "signed off on the concept" during a brief phone chat. When the plane was 60 miles out, Cheney was again informed and again he ordered: take it out.
Then Joshua Bolten, after what he described in testimony as "a quiet moment," spoke up. Bolten, the White House deputy chief of staff, asked the veep to get back in touch with the president to "confirm the engage order." Bolten was clearly subordinate to Cheney, but "he had not heard any prior conversation on the subject with the president," the 9/11 report notes. Nor did the real-time notes taken by two others in the room, Cheney's chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby—who is known for his meticulous record-keeping—or Cheney's wife, Lynne, reflect that such a phone call between Bush and Cheney occurred or that such a major decision as shooting down a U.S. airliner was discussed. Bush and Cheney later testified the president gave the order. And national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice and a military aide said they remembered a call, but gave few specifics. The report concluded "there is no documentary evidence for this call."
NEWSWEEK has learned that some on the commission staff were, in fact, highly skeptical of the vice president's account and made their views clearer in an earlier draft of their staff report. According to one knowledgeable source, some staffers "flat out didn't believe the call ever took place." When the early draft conveying that skepticism was circulated to the administration, it provoked an angry reaction. In a letter from White House lawyers last Tuesday and a series of phone calls, the White House vigorously lobbied the commission to change the language in its report. "We didn't think it was written in a way that clearly reflected the accounting the president and vice president had given to the commission," White House spokesman Dan Bartlett told NEWSWEEK. Ultimately the chairman and vice chair of the commission, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean and former representative Lee Hamilton—both of whom have sought mightily to appear nonpartisan—agreed to remove some of the offending language. The report "was watered down," groused one staffer.
then there's an interesting article written by a former special ops sgt and west point teacher (of military science and doctrine) that uses this as a key point
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GOF110A.html
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I'm sorry that you are so miss-guided.
Your reason that both nukes were dropped is compeltely and utterly false. The reason two nukes were dropped is because Japan didn't surrender after the first one. We waited a full three days for them to surrender, but they did not.
Do you think we would have dropped the second bomb if Japan had surrenedered already? Seriously, I would like you to answer that question.
Wouldn't it be more plausible that if our true intentions were to test the two different types of bombs, that we would have dropped them simultaneously - therefore not taking the risk that Japan might surrender and therefore we could not test the second bomb? Seriously, I would like you to answer that question as well.
What do you mean the nukes were fired at Russia???? It looks as if they were dropped on Japan, but maybe I'm wrong.
And lastly, this one made me laugh.... what do you mean we made unrealistic terms for unconditional surrender? Isn't that an oxymoron or something???
Sorry you are so jaded.
you persoanlly attack the guy because you disagree with him? "jaded" and "mis-guided"? unclassified documents and military officials have supported the story "eviltoasterelf" has presented... the evidence that supports using the atom bomb to win the "pissing" contest of global superiority with Russia is so overwhelming that there is no need to debate it
THE REAL DEBATE is the slaughter of nearly 200,000 CIVILIANS... these were civilain cities that were leveled, not military targets or ammo dumps... maybe you would change your tune if it was charlotte and raliegh that were laid to waste to ensure "unconditional surrender"
those 2 bombings of civilian targets were 2 of the greatest crimes against humanity this planet has ever seen. PERIOD
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
8:46 flight 11 hits WTC
8:59 flight 175 veers
9:03 flight 175 hits WTC
8:51 flight 77 turns
9:43 flight 77 hits Pentagon
so a plane turns around over Ohio, and makes it to the pentagon 45 MINUTES AFTER 2 PLANES HIT THE WTC
i call bullshit... something very fishy about that day
also i like this Bush quote @ 12:36 pm that day
“Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward."
3 hours later and he is already assuming it is an "attack on freedom"? whats up with that... a little quick dont you think?
(I apologize for hi-jacking my own thread
yes, let me correct myself...they were 2 of the greatest examples of cimes against humanity in world history
sorry, typo... busy day at work
you are correct
thank you
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
we are talking about the instant evaporation of 2 major civilian cities
he needs to "education himself"
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
no problem. the last article is a little long, the part i used as a reference for was...and he was a Master Sergeant in the special forces, taught military science and doctrine, tactics instructor at the Jungle Operations Training Center in Panama, and taught Military Science at West Point....
I have no idea why people aren't asking some very specific questions about the actions of Bush and company on the day of the attacks. Follow along:
Four planes get hijacked and deviate from their flight plans, all the while on FAA radar. The planes are all hijacked between 7:45 and 8:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time.
Who is notified?
This is an event already that is unprecedented. But the President is not notified and going to a Florida elementary school to hear children read.
By around 8:15 AM, it should be very apparent that something is terribly wrong. The President is glad-handing teachers.
By 8:45, when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the World Trade Center, Bush is settling in with children for his photo ops at Booker Elementary. Four planes have obviously been hijacked simultaneously, an event never before seen in history, and one has just dived into the worlds best know twin towers, and still no one notifies the nominal Commander in Chief.
No one has apparently scrambled any Air Force interceptors either.
At 9:03, United Flight 175 crashes into the remaining World Trade Center building. At 9:05, Andrew Card, the Presidential Chief of Staff whispers to George W. Bush. Bush "briefly turns somber" according to reporters.
Does he cancel the school visit and convene an emergency meeting? No.
He resumes listening to second graders read about a little girl's pet fucking goat, and continues this banality even as American Airlines Flight 77 conducts an unscheduled point turn over Ohio and heads in the direction of Washington DC.
Has he instructed Chief of Staff Card to scramble the Air Force? No.
An excruciating 25 minutes later, he finally deigns to give a public statement telling the United States what they already have figured out; that there's been an attack by hijacked planes on the World Trade Center.
There's a hijacked plane bee-lining to Washington, but has the Air Force been scrambled to defend anything yet? No.
At 9:30, when he makes his announcement, American Flight 77 is still ten minutes from its target, the Pentagon.
The Administration will later claim they had no way of knowing that the Pentagon might be a target, and that they thought Flight 77 was headed to the White House, but the fact is that the plane has already flown South and past the White House no-fly zone, and is in fact tearing through the sky at over 400 nauts.
At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 degrees over the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and the Pentagon is not evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air Force in the sky over Alexandria and DC.
Now, the real kicker. A pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at 460 nauts.
When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator.
This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on I-40 at rush hour by buying her a video driving game. It's horse shit!
There is a story being constructed about these events. My crystal ball is not working today, so I can't say why.
But at the least, this so-called Commander-in-Chief and his staff that we are all supposed to follow blindly into some ill-defined war on terrorism is criminally negligent or unspeakably stupid. And at the worst, if more is known or was known, and there is an effort to conceal the facts, there is a criminal conspiracy going on.
Certainly, the Bush de facto administration was facing a confluence of crises from which they were temporarily rescued by this event. Whether they played a sinister role or not, there is little doubt that they have at the very least opportunistically pounced on this attack to overcome their lack of legitimacy, to shift the blame for the encroaching recession from capitalism to the September 11th terror attack, to legitimize their pre-existing foreign policy agenda, and to establish and consolidate repressive measures domestically and silence dissent. In many ways, September 11th pulled the Bush cookies out of the fire.
And given them the green light to begin constructing a long-term scenario within which to establish fascistic control measures at home and abroad as a citadel for the ruling class in the catastrophic conjuncture that we are entering based on the end of oil.
......
no reason for it to take so long for a response. there should've been a reaction before the first plane hit, let alone 3
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i agree with that
You guys don't even attempt to hide your contempt for the US. This thread didn't even have shit to do with 911, but since you couldn't make your point about the nukes used on Japan, you have to resort to another conspiracy theory.
I'll ask you again to answer my two previous questions.
not so quick my friend
i think the atomic attacks on japan are quite horrendous in the long history of world atrocities...
it wasnt a long drawn out genocide, it was quite quick and final... 2 cities gone in almost an instant
it was instant world news...reaching far corners of the globe in hours (again instant)
and it was cheered by the masses, as if their team had just scored the winning touchdown in the superbowl
and most importantly, it ushered in the most dangerous times of this planets history... the nuclear/atomic age... which is quite frankly the greatest threat to human survival we have ever faced, creating a weapons race and a nuclear buildup that can only be defined as psychotic and self destructive... so unlike a massive genocide, it actually has lead to the possible future extinction of the human race as we know it, instead of a particular race, or religious group (etc.)
having a objective view of the world and its events does not equal contempt for a particular country... just call it how i see it?
ok, what are the 2 questions
ps... i hijacked my own thread, and apologized for it
so back to japan and nuclear/atomic weapons
Can you imagine the atrocities that would have been commited had the US been forced to invade main land Japan????? Can you even consider that in your biased analysis?
Besides, what happened in Japan is, in essence, what needs to happen in the Middle East - extremist need to be anhialated and humiliated. They need total defeat!
if you have never seen "fog of war" i suggest that you chekc it out...blockbuster usually has a copy...if you really want i will ship you my copy to borrow
there was no need to invade, they were thoroughly defeated and isolated
"The Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing" -- General Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://www.ncesa.org/html/hiroshima.html
Well here is a pretty thorough document, read it or don't, your opinions obviously aren't going to change my mind, since I've done a lot of reading on it. Being two hours from Hiroshima these days is pretty good motivation.
What I mean when I say the nukes were fired at Russia is that the nukes were completely inconsequential in our war with Japan. The only reason those two cities had any industry left is because we deliberately did not bomb them conventionally. We literally had almost run out of anything resembling a military or industrial target.
Those weapons were fired to show Russia what it would cost them for further incursions into Europe after the fall of the Nazis.
The blockade's and air campaign of the USA made a land invasion not only implausible, but completely unnecessary in any sense. It wasn't the people of Japan who refused to surrender, it was a tiny minority of generals clinging to samurai and bushido codes of honor, who thought honor far outweighed life. The cabinet votes in Japan well before Hiroshima were 12-3 in favor of surrender, but not unanimous.
Japan also clung to the hope, that their quasi-ally in neutrality, Russia could step in and pursuade the USA to let them keep their Emperor. That hope was completely dashed when Russia invaded manchuria.
I'm sorry if my ability to read anything but my tenth grade history text book has made me question the cooker cutter rationale for what amounts to civilian genocide.
But no I am not jaded, because despite those horrific bombings, the USA has done what not many, if any countries have done as successfully since. Take an utterly defeated enemy, forgetting their own hatred for their enemies, and helped shape and build Japan into an industrial miracle. The USA stuck by Japan and now has an economic superpower for an ally in Asia. If Europe had not been so careless at Versailles, maybe World War II could have been avoided completely.
If the allies hadn't left the middle east to run itself in the aftermath of both World Wars maybe we wouldn't have half the problems we have in that region today.
All I'm saying is we should learn from all of these things.
I also notice that you had no response to the small diatribe I wrote about Depleted Uranium. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which I will admit, are debatable points to this day, represent a correct decision. What does the 400,000 Nagasaki bombs, or their direct weight in plutonium, fired by the USA and UK since 1992 spell? Necessities for victory - or a constantly shifting smoke, a permanently mobile ground zero, sweeping across the populations of our allies and enemies and causing an endless string of mind blowingly catastrophic fatalities.?
it was a joke
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i know