Secret Recording: 9/11 Effects Wearing Off, Need Another Attack - Rumsfeld

What you say Rumsfeld is saying, and what he is saying, are divergent.

Let me be clear.

I don't appreciate people who lie, and you are.

As a centrist, and not a neo-con fan of Rumsfeld, I agree with what he was saying in this excerpt and think that what you are interpretting into your original post is a propaganda and twisting for YOUR agenda.

Rude.

reply to post by imeddieone4202003


Nowhere in that tape does Rumsfeld say that we *need to have another attack*. I hate the guy, but I hate even more people who take a quote out of context just for the sake of being incendiary. That's supposed to be how supporters of the likes of Rumsfeld behave, not their detractors.

-rrr

Originally posted by billy197300

First of all let me say that I am no Rumsfeld supporter in any way. The guy is terrible. That being said, I listened to the video and don't think it has anything to do with an admission that 911 was an inside job. I think he is simply saying that people are getting complacent and the threat of terrorism is real and can happen. IMO anyway.

I don't like Rummy either, but I agree. All he's saying is that Americans have become complacent and un-worried about a terrorist attack, and I think he's right about that. He's also right that if we were attacked again people's attitude would change.

There was NOTHING in that recording to suggest it was an inside job - quite to the contrary - he said "we haven't HAD an attack in five years". If it was an inside job he would have made a Freudian slip and said something like "we haven't DONE an attack in five years".

reply to post by rickyrrr


I totally agree that this is a deliberate miss-quote.
Even on ATS, having the OP making a statement like this leaves them open for liability, if they can find out your identity.
If I were the moderator, I would bury this now before it gets out of hand.

This kind of conduct should be stifled quickly. I like this site, but some people just abuse the freedom of speech to the point of legal consequence.

Saying the above, I am not a Rumsfeld fan, but he should never be portrayed in this way if he did not indeed say what the OP inferred.

reply to post by imeddieone4202003


I fail to see how this makes him look like he did it.

I'd say the same. Perhaps in regard to something like global warming.

He's speaking truth, and I don't see much wrong with his assessment.

Some of you people are in denial

He talks about "CORRECTING a low threat perception",,,isn't that what we were supposed to have,,,isn't that what all of the "acts" and heightened security was for,,,so we would FEEL safer???
You know "remain vigilant,but go about your lives as normal",,,we wont let the terrorist win kinda thing!

He laughs when he speaks of "the carnage that can be imposed on our society",,,how is that humorous??? 3000+ Americans were lost on 9/11,several thousand more in Afghanistan and Iraq,,,I'm sure their families aren't in the least bit amused.Not to mention the hundreds of thousand Afghan's and Iraqis.

His SOLUTION for the "low threat perception" is another attack. Why would he want us to feel threatened?

Rummy along with the rest of his acolytes are inhuman,,,,literally

I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job; but I do believe that: W. Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Powell & company had evidence that they knew that an impending terrorist attack was going to happen on U.S. shores.

So in order to pursue their right wing political agenda, they deliberately failed to warn the American public of an impending terrorist attack.

This decieving method was unforgivable, to say the least; but they knew that a major terrorist attack on American soil , would sway American opinion for full support of war's that harbored terrorist's, or country's that had weapon's of mass destruction for terrorist attacks.

After the "success" of 9/11, W. Bush & Company, proceded full tilt on presenting false evidence, lies and distorted propaganda, before the U.N., Congress, the American people and the British; in order to try to grab Iraqs
oil fields, and Afganistans 1 trillion dollar mineral riches.

The Iraq war, ended in utter failure, for the U.S. and allied forces; and Afganistan is heading down the same path.

Personally, I don't like the way the video was presented. But there is a clear message that Rumsfeld wants to use fear tactics to control the sheeples. Basically if there are no terrorist attacks, we have no enemies. Without having enemies, these senseless wars we are involved in can't be justified. Hence, he wants to put fear into the sheeples' minds for them to support the wars...

This is just more fear mongering.

If the effects are wearing off, another attack would only accelerate it.

There's no need to attack...the fear is sufficient. Remembrance day will go undisturbed, I'm betting.

Besides, 911's motives involved much more than just a pretext for war.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A Department of Justice inspector general’s report called Edmonds’s allegations “credible,” “serious,” and “warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI.” Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. “60 Minutes” launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds’s revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files.

John Ashcroft’s Justice Department confirmed Edmonds’s veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.”

...she was finally able to testify under oath in a court case filed in Ohio and agreed to an interview with The American Conservative based on that testimony. What follows is her own account of what some consider the most incredible tale of corruption and influence peddling in recent times

“This report contends that not only were the buildings targets, but that specific offices within each building were the designated targets. These offices unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks. This report is about that national security secret: its origins and impact. The intent of the report is to provide a context for understanding the events of September 11th rather than to define exactly what happened that day. Initially, it is difficult to see a pattern to the destruction of September 11th other than the total destruction of the World Trade Center, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives. However, if the perceived objective of the attack is re-defined from its commonly suggested ‘symbolic’ designation as either ‘a terrorist attack’ or a ‘new Pearl Harbor,’ and one begins by looking at it as purely a crime with specific objectives (as opposed to a political action), there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction. This article provides research into the early claims by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz that the September 11th attacks were meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence(ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th.

After six years of research, this report presents corroborating evidence which supports their claims, and proposes a new rationale for the September 11th attacks. In doing so, many of the anomalies – or inconvenient facts surrounding this event - take on a meaning that is consistent with the claims of Eastman et al. The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justified under the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources” and consistent with a modus operandi of sacrificing lives for a greater cause.

The case for detailed targeting of the attacks begins with analysis of the attack on the Pentagon. After one concludes that the targeting of the ONI office in the Pentagon was not random – and that information is presented later. – one then must ask: is it possible that the planes that hit the World Trade Center, and the bombs reported by various witnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6 and 7 and the basement of the Towers, were deliberately located to support the execution of a crime of mind-boggling proportions? In considering that question, a pattern emerges. For the crimes alleged by Eastman, Flocco, Durham and Schwarz to be successful, the vault in the basement of the World Trade Center, and its contents - less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities - had to be destroyed. A critical mass of brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers had to be eliminated to create chaos in the government securities market. A situation needed to be created wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically “cleared” without anyone asking questions- which happened

reply to post by consigliere


It is not denial, but use of words. Words and context are the most important fabric in relaying your thoughts.
There is a great deal of crap in the words of politicians and governmental officials. However, their rule is the clever use of words. Just like in business, everything you buy, and all the misleading info you see on commercials.

In the legal world, words and context of those words determine everything. If you say "statement" , it is a lot different than
"In my opinion, "statement" ".

Proper use of the correct terminology, given the language, is what butters the toast of politicians, government officials and buisness executives. Learn it and become correct in anything you chose to communicate, but refuse to commit yourself to.

reply to post by consigliere


You've apparently never heard paramedic humour. Or the humour of abuse hotline counsellors.

I haven't seen a transript posted so gladly post it for clarity.

Delong: Politically, what are those challenges turned into? ...because you're not going to have a lot of sympathetic ears up there...until it happens.

Rumsfeld: Well, thats what I was just going to say. This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in five years. Hell, the perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behaviour pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that I suppose, is an attack and when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another period and it's a shame we don't have the maturity to recognise the seriousness of the threat, the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you'd think we'd be able to understand it, but as a society the longer you get away from 9/11, the less...the less...

The guy he is talking to, assuming it is J. Bradford DeLong, is a fairly major economist. A Yale/Harvard type who now teaches other people....

Regardless of the context this was said in, I don't like the way he laughs in places and to me the words speak for themselves. Its also funny how people seemingly tried to immediately derail it by saying 'its not proof we did 9/11'. The OP didn't state that and Praetorius was observant and pointed that out straight away.

Back on topic, he does not say 'we will do an attack' but he does seem to at least welcome an attack. If I could work out how to do it I would do the star and flag thing but I'm new here and find the forum still a bit difficult to get to grips with. Thanks for posting.

On a related note, can anyone tell me, apart from a loony toon with badly designed exploding underwear, what other "real" terrorist threats or attacks there have been since 9/11 on US soil?

Your national security has never been higher methinks and your personal liberties never been less. To be fair though, its pretty much getting that way everywhere though.

As an aside, The US has intervened in more than 70 nations since 1945. There is much money in war, financial interests (oil), defense contracts...yada yada yada.

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


Yes.here is a link,,,,,Terror attacks in the US

reply to post by Aeons


I'm sorry, but I fail to understand your post.Please elaborate.

reply to post by charlyv


Are you justifying his comments as "political jargon" or that they are takin out of context?

reply to post by billy197300


This is exactly what is being said. I hate the Bush Admin. But lets not take things out of context. At most he showing frustration at why we wouldn't support their policies after 5 years of war.

Originally posted by jerryznv
I got a strange feeling that there is no way he would have said this knowing it was being recorded...a conspiracy that surrounds 9/11 would never be caught on tape...in my opinion.

This is certainly disturbing...but hardly evidence of an inside job...rather I think it reflects just how inhuman our elected officials really are and how corruption is higher at the top of the ladder.

Interesting all the same though!

I'm not nitpicking to attack you, just to point something out: appointed officials...maybe we should think about electing the different secretaries too.

reply to post by imeddieone4202003


That tape would be an excellent example of how less than honest people spin things to make the evidence match the theory. Beyond that it's just sad that there are people who go along with it.

People are learning these deceptive tactics from crooked politicians and pundits. I'd think that here on ATS the topic of the thread would be to point out the spin and deception to deny ignorance, not to embrace it fully by playing along.

Be honest now, you really hoped people would not listen to it right? It's self debunking.

Originally posted by consigliere
reply to post by Aeons

 

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand your post.Please elaborate.

How can people joke about horrible things?

How are people NOT joke about horrible things.

I've laughed about terrible things plenty of times. Just like the paramedic who cracks horrible jokes after scraping splattered person out of their car.

I find nothing inappropriate about his laugh. It is a laugh of...helpless frustration. I get that.

People have become jaded or we are into a new generation who were not even born on 9/11 yet. People are more concerned about what the latest celebrity is doing, or people like Charlie Sheen or who Kim Kardasian is doing. Real news usually comes with a plea for assistance, usually monetary assistance. The polititions are busy spending all their time lining up contributors for their next run for re-election, and the citizen is footing the bill. The citizen seems to be expendable and usefull to be sacrifical lambs in the warmongers agendas. Thing is, they keep talking about the 2012 'Awakening' the 'Change' all these notions something's on the horizon for humanity. Well I think it's the knowledge that a select few that are screwing all the citizens, are now ripe for removal, prosicution and coming to view. Their being exposed and the tide is changing. The world is becoming weary of eternal war, and the wast it brings in resources and lives. And the movement for fairness and right is snowballing. As I Say ""mass is catching up with Velocity"" = the people are catching up with the scoundrels and the criminals are loosing speed = everybody will soon be held accountable for their ill doings, or get recognition for their good. The evil will be rebuked and removed.................. you can only hope.