Bcc: contributors ============================================================================ From: C To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: Why was 911 necessary? Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 Richard: Thank you for your thoughtful replies to my questions. I agree that it seems likely the Pentagon was chosen for symbolic reasons (get the US military really pissed off) without intending to do any serious damage. I have now heard from another source a confirmation that the wing in question was under construction. Regarding the answer to question 2: why now?, I'm still agnostic. I can see it as a preemptive strike if and only if they were reasonably convinced it would work perfectly. Pearl Harbor was a very calculated risk, which failed in the long term. 9-11 is a very calculated risk and if they don't have all their ducks in a row, or some unexpected dynamic takes hold, they could lose it all. Thus, why not go slower? Much as I'd like to believe that the anti-globalization forces were having a major impact (and where it really counts is where the money is and where what's left of the middle class lives: N. America and Western Europe, but mostly the former), I'm just not convinced that the bad guys were all that scared. I was in Seattle and Quebec City and both were amazing events, but the number of stages between these and any sort of real mass movement where your mom and dad might show up was still vast. In fact, the movement seemed locked into a kind of static warfare approach that was tactically doomed to fail in the long run. If the anti-globalization movement scared them, then it was only one variable. (I'm a scientist and what I do is try to make sense of multiple interacting variables that can lead to neurological diseases). So here is what I am contemplating (please comment/critique): 1. They are unleashing a very real war against us: All the "you're with us or with the terrorists" is sincerely meant by GWB et al. and is not mere rhetoric. 2. The war can be shown to be real not only by overt military attacks as in Afghanistan and the Philippines, etc., but also in the general approach at all levels. I will send you separately an article by Prichard and Bennett that discusses the basis of 'manoeuvre warfare' doctrine and how it is being applied to the social justice /anti-globalization movement. 3. Somewhere, these guys with all the giant computers in the world, have programs that model and plot time courses and dynamic interactions of the following variables: key resources (oil, water, etc.), growth of resistance to globalization in N. America and elsewhere, the rise of China as a military/economic power, the recovery of Russia, other potential power blocks (Muslim?),any and all of these vs. future control and profits. 4. Some or all of these curves intersected close to Sept 2001, giving temporal maxima and minima for costs/benefits. Striking now, while risky, is less risky than doing so later. Now they can fight largely a 'one front' war: First Afghanistan (using anti-terrorist legislation at home to keep down pesky protests), then Iraq, etc. Once they complete the linearization of the war, country by country, they control most of the world's oil (they already 'own' Canada and have much of the world's water). The success of a step by step linearized war gives them bases throughout central Asia and the southern borders of both China and Russia. Moving back into the Philippines controls South Asia and blocks the Chinese moving south. 6. I think you are totally right that the final strategy involves overcoming China and Russia. The above gives the a big leg up on this. (And I can just imagine the excuse in a few years time: something along the lines of suddenly realizing that the US has to help the oppressed people of Tibet...). 8. Where it gets interesting is when considering the factors they doubtlessly didn't add to their calculations: (a) the basic pathology of global capitalism and (b) chaos theory. There is actually a lot we can do about all this, as bleak as it sometimes seems. Perhaps we can 'talk' more about these things in days to come. I'm looking forward to more of your 'red pills'. Peace and solidarity, C ============= Dear C, Thanks for a very perceptive analysis. It's refreshing to talk to someone who has taken the red pill and who isn't afraid to open their eyes and look around at the real world. --- What you say about the Encircle China strategy is very useful. Chinese strategists, by the way, are very aware of this. Lao Tze was, after all, Chinese, and their empire was already mature before Rome was founded. I'll be posting an article about this soon. Here's a pre-taste (I'm excerpting from an article someone sent me): Hong Kong's Cheng Ming newspaper quoted Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian as saying war with the United States is inevitable. "We cannot avoid it," he was quoted in the newspaper as saying. "The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war. . ." According to a Rand Corp. report, China's military is narrowing its technology gap with the U.S. armed forces, using U.S. commercial technology to approach or equal the United States capabilities. From this perspective, both the US and China have a considerable sense of urgency. China wants to achieve a credible strategic defense before they are encircled, and their time is rapidly running out. The US wants not only to encircle, but to simultaneously upgrade its aggressive capability. That's what the Space Command, the Strategic Missile Defense, and laser weapons are all about. Washington wants to be able to attack China using vastly upgraded Desert Storm tactics. As you point out, there are countless pretexts that can be employed when Washington is ready to provoke hostilities. --- I don't understand why you say Pearl Harbor "failed in the long term". It totally succeeded in its mission, and there seems to be negligible fallout from the fact that some of us have finally learned that Roosevelt planned the whole affair. None of these conspiracies remain secret forever, and that turns out to be politically irrelevant. Even though countless examples have been eventually exposed, most people (don't ask me why) still think conspiracies don't happen!! I guess it's just part of sheep psychology - "Pretend the fox doesn't exist and he won't get you." And they ~did~ have all their ducks in a row re/911. That is, they have total control over the mass media - and what the media (matrix) says is equal to reality for most people. Also, consider all the practice they've had with such incidents. The earlier WTC bombing had an FBI agent in the inner planning circle, and they managed to keep that from backfiring. Hundreds of people saw the missile they used to shoot down TWA 800, and they kept that under control as well. Publicly available seismic records show that McVeigh could not have been the primary Oklahoma City perpetrator, and few people (apart from those dismissed as "right wing extremists") seem to care. In a land of sheep - especially divided sheep - the fox can get by with just about anything. --- > If the anti-globalization movement scared them, then it was only one variable. This depends on how you define the anti-globalization movement. In truth, those who gathered in Seattle, Genoa, etc. were only tips of a much bigger iceberg. Freedom fighters in Columbia, Chiapas, Peru, Palestine, the Philippines, and dozens of other places ruled by US-sponsored terror-regimes are also part of the movement. Even Euro-skeptics in Britain are in their own way resisting globalization, as are labor leaders fighting against layoffs and plant closings throughout the 'advanced world'. All the so-called 'rogue states', and the imaginary 'Evil Axis', are named as enemies solely because they don't toe the globalization line. China is certainly willing to play the free-trade game for the time being, but it is steadfast against surrendering national sovereignty to the WTC. In that sense, China is very much an anti-globalization power. That is precisely why it is in the primary target of Washington's long term aggressive planning. --- > 8. Where it gets interesting is when considering the factors they doubtlessly didn't add to their calculations: (a) the basic pathology of global capitalism and (b) chaos theory. It is a serious mistake to underestimate the insight, resourcefulness, brutality, or deviousness of the regime. The regime is well-aware of the pathology of global capitalism - after all, that's their primary business. Among their computer models, which you mention, foremost are the economic models. My own view is that the ~primary~ urgency driving US policy comes from managing the chaos of capitalist economics. Lots of people talk about chaos theory, but few know anything it. I don't pretend to be an expert on it, but I do know that one of the primary results is that chaotic systems are ~not~ in general unmanageable. That's what a sheep dog does, for example. He cannot predict which sheep will run off in which direction - that's chaotic - but he can respond as necessary to keep the flock moving in a definite direction with high reliability. Similarly, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, the Bundesbank, and the other top-level financial institutions spend their time shepherding the global economy in 'desired' directions. Giving the airlines $15 billion, seizing Caspian Oil, sabotaging the Asian Tigers, destroying third-world economies - these are all examples of chaos management. By these means, the slowdown in global growth can be concentrated outside the West, and the West can enjoy sufficient prosperity to keep the regime in power in its heartland. Outside the heartland, brute military force can be used to suppress (or liquidate uia genocide) the masses. Eventually, brutal measures will be required in the heartland as well, and that's what the fascist legislation is all about. It is very important to note that this kind of legislation was implemented throughout the West after 911, not just in the US. In Canada, Britain, and the EU, the measures were in some cases even more draconian than in the US. These too were some of the ducks which were lined up in advance by the global regime. Capitalism doesn't fail until people like Rockefeller and the Bush's start feeling the pinch. The rest of us don't count. And when they feel the pinch, they'll simply change the rules. My own guess is that we'll end up with a kind of neo-feudalism. Capitalism may collapse, but not the regime. Not until we do something about it. --- > There is actually a lot we can do about all this, as bleak as it sometimes seems. Perhaps we can 'talk' more about these things in days to come. I'm looking forward to more of your 'red pills'. I'd like to hear more about what we can do about it. Give us a red pill of your own. I'll keep your name withheld until you say otherwise. in my humble opinion, rkm http://cyberjournal.org ============================================================================