Now here is a freakish coincidence

[Frost-IIc]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I found this website a wile back, checkout the section on defense writhen in September 2000. In the document there is a line that goes a little like this.

“The US needs a new pearl harbor, to create a catastrophic and catalyzing effect.”

Also if you think this is just a bunch of extremist losers checkout the page listing members. If they are losers then thay are powerful ones.

[Metal69hed]

I can't find what you were looking at. Give a direct link.

[antiklaus]

At 7/23/04 01:38 AM, Frost_IIc wrote: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I found this website a wile back, checkout the section on defense writhen in September 2000. In the document there is a line that goes a little like this.

“The US needs a new pearl harbor, to create a catastrophic and catalyzing effect.”

Also if you think this is just a bunch of extremist losers checkout the page listing members. If they are losers then thay are powerful ones.

There was a very ominous and very similar report from the trilateral comission that was on their webpage for the longest time. I fortunately backed it up on my PC before it was pulled following 9/11.

In it they say, "the only way to create a global consensus on military action in Afghanistan is if somehow an extremist group from within the country were found responsible for perpetuating an unprovoked act of terror on a massive scale.

[Frost-IIc]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf page 51

Also here is a link to the statement of principles
Look at the signatures

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[Frost-IIc]

I just found another gem
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040722.htm

[Gunter45]

It looks like a pretty biased source. I never completely trust information from sites such as these (liberal or conservative mind you), and that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of truth to the information provided, but you have to keep in mind the overall goal of such a source, to convince you that the other side is wrong. Bearing this in mind, the article is very interesting and it provokes some serious thought, but you can't help but wonder how much this has been spun. I'm not ruling this out as falsehood, however, what I've read of their articles, as to predicting 9/11, they don't really provide much evidence that 9/11 really could have been predicted. They simply state that "the anti-American terrorists were "increasingly well organized, well armed, and well trained," and he predicted that "unconventional attacks like that on the Cole or on the Khobar Towers or the ambush of the Rangers in Mogadishu will continue."" I really wouldn't give them a Pulitzer, or even a gold star for such an assertion. Of course anti-American terrorists are going to attack us. To suggest that the 9/11 attacks were even on the same magnitude as events like ambushing Army Rangers, or attacking naval ships that are half the world away is preposterous. None of these attacks were perpetrated near our homeland. Simply to say that these types of events will continue is far too vague to predict anything.

[Frost-IIc]

Agreed however it is a most interesting site that has some powerful backing. For fun do a search on some names, one owns many news papers I believe, and some are obvious like jeb bush.

[Metal69hed]

Your trying to pick apart page 51 to your own interests. It has nothing to do with what you are getting at. Furthermore, someone with the intellect to read such a document would not be so paranoid. You got this hint on the page from somewhere wierd.

The page you orginally linked has nothing to do with what you are hinting either! It speaks of new challenges ahead and the plans to keep us strong and united. I don't know why you would even try to twist their words when it speaks of keeping peace within the document!

The third one even goes as far as destroying what you believe but offers insight into why intelligence believes there is a tie between Iraq and our dear friends al-Queda.

The first document you wanted us to see does not mention “the US needs a new pearl harbor, to create a catastrophic and catalyzing effect.” What it DOES say is the "process of [military] 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."

[Gunter45]

Wow, make sure to do a more thorough copy and paste job to make sure your information doesn't contradict its source. It's pretty easy to do, check it out (the following is for humor purposes and a little bit of point proving, do not take very seriously):

At 7/23/04 01:38 AM, Frost_IIc wrote:

:" I found" "a bunch of extremist losers." "checkout the section" that goes a little like this." “The US needs a new pearl harbor, to create a catastrophic and catalyzing effect.” " they are losers." "A""n""d" "I" "e""a""t" "k""i""t""t""e""n""s."

It's all stuff you said, but of course none of it can be validated by your actual post.

[Frost-IIc]

At 7/23/04 02:20 AM, Metal69hed wrote: Your trying to pick apart page 51 to your own interests. It has nothing to do with what you are getting at. Furthermore, someone with the intellect to read such a document would not be so paranoid. You got this hint on the page from somewhere wierd.

The page you orginally linked has nothing to do with what you are hinting either! It speaks of new challenges ahead and the plans to keep us strong and united. I don't know why you would even try to twist their words when it speaks of keeping peace within the document!

The third one even goes as far as destroying what you believe but offers insight into why intelligence believes there is a tie between Iraq and our dear friends al-Queda.

The first document you wanted us to see does not mention “the US needs a new pearl harbor, to create a catastrophic and catalyzing effect.” What it DOES say is the "process of [military] 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."

I do under stand that I miss quoted the first time, I should have looked it up first and I do apologize for that. However have you read the entire article there is more there when you take into account the other files on the page from that time period and the entire article you get a very different picture. As for the third document I posted it because it is using information that has bean proven false, and is quoting articles from papers that are involved with this "project". So read it all not only part of it before you put me down.

[Metal69hed]

I read all of it.

[antiklaus]

At 7/23/04 01:54 AM, Frost_IIc wrote: I just found another gem
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040722.htm

So what, Bin Laen met once with AlQuida reps. So did the Bush family.. multiple times. Saddam never sent AlQuida money - the Bush's did. As did Clinton and Bush.

and Rumsfeld met with Saddam... and sold him WMD

and so on, and so on....

its a web of money, lies, and deceit.

[The-Enforcer]

At 7/23/04 03:03 AM, antiklaus wrote: So what, Bin Laen met once with AlQuida reps. So did the Bush family.. multiple times. Saddam never sent AlQuida money - the Bush's did. As did Clinton and Bush.

Bin Laden is the head of Al Qaeda. The Bush family never gave money to Al Qaeda, the Bush family has money in the same international company, the carlyle group, as the bin laden family who are the current rulers of Saudi Arabia. They have also disowned Osama decades ago.

source

and Rumsfeld met with Saddam... and sold him WMD

to fight the ayatollah. You know that guy who held american hostages for 444 days? Thanks for your vigilance Jimmy.

source

and so on, and so on....

its a web of money, lies, and deceit.

only when you misrepresent the facts.

[CI-Lain]

Enforcer you don't see the point.

1. We set up Bin Laden through past and present administrations. Yes the Carlyle thing is true and smells fishy but also the government itself has given money to him or weapons.

2. Giving him a WMD. No matter what is was meant to be used on it wasnt the brightest thing in the world. You cannot possibly believe we didnt know BIn Laden was to some extent evil?

3. Rumsfeild met with Bin Laden. Yea there is no way to spin a way out of this one it just flat out looks bad.

[Savren]

I cant find the members page but it looks biased as ever.

[antiklaus]

At 7/23/04 10:38 AM, The_Enforcer wrote:

At 7/23/04 03:03 AM, antiklaus wrote: So what, Bin Laen met once with AlQuida reps. So did the Bush family.. multiple times. Saddam never sent AlQuida money - the Bush's did. As did Clinton and Bush.

Bin Laden is the head of Al Qaeda. The Bush family never gave money to Al Qaeda, the Bush family has money in the same international company, the carlyle group, as the bin laden family who are the current rulers of Saudi Arabia. They have also disowned Osama decades ago.

source

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10179438%255E13780,00.html
Osama has been present at many 'family' functions - including weddings.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/khadr/family/osama.html

and Rumsfeld met with Saddam... and sold him WMD

to fight the ayatollah. You know that guy who held american hostages for 444 days? Thanks for your vigilance Jimmy.

you make a stink over him using WMD on his won people then you admit we were willing to further arm him after the fact (and for the very reason we knew he would do what we wanted).

source

and so on, and so on....

its a web of money, lies, and deceit.

only when you misrepresent the facts.

no - only when you actually look at them. But you are seldom known for that.

[antiklaus]

At 7/23/04 01:32 PM, DigitalWaRfare wrote: I cant find the members page but it looks biased as ever.

well, it is a biased source. It was set up by a limb of government. Of course it is biased.

There is even reference to "Opinion Makers" as part of the constituency.

not even PR people anymore... but opinion makers.

not opinion SHAPERS mind you - opinion MAKERS.

As in, "This is your opinion, so believe it, there..."

Sound similar to any Enforcers we know and love?

[The-Enforcer]

At 7/23/04 01:44 PM, antiklaus wrote:
you make a stink over him using WMD on his won people then you admit we were willing to further arm him after the fact (and for the very reason we knew he would do what we wanted).

Yes, very good Antiklaus! We gave him weapons to fight Iran...and he did! Then he killed his own people with them. We didn't want that.

source

and so on, and so on....

its a web of money, lies, and deceit.

only when you misrepresent the facts.

no - only when you actually look at them. But you are seldom known for that.

After looking at the facts you still misrepresent them. I looked, showed you sources and even though it says in black and white you refuse to take an open mind. I guess we just can't trust you to say anything honest.

[RedSkunk]

It's the premiere neo-con group. What's your point? I've been linking to them for years. And what the fuck are you people talking about, "biased"? Shut up - it's a conservative think tank FFS.