Strabes,
For someone who insists on accuracy in your posts, you have made a significant error in accusing Chris Martenson of something which he absolutely did not do - because I did it.
You make the accusation in the following two posts in this thread: Strabes wrote:
Posted on: Sun, 04/19/2009 - 21:59 #110
For example, he made a cheeky comment recently on somebody’s post implying they couldn’t backup that Bush Sr or Kissinger talked about the new world order just because they didn’t put the hyperlink to the source in it.
Posted on: Mon, 04/20/2009 - 18:18 #112
All I did in my last post was point out that Chris slammed somebody else’s post (not mine) because the poster didn’t put a reference to the source for something that’s as easy to find as the sky being blue (and of course you jumped on the groupie bandwagon backing up Chris).
In actual fact, here is the specific post that you refer to (found in the "The Definitive Conspiracy Theorist, New World Order, …" thread): Posted on: Sun, 04/12/2009 - 14:55 #97
jerrydon10 wrote:
George Herbert Walker Bush September 11, 1990: "Out of these troubled times, our? objective? a new world order? can emerge? Today, that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we have known."
SamLinder wrote:
Unless you have a link reference to this quote, it is unreliable. Also, it appears all chopped up as if you had selected only those words that fit your criteria.
jerrydon10 wrote:
"[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change it’s perceptions." – Henry Kissinger, World Affairs Council Press Conference, Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel , April 19th 1994
SamLinder wrote:
Again, quotes without links to the original are so much hearsay.
Part of the rules for this site (if you’ve read them) is to always put links in your references. Most people are busy enough without having to Google everybody’s references to find out where they came from. It’s a matter of courtesy to others to post links.
Before charging out to do battle, it might be wise to make sure you have your facts about you.
i think it would be wise for everyone here to remember that the book that started it all for the good professor, who owns this site ,
was the creature from jekyll island …i have read it twice. in the good professors position he has to be PC or at least prefers to be PC for whatever reasons. sometimes i wish he would just ya know letem have it but i guess that is our job and he created this space so we could do it. so once again tptb have gotten us fighting among ourselves.
i am going to reserve my rage for the machine …whether it be the NWO , OBN, and the other alphabet soup conglomeration responsible for our current state of affairs. the naysayers are frustrating but serve the purpose of sharpening our dialog…
i just hope when they come for me some of you are still here
read the creature if you havent yet.
i hope the ex military and current military will one day protect and defend the constitution…
Sam, you’re right you did it. You’re wrong that Chris did not. He did. This is the post I was referring to, not yours. In it he says, Without the sources, my answer these days is "not".
I said it was Kissinger and Bush. On that detail I was wrong. It was Kissinger and Ward.
Chris’ post on that thread is largely reasonable. But when he says "not" to any source that doesn’t have backup sources he’s revealing a bias toward some sources and against others. More importantly, it’s a logical fallacy to automatically assume something is false, i.e. "not", just because it hasn’t been documented true by source material backing the article. Rather than axiomatically saying "not," the prudent response should be "hmm…I’m curious" and then start researching or at least waiting to pass judgment until someone else does the research and proves it one way or the other.
strabes,
I think you focus too tightly on the one sentence. I hope Chris will forgive my impudence in speaking on his behalf, but let’s look at Chris’ post in its entirety:
Posted on: Wed, 04/01/2009 - 06:13 #1
titanic,
I have been 'around the internet' for a long time and I no longer grant credence to articles where I cannot be sure of the editorial fact-checking process and/or which fail to provide sources or citations.
In this instance, the article has some very heavy duty quotes allegedly by Chester Ward and Kissinger, but there are no hyperlinks or footnotes to the source material so I have no way of knowing how much weight to give them.
In this day and age, when linking to a source is as simple as a few keystrokes, I wonder why this is not done. The options include:
1. The quotes are fabricated
2. The author is lazy
3. The author presumes a level of trust in his/her material will be granted
Given the level of disinformation and competing agendas out there, I really only grant a very few authors the trust implied in #3. Seymour Hersh is an example of one.
I truly wish that people writing articles with extraordinary claims and implications would take the time to source their material. This would greatly enhance my ability to determine whether or not to internalize their claims into my framework of understanding.
Without the sources, my answer these days is "not".
But perhaps that's just me....
Notice where he refers to "the level of disinformation and competing agendas out there...". And then he states, "I truly wish that people writing articles with extraordinary claims and implications would take the time to source their material."
He is essentially saying, in a slightly different way, what I referred to in my previous post. He is an extremely busy fellow. He doesn’t have time to "…start researching or at least waiting to pass judgment until someone else does the research and proves it one way or the other."
Again, common courtesy dictates that the person making the claim should be sure to provide the appropriate links so that the reader can quickly go to the source. I will bypass, or discount, claims that aren’t sourced as I refuse to spend time trying to chase down the particulars. It is to the detriment of the poster when that is done as their (possibly valid) point may be lost due to their lack of adequate links.
Also, I must still disagree with you regarding your accusation. I do not think Chris was "cheeky" and he did not "slam" anyone. That is not his style. Even his post quoted above is polite as hell - which is more than I can say for a lot of mine!
cpeters, I appreciate the reminder. I agree none of this should be personal. inevitably when dealing with issues of passion, our inner passions will be fueled which makes things personal in the moment. as our Founders demonstrated, though, that can be a good thing. they were at each other’s throats and literally dueling with each other as they created our federal republic. in the end that resulted in a fiercer stand against the monarchy and a great solution–the declaration and constitution.
joe, I agree we should focus on the real powers. heated debate here I hope only serves to sharpen our focus and understanding rather than divide us. though we all make mistakes, my intent with comments is not to create fissures.
I also share in your hope that the military would defend the constitution. they have completely failed so far…in fact they’re a big piece of TPTB efforts to end the constitution. I’ve been speaking with a good friend of mine from my west point class (I got out at 5 years, he’s in year 17 and probably going to 30) about this issue over the last several months. he didn’t get it at first, but he’s seeing the light now. he was just going along with life, his job, the general zeitgeist, the war on terror, etc. and not stepping back and noticing something like Northcom…a complete violation of everything our founders stood for…a standing army with combatant authority over the homeland. he’s convinced the conventional army won’t get sucked into this (Northcom is primarily an air force / black ops operation). he’s worked with all the generals and thinks they’re great patriots. and he’s probably right in normal situations, but if a "terror" attack happens, they’re going to get sucked in without thinking about it. they’ll do what they’re told their job is to make people "safe." and I feel bad for soldiers who protest in good conscience. much like armies in history have had enforcers behind the front lines that shoot soldiers who run from the battlefield, I guarantee there’s a plan to deal with soldiers, officers, units that don’t cooperate. typically black ops would be used for such enforcer roles. it won’t be literally shooting them from behind the lines like the Russians did, but there will be a plan.
cpeters, I appreciate the reminder. I agree none of this should be personal. inevitably when dealing with issues of passion, our inner passions will be fueled which makes things personal in the moment. as our Founders demonstrated, though, that can be a good thing. they were at each other’s throats and literally dueling with each other as they created our federal republic. in the end that resulted in a fiercer stand against the monarchy and a great solution–the declaration and constitution.
joe, I agree we should focus on the real powers. heated debate here I hope only serves to sharpen our focus and understanding rather than divide us. though we all make mistakes, my intent with comments is not to create fissures.
I also share in your hope that the military would defend the constitution. they have completely failed so far…in fact they’re a big piece of TPTB efforts to end the constitution. I’ve been speaking with a good friend of mine from my west point class (I got out at 5 years, he’s in year 17 and probably going to 30) about this issue over the last several months. he didn’t get it at first, but he’s seeing the light now. he was just going along with life, his job, the general zeitgeist, the war on terror, etc. and not stepping back and noticing something like Northcom…a complete violation of everything our founders stood for…a standing army with combatant authority over the homeland. he’s convinced the conventional army won’t get sucked into this (Northcom is primarily an air force / black ops operation). he’s worked with all the generals and thinks they’re great patriots. and he’s probably right in normal situations, but if a "terror" attack happens, they’re going to get sucked in without thinking about it. they’ll do what they’re told their job is to make people "safe." and I feel bad for soldiers who protest in good conscience. much like armies in history have had enforcers behind the front lines that shoot soldiers who run from the battlefield, I guarantee there’s a plan to deal with soldiers, officers, units that don’t cooperate. typically black ops would be used for such enforcer roles. it won’t be literally shooting them from behind the lines like the Russians did, but there will be a plan.
strabes,
I think you, Joe, and many others misconstrue where Dogs and I (and perhaps others) come from. While we may disagree with you in regards to the NWO, we are very conscious of what is going on in our country and we don’t like a lot of it.
If push comes to shove (and we hope it doesn’t), Dogs and I will be fighting (in our respective zones of engagement) just like you, Joe, and many other NWO adherents, to defend our country.
We can disagree about the scope of the threat, but that doesn’t mean we are oblivious. Whilst I may disagree with your perceptions of the source of the threat, I am, nevertheless, keenly aware that our country is already endangered. I suspect Dogs and others are of like mind.
Like many families, we may squabble amongst ourselves but, when an outside threat appears, we will turn as one to meet it.
[quote]Joe, I have to say, I actually seek out your posts now. I need a good laugh, and every day, you are there to provide.
Rog
I completely agree with you about Joe. (except I’m pretty sure I’m onto him - even though he likes to change up his patterns to keep us off his tail! - straight ahead - sarcastic - tongue in cheek) Please go to this thread for my take on joe2baba https://peakprosperity.com/forum/tea-party-reports/16547
I provoke him subtly on post #18 (but you can’t slip anything past him)
In the interest of full disclosure, post 113 has been edited and cleansed. I won’t go back and change mine.
Dogs, what are you talking about "patronizing and disingenuous comments on my military service?" (that comment wasn’t in your first post 113). I don’t believe I ever attacked your military service, nor my own military service, nor my best friends who are still commissioned LTCs in the Army. The only thing I remember doing in a post directed at you was expressing affection for most officers I’ve known while also wishing they would become far more serious about their oath and far more suspicious of their civilian leaders rather than trusting them and more suspicious of the way surreptitious organizations like the CIA manipulate the world in ways that the military’s operating units have to respond to. Hell, we saw the most powerful ex-general in the world, Powell, be completely manipulated by the CIA into justifying an unjustified war to the UN. He knew he was being manipulated but still did it. And now every commanding general, COL, LTC, CPT who commanded units in Iraq has likewise been manipulated. As my friend said every general he knows in the current conventional army is a damn good patriot, but again, that’s how they can be manipulated by manipulators to do things they shouldn’t be doing. For example, my LTC friend knows he’s doing completely unjustified work in Iraq now as his units kill people, but he’s still doing it. Why? He’s a good officer…salutes and does a good job. He really has no option or he goes to jail. That’s the danger. So I’m not knocking anyone’s service. I’m lamenting the fact that our military is stuck under a corrupt government.
strabes: Please keep posting. The information in your posts is valuable to me. I saw an interesting post at http://freeoklahoma.blogspot.com/2009/04/speaking-of-conspiracies.html on "conspiracy theories." Here is an excerpt:
"In my last post, I addressed the topic of "conspiracy theories," and how the PTB have instilled in most people a knee-jerk reaction against the idea. Yet, conspiracies operate all the time. The conspirators are the ones who want you to take everything at face value, as in "move on along; nothing to see here.""
Often labeling something a conspiracy is a lazy man’s way of dismissing an argument or a proposition. Let’s not fall into that trap. On the other hand if we want to show how TPTB operate let’s come up with link of some sort that pulls back the curtain to expose what’s going on. As related to the field of international affairs here is an example where the curtain is pulled back a little:
I was done, I lied.
Barring unforeseen changes here’s my last engagement with you on this thread or any other. And I sincerely feel that we both lose out in that decision.
Be well strabes.
I was given the option of editing or having it deleted. You read the original - I said the same thing again, only a bit nicer. I’m not surprised you won’t change yours.
You did here and you have in the past and you haven’t earned the right to do so. During the editing of #113 I noticed you went on the attack again (#116) and felt a response was in order. To wit:
"I think Dogs is a good person and had honorable intentions behind his military career, as I did (though now that I understand what the empire is all about, I try to educate as many as possible against going into the military)."
How magnanimous of you to consider my service intentions honorable without knowing anything about my intentions, my reasons for service and despite me not being privy to the empire you alone have unveiled. Yeah, that was patronizing. Perhaps not your intent, but patronizing nonetheless.
You have absolutely no idea as to how seriously I take my oath of commission. Nor the decisions I was required to make, the things I was requireed to sacrifice or things I have done in upholding it.
Yup - every one of them. Not a single one to be found who upholds their commissioning oath. This is an insulting comment to our uniformed service men and women.
If what you say is true then you LTC friend is guilty of criminal behavior. He does have options AND the obligation to question orders that may violate the Laws of Armed Conflict.
And now you talk about NORTHCOM
First off, NORTHCOM is not "primarily an air force / black ops operation’ - the Fleet Forces Command component is larger than AF North or Army North. Spec ops forces fall under SOCOM in Tampa and are not under NORTHCOM. Making inaccurate statements like this one (accidentally or deliberately) to further your agenda is at best misleading and irresponsible.
Your comments above regarding NORTHCOM are fine if they are your opinion but you present them as an absolute statement of fact when what they are is a completely unsubstantiated fabrication. What you have done here is manufacture a story to suit your ends. You see shadows when the rest of us see cooperative effort on the part of civil and military organizations - why would we ever want that? Just look at the horrible things NORTHCOM has engaged in:
USNORTHCOM anticipates and conducts Homeland Defense and Civil Support operations within the assigned area of responsibility to defend, protect, and secure the United States and its interests
USNORTHCOM’s AOR includes air, land and sea approaches and encompasses the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico and the surrounding water out to approximately 500 nautical miles. It also includes the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. The defense of Hawaii and our territories and possessions in the Pacific is the responsibility of U.S. Pacific Command. The defense of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands is the responsibility of U.S. Southern Command. The commander of USNORTHCOM is responsible for theater security cooperation with Canada and Mexico.
USNORTHCOM consolidates under a single unified command existing missions that were previously executed by other DoD organizations. This provides unity of command, which is critical to mission accomplishment.
USNORTHCOM plans, organizes and executes homeland defense and civil support missions, but has few permanently assigned forces. The command is assigned forces whenever necessary to execute missions, as ordered by the president and secretary of defense.
Civil service employees and uniformed members representing all service branches work at USNORTHCOM’s headquarters located at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo.
The commander of USNORTHCOM also commands the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a bi-national command responsible for aerospace warning and aerospace control for Canada, Alaska and the continental United States.
USNORTHCOM’s civil support mission includes domestic disaster relief operations that occur during fires, hurricanes, floods and earthquakes. Support also includes counter-drug operations and managing the consequences of a terrorist event employing a weapon of mass destruction. The command provides assistance to a Primary Agency when tasked by DoD. Per the Posse Comitatus Act, military forces can provide civil support, but cannot become directly involved in law enforcement.
In providing civil support, USNORTHCOM generally operates through established Joint Task Forces subordinate to the command. An emergency must exceed the capabilities of local, state and federal agencies before USNORTHCOM becomes involved. In most cases, support will be limited, localized and specific. When the scope of the disaster is reduced to the point that the Primary Agency can again assume full control and management without military assistance, USNORTHCOM will exit, leaving the on-scene experts to finish the job.
It didn’t - perhaps it’s because you forgot my old saying, "It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it".
Remember, written messages are viewed verbatim. There is no way to tell how subtle or clever you are being. If we had video communications it would probably preclude misunderstandings. Since we do not, it’s always a good idea to think about how your post will be perceived by others strictly from the words you have laid down.
Your comments to me, and about me, have not always been positive (e.g. in The Definitive Conspiracy…" thread). Hence, I tend to view your subsequent posts in that light.
I didn’t see the unedited post Strabes alluded to, but I stand by my earlier statement. You’re both gentlemen. So I urge you to reconsider. I’m hoping one of the "unforeseen changes" might be that you didn’t anticipate how your decision might affect others on the site. I’m one of G Edward Griffin’s "individualists," but I’m all for community and volunteer "collectivism", and I certainly think making amends with Strabes would be for the greater good.
[quote=Dogs] And I sincerely feel that we both lose out in that decision.
[/quote]
You’re right, Dogs. But it’s not just you and Strabes who lose out. It’s all of us. And I have no doubt that you ARE in fact being sincere. I’m sure if you just wanted to chase Strabes off you would have said "good riddance." I realize you speak only for yourself, but it’s easy to see how Strabes could feel that he’s not welcome here anymore. So not only do we stand to lose the valuable dialog between the two of you, we could lose Strabes, altogether.
I suppose it’s easier for me to be generous, because I generally agree with Strabes, where as he and you tend to clash vigorously on the issue that is the biggest sore spot for you. But I really think you’re misreading him. Strabes has only one speed - flat out. He’s like Pete Rose, sprinting to 1st base after drawing a walk. He’s completely unfiltered and direct, - that’s just his style. But I really think that’s all it is. I don’t get a sense of ego or malice, ever.
Perhaps in his frustration at what he perceives as recalcitrance on the part of others he has been a bit overly exuberant lately, but as much as it must tax your patience, I’d wish you’d consider bending even a little more. I, for one will not be holding you to your pronouncement. And if Strabes does (which I doubt) I’ll be the first to cry foul.
Everybody knows an individual LTC can’t do what you’re suggesting Dogs. They’re prosecuted, jailed, silenced, portrayed as traitors in the media, ruined career-wise and financially, their families lose healthcare and insurance, etc. There are no REAL options. In the Fox News driven hysteria of terror wars and the unconstitutional Patriot Act, officer and enlisted alike have to simply do what they’re told.
On the issue between NORTHCOM and SOCOM I need to explain to the community here the difference in HQ/specialty/training commands vs. combatant commands. NORTHCOM is a combatant command. In this way it is similar to CENTCOM, the operational command of Middle East operations…the people running the war in Iraq. CENTCOM has no organic units assigned to it except when it’s in activated operations. Outside of war, it is simply a huge staff HQ with warplanners, strategists, logistics experts, intell experts, public affairs, etc. They study their area of operation (AO). They develop contingency plans. They work with the CIA, DIA, State to stay on top of their target countries. They try to maintain strategic readiness for war. Operational units aren’t assigned to them organically. When war happens, operational units are task force organized under CENTCOM’s command. So when we went into Iraq, 3rd ID, 1st Cav, other mech and light army units, marine units, air force assets, navy assets, spec ops assets, even NATO assets were all task force assigned to GEN Franks, CENTCOM commander, now GEN Petraeus. He only owned them while they were performing their war duties. He didn’t own them on a standing basis.
NORTHCOM is the same type of command as CENTCOM. It is a unified combatant command. It’s job is to study it’s AO (the friggin US), develop contingency plans, work with CIA/FBI/police on intelligence efforts, be strategically ready for "operations" in the US. Side note: think about that. What do you think Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams would think about a standing military with such authority? What do YOU think about it? What sort of operations do you think it’s anticipating? Won’t it be convenient that when a domestic attack happens that would have required such an organization, shazam, the organization will be there. Interesting timing. 1st Bde 3rd ID is scheduled to come under NORTHCOM later this year. Hmm.
Anyway, NORTCOM doesn’t permanently own operational units. So while Dogs is technically correct NORTHCOM doesn’t own SOCOM units, that’s not what I was saying. 1st, there’s way more to "black ops" than just SOCOM…"black" includes all strategic intelligence, police SWAT teams, FBI teams, civilian orgs like Blackwater can do black ops, organizations with top secret classifications and anything the president randomly decides should be kept secret by signing a memo his chief of staff puts on his desk for signature…he doesn’t even have to think about it, he just signs whatever the chief says to (I ran the desk for an Army division commander…that’s the way it works…the Chief of Staff has the power…the General doesn’t have time to read everything). 2nd, SOCOM assets are task force assigned to combatant commands when necessary. NORTHCOM will have plenty of SOCOM assets as necessary according to its operational plans. It has already worked with SOCOM assets in conducting its many JTF missions. It has already used secret drones to patrol the US (see link for one example…looks like it’s being done for a good purpose…regardless whether it’s good or not, it introduces the american people to the idea that air force drones flying overhead is a good thing). It is HQ’d at NORAD…much of NORAD is black…especially the group of new high school grads who are masters at video games flying unmanned drones via a joystick based on CIA/DIA priorities…they have no judgment, wisdom, or connection with people as they sit in a cave with a joystick…they’ll just do what they’re told.
All the stuff Dogs lists as evidence NORTHCOM is just a benevolent group of samaritans is precisely the problem. It’s awesome marketing (but why would they need NORAD and a massive combatant command infrastructure if they only wanted to help people in floods?). The national government continues treating citizens as subjects who need care-taking and building up massively powerful organizations with command authority to supposedly make their lives better, protect them, save them. "Look how great your government is Mr american." "Look how much we care." "You can trust us." "Keep giving us more money so we can better take care of you." "We can eliminate pain and suffering from your lives…just sit back and watch TV…keep watching 24 so you stay scared…we’ll make your worries disappear…you don’t need to rely on local community to take care of each other." I could quote any number of Founders who warned about citizens giving up freedom in the interest of security…that’s how you become a subject not a citizen; that’s how you change from living in a republic to an empire; that’s how your president can become the very type of tyrant we rebelled against in 1776.
Dogs, I’m willing to bet a fine Scotch there are ultra-secret contingency plans to stop a mechanized army division from marching on washington in the unlikely event. I think your suggestion that my statement is preposterous is almost certainly wrong. I’d guarantee the plan is there but I can’t provide the link because this would be one of those "national security" classifications signed by a president. It won’t be hard for NORTHCOM (aka Air Force drones) to stop an army division from turning against DC. The perimeter security plans around DC are no doubt several layers deep. And I’d be willing to bet as part of that larger security plan, there are contingency plans in case a high-level Army officer refuses to support NORTHCOM disaster plans and turns his unit against other units to stop something like what happened in Katrina with gun confiscation and forced encampment.
All this sounds nuts, no doubt. Well, take note of the world we’re now in. I dare say it is nuts. It’s prudent to understand the nuts and bolts of said nuttiness. The empire government has become paranoid. In order to understand paranoid personality disorder, you need to let yourself enter a bit of the paranoia to be able to anticipate what they might do (watch the Good Shepherd for a brief insight into the types of people who run the CIA). I have entered the paranoia to understand it. I’m quite sobered.
Dagnabbit folks! I need to write a paper for my psychopathology class! I can’t afford to put so much time into CM.com…I wish it wasn’t such a compelling forum. And not to keep running on, but this is another way the empire govt can keep getting away with more and more…people have their regular lives to live and can’t afford to investigate everything the govt is up to…that’s why it was so important to keep a republic with powerful governors and representatives that really got their power from their home district instead of from the DC club. Back to my daily world…
[quote=strabes]
Everybody knows an individual LTC can’t do what you’re suggesting Dogs. They’re prosecuted, jailed, silenced, portrayed as traitors in the media, ruined career-wise and financially, their families lose healthcare and insurance, etc. There are no REAL options. In the Fox News driven hysteria of terror wars and the unconstitutional Patriot Act, officer and enlisted alike have to simply do what they’re told.
<snip>[/quote]
strabes,
This is exactly what happened in WWII with the German military ("I was just following orders") and the post-war tribunals rejected that argument as you well know.
If you truly believe what you are being asked to do is wrong, then you should resign your commission. Anything less is a cop-out.
Many years ago, I put a job at risk when I refused to sign paperwork attesting to the validity of a medical device. This device could kill a patient if it was misused. I fully expected to be fired as I was bucking a company vice-president.
Granted it may not be seen as being in the same arena as resigning a military commission. However, the basics are the same.
As it turns out, I was not fired by TPTB and I continued with development of the product (a brain pressure monitor) all the way through to its successful introduction into the medical device marketplace (I was the software engineer that wrote the program).
All military are sworn to defend the Constitution. As a vet (USAF 1962 - 1966), I would expect, nay demand, that they adhere to that oath without regard to the outcome. Anything less makes a mockery of that oath.
And not to keep running on, but this is another way the empire govt can keep getting away with more and more…people have their regular lives to live and can’t afford to investigate everything the govt is up to…that’s why it was so important to keep a republic with powerful governors and representatives that really got their power from their home district instead of from the DC club. Back to my daily world…