EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sept. 11: A Day Without War
The ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States should serve as a moment to reflect on tolerance. It should be a day of peace. Yet the rising anti-Muslim fervor here, together with the continuing U.S. military occupation of Iraq and the escalating war in Afghanistan (and Pakistan), all fuel the belief that the U.S. really is at war with Islam.
Sept. 11, 2001, united the world against terrorism. Everyone, it seemed, was with the United States, standing in solidarity with the victims, with the families who lost loved ones. The day will be remembered for generations to come, for the notorious act of coordinated mass murder. But that was not the first Sept. 11 to be associated with terror:
Sept. 11, 1973, Chile: Democratically elected President Salvadore Allende died in a CIA-backed military coup that ushered in a reign of terror under dictator Augusto Pinochet, in which thousands of Chileans were killed.
Sept. 11, 1977, South Africa: Anti-apartheid leader Stephen Biko was being beaten in a police van. He died the next day.
Sept. 11, 1990, Guatemala: Guatemalan anthropologist Myrna Mack was murdered by the U.S.-backed military.
Sept. 9-13, 1971, New York: The Attica prison uprising occurred, during which New York state troopers killed 39 prisoners and guards and wounded hundreds of others.
Sept. 11, 1988, Haiti: During a mass led by Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide at the St. Jean Bosco Church in Port-au-Prince, right-wing militiamen attacked, killing at least 13 worshippers and injuring at least 77. Aristide would later be twice elected president, only to be ousted in U.S.-supported coup d'etats.
If anything, Sept. 11 is a day to remember the victims of terror, all victims of terror, and to work for peace, like the group September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. Formed by those who lost loved ones on 9/11/2001, their mission could serve as a national call to action: "[T]o turn our grief into action for peace. By developing and advocating nonviolent options and actions in the pursuit of justice, we hope to break the cycles of violence engendered by war and terrorism. Acknowledging our common experience with all people affected by violence throughout the world, we work to create a safer and more peaceful world for everyone."
Our "Democracy Now!" news studio was blocks from the twin towers in New York City. We were broadcasting live as they fell. In the days that followed, thousands of fliers went up everywhere, picturing the missing, with phone numbers of family members to call if you recognized someone. These reminded me of the placards carried by the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina. Those are the women, wearing white headscarves, who courageously marched, week after week, carrying pictures of their missing children who disappeared during the military dictatorship there.
I am reminded, as well, by the steady stream of pictures of young people in the military killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and now, with increasing frequency (although pictured less in the news), who kill themselves after multiple combat deployments.
For each of the U.S. or NATO casualties, there are literally hundreds of victims in Iraq and Afghanistan whose pictures will never be shown, whose names we will never know.
While angry mobs continue attempts to thwart the building of an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan (in a vacant, long-ignored, damaged building more than two blocks away), an evangelical "minister" in Florida is organizing a Sept. 11 "International Burn the Koran Day." Gen. David Petraeus has stated that the burning, which has sparked protests around the globe, "could endanger troops." He is right. But so does blowing up innocent civilians and their homes.
As in Vietnam in the 1960s, Afghanistan has a dedicated, indigenous, armed resistance, and a deeply corrupt group in Kabul masquerading as a central government. The war is bleeding over into a neighboring country, Pakistan, just as the Vietnam War spread into Cambodia and Laos.
Right after Sept. 11, 2001, as thousands gathered in parks around New York City, holding impromptu candlelit vigils, a sticker appeared on signs, placards and benches. It read, "Our grief is not a cry for war."
This Sept. 11, that message is still-painfully, regrettably-timely.
Let's make Sept. 11 a day without war.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
184 Comments so far
Show AllThat's all she wrote.
Wouldn't a day without war be considered unpatriotic ?
Think of the impact on the US economy.
This is the U.S. We would be obligated to follow up a day without war with two days with war.
"Further, the process of transformation [transformation of military affairs brought about by various technological innovations], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
quoted from:
The Project for the New American Century, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," p. 51.
Published in September 2000.
Available in pdfile at http://www.newamericancentury.org/
defensenationalsecurity.htm.
Members of the Project included:
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Scooter Libby, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Jeb Bush.
"Available in pdfile "
Yes it is, unashamedly available. Why do you think they still have it out there if the quote is so bad?
Because they are who they are, namely, men (it's overwhelmingly men) who think of themselves as standing above the law because they are "fashioners" of the world ("we are an empire and we make our own reality") and of the Pax Americana that aims at dominion over the world.
Also, on a somewhat different level, who reads "Rebuilding America's Defenses"? They count on the majority of the population's not taking interest in, and, above all, not having knowledge of their writings.
"Because they are who they are, namely, men "
Nah, it's because people take the statement way out of context, and there is nothing in that statement for them to be ashamed about. That's why it's still there.
911 was not a New Pearl Harbor in the way that would have galvanized support for PNACs stated goal of developing infornation technology as it applies to the military.
Actually, the media referred to it, repeatedly, as a "new Pearl Harbor"--so go back and review what was said that day. In his official diary, Bush referred to 9/11 as the "New Pearl Harbor." Just a coincidence?
And I agree that it was "A New Pearl Harbor", but it had nothing to do and did not help with PNACs concern about adopting IT technology.
Context.
I have to give you credit, jake. You can post some of the most brazen, bald-faced bullshit I've seen on any forum.
The War on Terror, precipitated by 9/11, has resulted in unlimited powers of information gathering by the military and the national security apparatus. Our communications systems are now under constant surveillance, also courtesy of the WoT.
Worst of all has been the development and deployment of remote-controlled attack platforms such as the Predator drones and the robot boat described in another article on CD.
I'm sure that others can provide aditional examples.
q
"You can post some of the most brazen, bald-faced bullshit I've seen on any forum."
Please be specific in this case.
"The War on Terror, precipitated by 9/11, has resulted in ..."
What does any of that have to do with PNAC's specific stated desire that the military leverage IT technology more?
No one is saying that nobody used 911 for political purposes *after the fact*.
I gave you two specific examples. You, being yourself, cannot refute them so you try to ignore them.
q
Nothing having to do with the PNAC paper *specifically*. They never got a "New Pearl Harbor" for their stated agenda around IT technology.
It's fun watching you squirm.
Can you show me a list of "specific" weaponry from the PNAC paper?
q
"It's fun watching you squirm."
LOL!
"Can you show me a list of "specific" weaponry from the PNAC paper?"
It's IT aka "Information Systems" technology. Go back a few paragraphs in the same paper, that is the "transformation" *context*:
""To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence"."
Flying planes into buildings is "low" tech.
QS 11:51 quite clearly proves her/his case in the second paragraph. Thats the accelerated use of IT technology the paper called for , ( including 75 Fusion Centers).
Why are you denying the obvious JN? Oh because it is quite difficult from some to finally realize what a monsterous system they live under.
And furthermore Pearl Harbour itself, along with the Manila USA airfleet anilhilation, was akin to a false flag operation.
"QS 11:51 quite clearly proves her/his case in the second paragraph."
Nope.
"Thats the accelerated use of IT technology the paper called for "
It was well underway under Clinton.
"Why are you denying the obvious JN?"
To be clear: I am denying that the PNAC paper indicated any sort "desire for" something like 911 to happen, let alone any indication of foreknowledge.. There is no indication of that in the PNAC paper.
And I already admitted in response to the post you refer to that "No one is saying that nobody used 911 for political purposes *after the fact*."
"And furthermore Pearl Harbour itself, along with the Manila USA airfleet anilhilation, was akin to a false flag operation."
You are entitled to any opinion you wish to have, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.
What is the PROPER (U.S. certified and government approved) context in which we are supposed to take that sentence, Jake Newton? Please, tell us, for we are ignorant of the ways of our leaders and of the think tanks that formulate their policies.
On the evening of September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld held a news conference on the Pentagon strike. Senator Carl Levin, chair of the Armed Services Committee, was present at the briefing. He was asked the following question:
"Senator Levin, you and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don't have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense... Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending?"
(Department of Defense News Briefing on Pentagon Attack, 6:42 pm, Sept. 11, 2001, available at www.yale.edu/lawweb/
avalon/sept_11/dod_brief02.htm.)
After that, Congress hastened to appropriate an additional 40 billion dollars for the Pentagon, and much more later. I say 'hastened' for how many members of Congress asked any questions regarding this matter, and was there even deliberation and dicussion of the matter?
"What is the PROPER (U.S. certified and government approved) context in which we are supposed to take that sentence, Jake Newton?"
The *context* is that the PNAC paper was supposedly a "smoking gun" showing that some desired an event like 911 to advance their agenda. But upon further examining of the *context* of "A New Pearl Harbor" regarding a very specific agenda item that PNAC stated, namely increase in the use of IT technology in the military, we can see that it isn't a smoking gun after all.
911 did nothing to demonstrate and galvanize around a need in the military for IT technology. That's not to say it wasn't exploited by some after the fact for other agenda items.
Ergo, that's why it's still up on the web site, in the complete absense of any shame, because PNAC themselves understand the *context*.
Thank you Oikos for the 'Pearl Harbor' references and info.
In the original document (2000-2003) online version the comment was attributed to Condoleeza Rice.
Her name was removed from the online version sometime after that.
I have been trying to find the earlier version and am hoping that someone can provide a link to it..
The folder that contained my version of the original doc was trashed by a hacker sometime in 2004. Interesting that this folder and its content were the only casualties of the hack.
thank you curmudgeon99,
"In the original document (2000-2003) online version the comment was attributed to Condoleeza Rice."
i didn't know this, but it makes perfect sense that a former oil executive would state the obvious necessity of such a disaster.
...peace...
"it makes perfect sense that a former oil executive would state the obvious necessity of such a disaster."
Except that it never said anything like that. Oops. Read it maybe.
i have read it, i read it 9 years ago - i've reread it since and here's the quote in question.
-------------
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
pg 51
“Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.”
-------------
the key operative phrase is trans-formative change taking a long time (as opposed to a short time). so, in PNAC's collective mind a catalyzing event was necessary for 'rapid' transformation (like implementation of patriot act/war on iraq etc..)
…peace…
OK fine, but it wasn't needed in the sense that it was required or desired for it to happen, as if the death and destruction wasn't actually and obviously a horrible price to pay and the trade off would somehow be worth the price. And no where do they "call for" a New Pearl Harbor as is so often claimed.
The content of this reply adds nothing new to what you have already said. You are merely again denying that there is a connection between two facts. However, denying anything does not make it so (unless we are talking about certain special speech acts, which we are not here, since we are dealing with straightforward truth claims here).
"You are merely again denying that there is a connection between two facts."
No, your "connection" lacks any substance. You have to establish the connection and until you do so I can deny it. The PNAC paper shows us *nothing* about 911. No connection.
This will be my last response to Jake Newton; it is written more for the benefit of other interested readers than for him, for I no longer consider him a rational and honest partner in conversation.
In my above post of September 8th, 2010 10:39 am, where I cite the PNAC text, I established no connection whatsoever: how could I have done so, since I merely quoted the passage and gave its reference?
It is the text of the PNAC document that establishes a connection between a "new Pearl Harbor" (p. 51 of quoted text) and the transformation in military affairs called for by "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (see p. 50 for what the authors mean by 'transformation in military affairs'). It states that without a Pearl-Harbor-like occurrence to catalyze matters, the process of transformation in question will take a long time. Clearly, such an assertion relates, connects the desired outcome (the transformation in military affairs) and a putative catastrophic occurrence (such as the Pearl Harbor strike on United States forces) that is to act as the catalyst that will hasten the desired transformation.
As such, when in his 2:34 pm post, Jake speaks of "your [meaning mine, Oikos's] 'connection'," I wonder what he is speaking about.
What Jake has been trying to sell us all along, with a straight face, is that "Rebuilding America's Defenses" did not establish a connection between a catalyzing event such as a new Pearl Harbor and the think tank's signatories' call for a transformation in military affairs!!!!
It gets even better, though. At September 8th, 2010 11:39 am, Jake tells us that "911 was not a New Pearl Harbor... ," thereby contradicting President Bush himself, who, on the evening of the eleventh, wrote in his diary that "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." (Washington Post, January 27, 2002). But at 12:08 pm, Jake tell us that "it was 'A New Pearl Harbor'..." A person who contradicts himself so blantantly in the space of so little time is not a reliable partner in conversation.
In view of the just described outrageous nonsense, I close with a minor point.
Regarding my request for a context at 12:09 pm, please note that our man Jake has yet to supply the context that would make intelligible the claim that the signatories of the PNAC did not relate their desired transformation of military affairs to a putative catalyzing and catastophic event, such as a new Pearl Harbor.
It would seem that that context is as elusive as the weapons of mass destruction the Bush administration claimed were in Iraq.
"This will be my last response to Jake Newton;"
This is my standard reply to such an announcement: Don't let the door slam you in the ass on the way out. You guys who make these pronouncements *always* return anyway. *shrug*
"In my above post of September 8th, 2010 10:39 am, where I cite the PNAC text, I established no connection whatsoever: how could I have done so, since I merely quoted the passage and gave its reference? "
You alluded to a connection in your post of Oikos September 8th, 2010 1:44 pm when you wrote "You are merely again denying that there is a connection between two facts." To be clear: I deny any connection between the PNAC paper and the events of 911. Do you agree with me or not?
"such an assertion relates, connects the desired outcome (the transformation in military affairs) and a putative catastrophic occurrence (such as the Pearl Harbor strike on United States forces) that is to act as the catalyst that will hasten the desired transformation."
Nonsense, because there was nothing about 911 that demonstrated any need for cranking up IT technology in the military, nor did any sweeping support for such a thing ever materialize as a result.
"What Jake has been trying to sell us all along, with a straight face, is that "Rebuilding America's Defenses" did not establish a connection between a catalyzing event such as a new Pearl Harbor and the think tank's signatories' call for a transformation in military affairs!!!!"
No, I've said that 911 *did not constitute* a "New Pearl Harbor" of the kind that would have hastened that transition. And I have also argued that there was no smoking gun here, such as a stated desire for such an event or any foreknowledge of the event.
"It gets even better, though."
Yeah it sure does, see next:
"At September 8th, 2010 11:39 am, Jake tells us that "911 was not a New Pearl Harbor... ,""
LOLOL!!!! Way to slice and dice Einstein! Why did you omit the "in the way that would have galvanized support for PNACs stated goal of developing information technology as it applies to the military." part of my quote? Doing so completely changes the context of what I actually said. Why did you do that? Talk about "a rational and honest partner in conversation" as you said you didn't see in me. The gonads you must have to write like that in public.
Don't let the door slam you in the ass.
"the claim that the signatories of the PNAC did not relate their desired transformation of military affairs to a putative catalyzing and catastrophic event, such as a new Pearl Harbor."
I didn't say they didn't relate the hypothetical N.P.H. within the paper, I said they did not state a desire for it and that 911 did not constitute the kind of N.P.H. they were talking about.
'911 was not a New Pearl Harbor in the way that would have galvanized support for PNACs stated goal of developing infornation technology as it applies to the military'
Actually, 911 was--and still is--a major success in galvanizing the forces of corruption. To begin with, 911 gave legitimacy to frat-boy bush's presidency. Then it allowed the forces of true evil--cheney, rummy, et al.--to prevail with barely a whimper from the terrified American public.
911 has been used to successfully demonize everyone who's not a card-carrying 'merkin patriot who believes in god, war, and killing abortionists. It's still used to silence those who dare question the war profiteers, those aghast at torture, those who question...pretty much everything outside the corporate status-quo.
911 is the best thing that ever happened to the perverse, vile 2 percenters who run the world.... it's the gift that keeps on giving.
You are so right, Diana, the only sane voice to read here. I want to think there ar more people like you in this country and I know there are. God bless all of you. A horrible thing happened, two horrible things, the destruction of the twin towers and our invading Iraq. Those of us that yelled "no" were drowned out, even the people that lost loved ones. We can win, we have to stay sane and not fear the evil we know is out there.
I wish we could forget Islam, but we can't, but we have to remember what Christians should be and do.
"Actually, 911 was--and still is--a major success in galvanizing the forces of corruption."
A good point that is often true but quite different from the point I had made.
"Let's make Sept. 11 a day without war."
Fat chance.
"Let's make Sept. 11 a day that Amy Goodman actually deals with scientific reality and discusses the evidence for controlled demolition."
Then we can have a conversation about false-flag terrorism, wars for empire, the PATRIOT act, domestic spying, torture, endless wars, etc.
We can actually begin to properly contextualize the fallout from this domestic false-flag event.
What's keeping you from presenting an article which deals with those subjects which you accuse Goodman of ignoring?
Goodman has actually discussed most of the topics which you list.
q
No and I've never claimed that she did one.
The fact that she has not done so is no reflection on her credibility as a journalist.
It would really be nice - amazing, actually - if you and the rest of the clowns could find some other false issue with which to try to discredit Goodman.
q
You didn't read my post. No need to get nasty.
I respect Goodman, as I said. But if she is going to write articles like this, it is my duty to point out the absurdity of her position on the subject. She should be held to account just like every other public journalist, no matter her politics.
And just exactly what is "the absurdity of her position" on the subject?
All this article discusses is the violent historical context of 9/11 and expresses a wish for peace.
Whether 9/11 was a false flag operation or not is irrelevant to the subject of the article.
q
Hmmmm. Of course it is relevant if 9/11 was a false flag attack (which it certainly was). What Goodman is missing is the historical context for the attack, the systemic nature of state terror, and why it is used. Every thing that followed 9/11 was pre-planned and required justification.
It is not only relevant, but it is central to the story. Ignoring that vital fact only ensures it will be easily done again in the future.
What else would you folks call yourselves? You show up on cue on virtually every Goodman column, posting the same tired nonsense and using the same phony issue to discredit her.
q
Hundreds of 9/11 victim's family members want a new investigation based on the work of the 9/11 truth movement. Are they clowns too?
It's frightening when I see these smear tactics used here, ones that I've seen my whole life being used by the establishment, and their cronies in the capitalist press.
She is presented with materials constantly about 911. I know people who have worked for DN! for years, and she won't touch the subject honestly. She has never had an interview with a scientist. She has only had a "debate" which was originally not scheduled as a debate. She changed it at the last minute. On and On, it's the same story. Peter Phillips of Project Censored has made public pleas for an honest hearing.
Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of respect for her work...
My point is that all those topics I listed are connected to this false-flag event, just as Operation Gladio's state terrorist operations were used to attack the left.
You seem to me to miss the point that the tragedy of 9/11 is that we are still killing and invading countries and assassinating suspects 9 years after the hijackers suicided themselves.
All this seems to get forgotten in the Demolition theory debate.
unless there was real evidence that could prove the theory in court or you are prepared to testify under oath, the important thing now is that we are still at war over it no matter who done it.
In my view, a convincing provable case beyond a reasonable doubt would not need Amy Goodman to help.
And all the animosity towards her and other non believers I have seen is not pretty.
Well, I have been up on the truthers evidence, but the closer I look into it, I find more lack of evidence.
We have been up and down the towers and building 7 a million times on this site and have seen about it all so it is not just the courts and Amy who are not impressed with the evidence.
We are gettin off topic now.. as the point of this article is not about a secret demolition debate it is the 9/11 war that doesn't care about demolition theories at all.
We have a disagreement. I think it is you that misses the point. If you know about Gladio, then you would understand the historic use of false-flag attacks by the state. They are constantly used to justify many kinds of military and domestic political agendas. 911 is no difference.
Understanding the systemic nature of false-flag attacks is key to preventing them in the future, and is key to ending the disastrous wars we are in now, and till the end of time.
There is solid evidence we can present in court. Dr. Harrit's paper for one. Plus many other pieces of physical evidence. The CSI type investigations are done, we now need the criminal investigation.
And I have no animosity towards Goodman, just holding her to account in a public forum. As we all should do with all journalists.
I understand "False Flag" operations.
Believers always think we haven't already heard truther's "evidence".
You talk as if "False Flag" is something new here.
False, False Flag is not new either.
But, Good luck with your criminal case and holding Amy to account.
Using the word "Believers" is an ad hominem IMO. Putting the word evidence in quotes is disparaging. Here's your evidence:
http://bit.ly/lA8d
Until you or other scientists challenge these results, then the facts stand; namely, high explosives were found at the WTC, and are of such character that they are identical to military grade nano-thermite, something developed at the national government labs, which is well documented.
And, if you understand false flag, you should understand the political context for how and why it is used. 9/11 wars are exactly why they did it. The systemic nature of state terrorism needs to be exposed to the public, and that is why 9/11 truth is so very important. Read this:
http://amzn.to/cUOWbd
"Using the word "Believers" is an ad hominem IMO. "
Common misuse of the term "ad hominem". Ad hominem is specifically a false argument where one ignores the argument on the table and instead discusses who or what they think the arguer is.
"high explosives were found at the WTC,"
You mean some of them didn't actually explode!?!? And they were *still* able to knock down the buildings?
Do you just make things up in your comments? Let me give you some advice: it doesn't help your credibility in this forum my friend.
Definition of ad hominem: attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
And yes, high explosives were found in tiny particles. If you bother to read the paper, you might understand the details:
http://bit.ly/lA8d
"Do you just make things up in your comments?"
Like where?
"Definition of ad hominem: attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
"
That's what I said. We *agree*. It's used as a substitute for an argument and not just name calling.
I've read the paper already. And you have read the various rebuttals I am sure.
It was an amazing thing they acheived that day, will you please admit that? Especially where the explosives went of on schedule hours after they were hit by flying planes. Absolutely amazing. 8-D
There has not been one peer-reviewed scientific rebuttal to date. Not one.