Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
If I have time I'll look into this NAU thing and see what I can find
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Lou Dobbs, the NAU, and NWO?
- Thread starter BHSU_Student
- Start date
If I have time I'll look into this NAU thing and see what I can find
dust1n
Zindīq
Oh yeah, you are right, heh. Sorry for some reason I ignored the implication of the word 'theory' in my argument.
I agree, how the word "conspiracy theory" is used (here in America) simply implies it is false, over exaggerated hype, as oppose to something that "might be true", thus the theory part.
dust1n
Zindīq
A little excerpt from a Council on Foreign Relations (any conspiracy theorist knows what that means) publication entitled "Building a North American Community."
PDF: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...2TqMwE&usg=AFQjCNFUEf_i9J-ukKJiwqV_2vYcbVbmTw
WHAT WE SHOULD DO NOW
• Establish a common security perimeter by 2010. The governments
of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should articulate
as their long-term goal a common security perimeter for North
America. In particular, the three governments should strive toward
a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will
have an equally hard time doing so, no matter which country he
elects toenter first.Webelieve that thesemeasures should beextended
to include a commitment to common approaches toward international
negotiations on the global movement of people, cargo, and
vessels. Like free trade a decade ago, a common security perimeter
forNorthAmerica is anambitious but achievablegoal that will require
specific policy, statutory, and procedural changes in all three nations.
• Develop a North American Border Pass. The three countries
should develop a secure North American Border Passwith biometric
identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage
through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the
region. The program would be modeled on the U.S.-Canadian
‘‘NEXUS’’ and the U.S.-Mexican ‘‘SENTRI’’ programs, which provide ‘‘smart cards’’ to allow swifter passage to those who pose
no risk. Only those who voluntarily seek, receive, and pay the costs
for a security clearance would obtain a Border Pass. The pass would
be accepted at all border points within North America as a complement
to, but not a replacement for, national identity documents
or passports.
• Increase information and intelligence-sharing at the local
and national levels in both law enforcement and military
organizations. Law enforcement cooperation should be expanded
from its current levels through the exchange of liaison teams and
better use of automated systems for tracking, storing, and disseminating
timely intelligence. This should be done immediately. In the
area ofmilitary cooperation, collaboration can proceed more slowly,
especially between U.S. and Mexican militaries. However, the ultimate
goal needs to be the timely sharing of accurate information
and intelligence and higher levels of cooperation.
The United States and Canada should invite Mexico to consider
more extensive information-sharing and collaborative planning
involving military organizations and law enforcement as a means to
build mutual trust and pave the way for closer cooperation in the
future. Training and exercises should be developed to increase the
cooperation and interoperability among and between the law
enforcement agencies and militaries. These steps will provide better
capabilities for detectionof threats, preventativeaction, crisis response,
and consequence management. At least one major trilateral exercise
conducted by law enforcement authorities and one by the militaries
should be established as a goal over the next year. Of course, the extent of cooperation will be affected by the progress of reform of
the police forces, customs, and judicial branch in Mexico.
In addition to the sharing of information, a Joint Analysis Center
should be established immediately to serve as a clearing house for
information and development of products for supporting law enforcement
and, as appropriate, military requirements.
• Establish a North American investment fund for infrastructure
and human capital. With a more conducive investment
climate inMexico, private funds will bemore accessible for infrastructure
and development projects.TheUnited States and Canada should
establish a North American Investment Fund to encourage private
capital flow into Mexico. The fund would focus on increasing and
improving physical infrastructure linking the less developed parts of
Mexico to markets in the north, improving primary and secondary
education, and technical training in states and municipalities committed
to transparency and institutional development. A relatively small
amount of funds should be targeted for technical assistance for project
design and evaluation,management, and training. If theNorthAmerican
Investment Fund is to be effective, it will need significant help
fromthe United States andCanada, and counterpart funding through
higher tax revenues from Mexico. The fund design should consider
such issues as incentives and debt absorption and management capacity
of subnational governments to ensure that resources are effectively
used. The fund will need to be managed in a transparent manner
according to best international practices, and should be capitalized
through a diverse set of innovative financialmechanisms. Availability
of credit enhancement mechanisms for long-term loans in pesos will
be critical.
• Enhance the capacity of the North American Development
Bank (NADBank).NADBank was conceived to support environmental
infrastructure projects within 100 kilometers on both sides
of the Mexican-U.S. border. After a slow start, NADBank has done
importantwork over recent years, and itsmandate has been expanded
recently to cover 300 kilometers into Mexico. However, to achieve
its full potential, the U.S. and Mexican governments should
(1) expand NADBank’smandate to include other infrastructure sectors,
particularly transportation; (2) permit it to access domestic capital
markets and apply credit enhancement tools; (3) support the establishment
of revolving funds through both grants and soft loans throughout
its jurisdiction; and (4) strengthen its technical assistance programs
to promote good governance and creditworthiness of communities
and public utilities. Finally, NADBank’s internal procedures and the
process of project certification should be reformed in order to allow
for a significantly faster and more transparent deployment of funds.
• A North American Advisory Council. To ensure a regular
injection of creative energy into the various efforts related to North
American integration, the three governments should appoint an
independent body of advisers. This body should be composed of
eminent persons from outside government, appointed to staggered
multiyear terms to ensure their independence. Their mandatewould
be to engage in creative exploration of new ideas from a North
American perspective and to provide a public voice for North
America. A complementary approach would be to establish private
bodies that would meet regularly or annually to buttress North
American relationships, along the lines of the Bilderberg or Wehrkunde
conferences, organized to support transatlantic relations.
PDF: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...2TqMwE&usg=AFQjCNFUEf_i9J-ukKJiwqV_2vYcbVbmTw
WHAT WE SHOULD DO NOW
• Establish a common security perimeter by 2010. The governments
of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should articulate
as their long-term goal a common security perimeter for North
America. In particular, the three governments should strive toward
a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will
have an equally hard time doing so, no matter which country he
elects toenter first.Webelieve that thesemeasures should beextended
to include a commitment to common approaches toward international
negotiations on the global movement of people, cargo, and
vessels. Like free trade a decade ago, a common security perimeter
forNorthAmerica is anambitious but achievablegoal that will require
specific policy, statutory, and procedural changes in all three nations.
• Develop a North American Border Pass. The three countries
should develop a secure North American Border Passwith biometric
identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage
through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the
region. The program would be modeled on the U.S.-Canadian
‘‘NEXUS’’ and the U.S.-Mexican ‘‘SENTRI’’ programs, which provide ‘‘smart cards’’ to allow swifter passage to those who pose
no risk. Only those who voluntarily seek, receive, and pay the costs
for a security clearance would obtain a Border Pass. The pass would
be accepted at all border points within North America as a complement
to, but not a replacement for, national identity documents
or passports.
• Increase information and intelligence-sharing at the local
and national levels in both law enforcement and military
organizations. Law enforcement cooperation should be expanded
from its current levels through the exchange of liaison teams and
better use of automated systems for tracking, storing, and disseminating
timely intelligence. This should be done immediately. In the
area ofmilitary cooperation, collaboration can proceed more slowly,
especially between U.S. and Mexican militaries. However, the ultimate
goal needs to be the timely sharing of accurate information
and intelligence and higher levels of cooperation.
The United States and Canada should invite Mexico to consider
more extensive information-sharing and collaborative planning
involving military organizations and law enforcement as a means to
build mutual trust and pave the way for closer cooperation in the
future. Training and exercises should be developed to increase the
cooperation and interoperability among and between the law
enforcement agencies and militaries. These steps will provide better
capabilities for detectionof threats, preventativeaction, crisis response,
and consequence management. At least one major trilateral exercise
conducted by law enforcement authorities and one by the militaries
should be established as a goal over the next year. Of course, the extent of cooperation will be affected by the progress of reform of
the police forces, customs, and judicial branch in Mexico.
In addition to the sharing of information, a Joint Analysis Center
should be established immediately to serve as a clearing house for
information and development of products for supporting law enforcement
and, as appropriate, military requirements.
• Establish a North American investment fund for infrastructure
and human capital. With a more conducive investment
climate inMexico, private funds will bemore accessible for infrastructure
and development projects.TheUnited States and Canada should
establish a North American Investment Fund to encourage private
capital flow into Mexico. The fund would focus on increasing and
improving physical infrastructure linking the less developed parts of
Mexico to markets in the north, improving primary and secondary
education, and technical training in states and municipalities committed
to transparency and institutional development. A relatively small
amount of funds should be targeted for technical assistance for project
design and evaluation,management, and training. If theNorthAmerican
Investment Fund is to be effective, it will need significant help
fromthe United States andCanada, and counterpart funding through
higher tax revenues from Mexico. The fund design should consider
such issues as incentives and debt absorption and management capacity
of subnational governments to ensure that resources are effectively
used. The fund will need to be managed in a transparent manner
according to best international practices, and should be capitalized
through a diverse set of innovative financialmechanisms. Availability
of credit enhancement mechanisms for long-term loans in pesos will
be critical.
• Enhance the capacity of the North American Development
Bank (NADBank).NADBank was conceived to support environmental
infrastructure projects within 100 kilometers on both sides
of the Mexican-U.S. border. After a slow start, NADBank has done
importantwork over recent years, and itsmandate has been expanded
recently to cover 300 kilometers into Mexico. However, to achieve
its full potential, the U.S. and Mexican governments should
(1) expand NADBank’smandate to include other infrastructure sectors,
particularly transportation; (2) permit it to access domestic capital
markets and apply credit enhancement tools; (3) support the establishment
of revolving funds through both grants and soft loans throughout
its jurisdiction; and (4) strengthen its technical assistance programs
to promote good governance and creditworthiness of communities
and public utilities. Finally, NADBank’s internal procedures and the
process of project certification should be reformed in order to allow
for a significantly faster and more transparent deployment of funds.
• A North American Advisory Council. To ensure a regular
injection of creative energy into the various efforts related to North
American integration, the three governments should appoint an
independent body of advisers. This body should be composed of
eminent persons from outside government, appointed to staggered
multiyear terms to ensure their independence. Their mandatewould
be to engage in creative exploration of new ideas from a North
American perspective and to provide a public voice for North
America. A complementary approach would be to establish private
bodies that would meet regularly or annually to buttress North
American relationships, along the lines of the Bilderberg or Wehrkunde
conferences, organized to support transatlantic relations.
Galileo
Member
Well I was going to start a separate thread but I figured since this one is talking about conspiracy theories I would vent my frustration here. I just watched a film called Zeitgeist, the second part of which alleges that the events of 9/11 were constructed by our own government. This is just asinine, at one point they have the voice of the architect who designed the Twin Towers claim that he designed them to withstand an impact from a jet liner, therefore it had to be explosives planted within the building that caused it to collapse. This makes me wonder who's really trying to cover something up, the government or the architects and engineers who supposedly designed the building to withstand an airplane collision? I have taken courses in architecture and structural engineering and am planning on going back to school soon to finish my architectural degree and I can say with all honesty that ego often causes some architects and engineers to dismiss insufficiency in their designs. I admit even I don't like to admit there are flaws in some of my designs. I think in the case of the Twin Towers, the architect told the world when it was being built that it could withstand a plane collision because he never expected it to actually happen. When you think about it, what are the odds? Of course when it did happen this egocentric jerk couldn't swallow his pride and admit that his design was flawed. So he was more than happy to jump on the conspiracy theorist band wagon and say that his pet project was sabotaged by the government.
Another argument the conspiracy theorists use is the fact that the building fell straight down rather than toppling over suggesting that there were explosives planted inside the building making it a nice neat demolition. This is really easy to explain if you have half a brain. When the planes struck the buildings the floors above eventually collapsed due to the heat of burning jet fuel weakening the steel beams supporting them. The weight and force of those floors falling of course caused the floors the burning wreckage of the planes were sitting on to collapse which of course caused the floor below that to collapse and so on. So the buildings would in fact collapse straight downward rather than topple over sideways.
Further more, if they supposedly didn't find any wreckage from the planes in all the rubble than what did happen to those planes? All those planes were reported taking off from airports in Newark, Boston, and Washington D.C. but never landed in San Francisco, which is where they were supposed to be headed. The conspiracy theorists can't explain that one, I mean those planes didn't just disappear into thin air, they had to of either landed or crashed somewhere.
Anyway, I'm done ranting. I feel better now!
Another argument the conspiracy theorists use is the fact that the building fell straight down rather than toppling over suggesting that there were explosives planted inside the building making it a nice neat demolition. This is really easy to explain if you have half a brain. When the planes struck the buildings the floors above eventually collapsed due to the heat of burning jet fuel weakening the steel beams supporting them. The weight and force of those floors falling of course caused the floors the burning wreckage of the planes were sitting on to collapse which of course caused the floor below that to collapse and so on. So the buildings would in fact collapse straight downward rather than topple over sideways.
Further more, if they supposedly didn't find any wreckage from the planes in all the rubble than what did happen to those planes? All those planes were reported taking off from airports in Newark, Boston, and Washington D.C. but never landed in San Francisco, which is where they were supposed to be headed. The conspiracy theorists can't explain that one, I mean those planes didn't just disappear into thin air, they had to of either landed or crashed somewhere.
Anyway, I'm done ranting. I feel better now!
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Well I was going to start a separate thread but I figured since this one is talking about conspiracy theories I would vent my frustration here. I just watched a film called Zeitgeist, the second part of which alleges that the events of 9/11 were constructed by our own government. This is just asinine, at one point they have the voice of the architect who designed the Twin Towers claim that he designed them to withstand an impact from a jet liner, therefore it had to be explosives planted within the building that caused it to collapse. This makes me wonder who's really trying to cover something up, the government or the architects and engineers who supposedly designed the building to withstand an airplane collision? I have taken courses in architecture and structural engineering and am planning on going back to school soon to finish my architectural degree and I can say with all honesty that ego often causes some architects and engineers to dismiss insufficiency in their designs. I admit even I don't like to admit there are flaws in some of my designs. I think in the case of the Twin Towers, the architect told the world when it was being built that it could withstand a plane collision because he never expected it to actually happen. When you think about it, what are the odds? Of course when it did happen this egocentric jerk couldn't swallow his pride and admit that his design was flawed. So he was more than happy to jump on the conspiracy theorist band wagon and say that his pet project was sabotaged by the government.
Another argument the conspiracy theorists use is the fact that the building fell straight down rather than toppling over suggesting that there were explosives planted inside the building making it a nice neat demolition. This is really easy to explain if you have half a brain. When the planes struck the buildings the floors above eventually collapsed due to the heat of burning jet fuel weakening the steel beams supporting them. The weight and force of those floors falling of course caused the floors the burning wreckage of the planes were sitting on to collapse which of course caused the floor below that to collapse and so on. So the buildings would in fact collapse straight downward rather than topple over sideways.
Further more, if they supposedly didn't find any wreckage from the planes in all the rubble than what did happen to those planes? All those planes were reported taking off from airports in Newark, Boston, and Washington D.C. but never landed in San Francisco, which is where they were supposed to be headed. The conspiracy theorists can't explain that one, I mean those planes didn't just disappear into thin air, they had to of either landed or crashed somewhere.
Anyway, I'm done ranting. I feel better now!
I disagree that it's asinine. Unpleasant to consider, fine, but not an unreasonable scenario to contemplate when the evidence is so unclear. Governments that desire armed conflict regularly create fictitious "attacks" on the home team to inspire the public to support state violence. The US is no exception. Historical evidence backs this up, including evidence that the US has previously planned fictitious attacks on American soil to promote anti-communist hysteria.
With regard to the NAU, it's a fact of life that many wealthy Canadians, Mexicans and Americans lives would be made simpler by a shared currency, at present it appears to be an idea bounced around in the halls of free market think tanks and political science faculties. It's not a plan. And to the extent that there is any kind of plan to integrate the security and economy of North American countries, it's going to run up against extreme, career-killing opposition in Canada and the US (if not Mexico) if it goes beyond a few symbolic measures. Canadians definitely do not want to get stuck into any more American conflicts than the UN requires us to and Americans would be terrified that somebody might try to use their tax dollars for health care rather than war making.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Alceste said:
Yup, I read the Operation Northwoods document from the 60's and I can safely safe that atleast the Joint Cheifs of Staff proposed whacking the home team in order to "provide justification for military intervention in Cuba".
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Alceste
Vagabond
Exactly. I think those who holler "LUDICROUS!" or "ASININE!" as soon as they hear any suggestion of government complicity in a terrorist attack at home are limiting themselves unnecessarily. If you don't know what happened (as is the case with 9-11, especially with Building 7), it's worthwhile to consider all the things that could have happened, based on a decent understanding of things that have happened in the past.
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
~ Goering
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Yup, convincing people that they were under attack was what got the US into Vietnam too, I watched not too long ago the then Secretary of Defense Robert Mcnamara admitting on TV that the supposed attack on the USS Turner Joy on August 4 th 1964 never took place, and that the signals were mostly just Sonar static etc. After that "event" LBJ passed through the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and hey-ho, what..... 50,000 + Americans and God-knows how many Vietnamese dead.
Whoops......
Galileo
Member
My problem with the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 is that they allege that the government planted explosives in the buildings and detonated them. Therefore the government outright killed nearly three thousand people. I find it hard to believe, and as I stated in my previous post the evidence for the conspiracy theorist argument doesn't hold up. Granted the government may not exactly be the most moral organization, and yes they do some diabolic things. However, I don't think they would go so far as to kill three thousand innocent people.
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
Then you are dead wrong. The government slaughters innocent people whenever it feels like, the only difference in 9/11 was that it was "it's own" people that it killed.
Galileo
Member
Do you have proof? Who has the government killed? Give me an example of some tangible evidence that the government had a hand in 9/11.
ericoh2
******
I just posted this under another thread, but it seems appropriate here. If this is accurate, who do you believe would have the capability to pull off such a thing?
Scientists find nano-thermite in the dust of World Trade Center debris after an 18 month scientific study. Do those who accept the official story dismiss this as a lie and fabrication or do you just believe that they are mistaken?
YouTube - A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust ( english subtitles )
Bentham Science Publishers
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
........
I was refering to the numerous wars, both now and in the past, such as the Mexican War, WW2 (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua (and other places in South America), Iraq, and Afghanistan. I was responding to your ridiculous claim that the government usually does not slaughter innocent lives.
9/11 happened on it's own. Reagan left Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with nothing to do after the Soviet Union fell apart, and a couple decades later, in Bush's presidency, they were angry enough with us to attack. Most likely, Bush let it happen to bolster his approval ratings (they shot way up right after 9/11) and as an excuse to start a new war, although the fact that the attack came from a different area than the war was started in undermines the whole inside-job idea (if they wanted a war in Iraq, why would they frame Al Qaeda instead of Iraq?).
dust1n
Zindīq
You mean, Afghani's fought our war for us, and pay for it trafficking drugs, and then we left them on their own afterwards?
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
You mean, Afghani's fought our war for us, and pay for it trafficking drugs, and then we left them on their own afterwards?
Yes, that's what Reagan did. As if we needed yet another reason to hate the guy, eh?
dust1n
Zindīq
His neo-liberal economics was enough. The last we thing we needed was more privatization and less trade barriers. I don't even understand why Republicans like the guy so much considering the US went from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor in his term.
Galileo
Member
To be honest I'm not sure I trust the source. It's no secret that most Europeans hate our government more than we do and therefore will jump at any chance to make it look bad. So I have to ask the question, how did anyone plant explosives in the WTC without anyone else noticing? I'm sure the WTC had some pretty tight security therefore it would be pretty hard to pull off.
Granted we have been involved in many controversial wars. However those were wars and civilian casualties do unfortunately occur. The allegation that the 9/11 attack was an inside job, however, suggests that the government deliberately killed three thousand innocent people.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Although I wish to remain neutral on the whole 9/11 issue, the US Government (or atleast the Joint Cheifs of Staff & the Chairmen) have before proposed attacking/killing their own citizens on US soil in order to justify military intervention in other countries. Operation Northwoods was what I am refering to here, and I only know of that 'cause it was declassified.
ericoh2
******
So, if there was/is a conspiracy what type of information do you suppose would be able to surface that would be more convincing than this?
Galileo
Member
Well like I said, I don't trust the source. If we had an American scientist go on national television or the internet and make these claims, and had they made these claims much earlier, I'd be more likely to buy into it. Why did it take so long to finally find evidence of explosives? And how did a Danish scientist get access to samples of the debris from the WTC when that debris was cleared away a long time ago?