Would you take notice of a censored document?

Let me ask you-

If there was a document that was essentially a blue print of American foreign policy on Iran, and it was initally available to the public but is now censored, would you see that as a big deal?

Would the censorship and blanking of some pages not show that whoever was behind it is trying to hide the truth from the people?

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Let me ask you-

If there was a document that was essentially a blue print of American foreign policy on Iran, and it was initally available to the public but is now censored, would you see that as a big deal?

Would the censorship and blanking of some pages not show that whoever was behind it is trying to hide the truth from the people?

1. Yes.

2. Maybe.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Sounds like a legitimate synopsis. Is this a hypothetical question or is there an actual doc being subjugated?

reply to post by Wonderer2012


I would be better able to reply coherently if there was a document to base my opinion on.

As what is avvailable can show a lot about what is hidden.

Also there can be many reasons to redact a document before public release.

Don't let those you might attack see your plans, don't let anyone see your data mining methods, somtimes certain info could have only come from a certain source( see the CIAs "canary trap") revealing your sources of info outs them and removes the ability to further utilize them in the future, diplomatic traffic is akin to sausage, a lot of people like it but don't wanna see it being made.

Just to name a few legitimate reasons, there are many more.

However, as a conspiracy nutjob, on a selfsame site I would have to probably be forced to say yes, it could be troubling to me.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Let me ask you-

If there was a document that was essentially a blue print of American foreign policy on Iran, and it was initally available to the public but is now censored, would you see that as a big deal?

Would the censorship and blanking of some pages not show that whoever was behind it is trying to hide the truth from the people?

I don't have a problem with that, but I'm ex-military I've seen that a lot. Most likely the censored portions are aspects of the analysis that were once open by are now classified. It could be the identity of covert assets, and sometimes when a new position leader takes his office he may deems something classified that their predecessor did not. But it's quite common to have a briefing where portions carry a higher classification than other parts of the same brief.

Spit it out Wanderer!

reply to post by Wonderer2012

If there was a document that was essentially a blue print of American foreign policy on Iran, and it was initally available to the public but is now censored, would you see that as a big deal?

Absolutely........and to use the standard "Government" line......"if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" so.......

Would the censorship and blanking of some pages not show that whoever was behind it is trying to hide the truth from the people?

Read Timothy Good's "Above Top Secret" (The brainchild of this website I believe) and be amazed how the "government" decided to release FOI documents pertaining to UFO's and the military - there are literally dozens of pages that are totally blacked out.

Its obvious they wanted to hide something from the general public otherwise they would not have blanked them out.......no rocket science there.

reply to post by Sublimecraft


That's inaccurate. The blacked out portions of the document are still classified. That doesn't mean the entire document is classified. No offense, but it appears you are just upset that you can't view something you don't have the clearance to see. If I'm wrong then tell me. But security clearances are important.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
If there was a document that was essentially a blue print of American foreign policy on Iran, and it was initally available to the public but is now censored, would you see that as a big deal?

No. No big deal.

Would the censorship and blanking of some pages not show that whoever was behind it is trying to hide the truth from the people?

There is nothing wrong with this.

The government HAS to censor some documents. There is always some sensitive information in them that is better left out of the main stream. There are people in the field that are put at risk when sensitive information is in the general public.

Again ... no big deal.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Lolz, regardless of clearence or not, If UFO subject matter is blacked out and cencored thery're very OBVIOSLY hiding something! Lmafaoo.

Since we appear to be working in the World of the Hypothetical:

If I had seen such a document, while it was in its early stages. And said document it was now considered "classified" or "censored", it would be important, to me, to consider the safety of Innocents. Divulging preplanned field maneuvers could possible place 1000's at risk? Divorce your feelings.

1) would it increase or decrease the safety of those in the region?


2) Will it make a difference in 2 years? 5 years? A 1000 years? That sounds dramatic, but if the Romans had been stopped early in their reign, what difference would that have made? Hitler? George Washington and his band of starving scurvy riddled bandits?


Is what you're seeing simply bait for a fish on a hook to test your honesty? Sounds dramatic, but people have been killed for less.

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Lolz, regardless of clearence or not, If UFO subject matter is blacked out and cencored thery're very OBVIOSLY hiding something! Lmafaoo.

Only thing that is "obvious" is that the blacked out portion is classified. Do you know how security clearances work? If you don't have the appropriate clearance you are not going to see the information, plain and simple.

Well, here is the document- it is a 2009 paper titled Which 'Path to Persia'.

I've read it a few times and have quotes from it- to have read it is to understand absolutely everything that is going on right now, it covers every angle-

- To bring down the current regime and replace it with one more in tune with American interests in the region (sod all to do with Iran being a national security threat as the MSM argues)

- Allowing Israel to strike a blow first as policy to avoid America being seen as the aggressor

- Refers many times to a false flag event to justify military action- even literally says at one point- the 'bloodier and more deadly' the Iranian provaction, the better suited America will be to go after Iran

It's a horrifying document, which was freely available, it is still there but is censored in parts.

Ignore the people who say it loads in full because it doesn't, many pages remain blank and IMO they are censored because this 2009 policy paper is the blueprint they are using to take us to war.

www.brookings.edu...

Try it for yourself, it will load but not all the pages will work because it reveals far too much info that is a bit too close to the reality.

This war, which will use American tax dollars is nothing to do with national security, it is about replacing another regime in the region to suit their interests.

I can predict already people will disregard this but it literally is the final piece in the puzzle for me- I've read this document many times, further research verifies everything in it when you connect the dots. But there you go.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Reading now

Commercially funded think tanks have been the architects of US policy for many decades.

This document's genesis in linked to the Booking's Institute's... "Which Path to Persia" which was an analysis piece published by the Saran Center for Middle East Policy. It is a chilling read - IF you are inclined to see things in a conspiratorial light.

The concurrent item: "Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change" is an even more telling view of how the academic literati engage our elected and or appointed "policy makers."

[Memo 21] .... at face value betrays the narrative the West has attempted to maintain - that humanitarian concerns, not regime change, drives Western intervention in Syria. Not only does the Brookings memo admit the US would like to avoid a settlement or ceasefire that leaves Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power, but continues on by stating the UN mission can be used as cover to establish "safe havens" and "humanitarian corridors" from which further "coercive action" can be dealt:

"An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts." -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Recently, there have been numerous reports of this document being retracted, made impossible to download or access, and otherwise becoming scarce... but it is still there.... though I suspect the authors and publisher are less than enthusiastic about it being deconstructed by the public... who should know better than to question their elite superiors... ((sorry - cynical sarcasm crept in))

dupe post - dang it!

Originally posted by Maxmars
Commercially funded think tanks have been the architects of US policy for many decades.

This document's genesis in linked to the Booking's Institute's... "Which Path to Persia" which was an analysis piece published by the Saran Center for Middle East Policy. It is a chilling read - IF you are inclined to see things in a conspiratorial light.

The concurrent item: "Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change" is an even more telling view of how the academic literati engage our elected and or appointed "policy makers."

[Memo 21] .... at face value betrays the narrative the West has attempted to maintain - that humanitarian concerns, not regime change, drives Western intervention in Syria. Not only does the Brookings memo admit the US would like to avoid a settlement or ceasefire that leaves Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power, but continues on by stating the UN mission can be used as cover to establish "safe havens" and "humanitarian corridors" from which further "coercive action" can be dealt:

"An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts." -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Recently, there have been numerous reports of this document being retracted, made impossible to download or access, and otherwise becoming scarce... but it is still there.... though I suspect the authors and publisher are less than enthusiastic about it being deconstructed by the public... who should know better than to question their elite superiors... ((sorry - cynical sarcasm crept in))

Thanks for that quote, as the link has been censored

For anyone interested in what the link in the OP had to say, I had a thread here-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

With the way this is shaping up, I cannot understand why people are ignoring this stuff. Especially since they have made this stuff unavailable to the public (difficult to download, pages don't load properly etc).

These documents, very similar to the Rebuilding America's Defenses (which talked of a new 'Pearl Harbour' one year before 9/11) are funded by some of the most influential people around- Paul Wolowitz, Chertoff, Zakheim, Rumsfeld (PNAC), people contributing to policy papers for Brookings are CIA, NSC, government advisors- millions of dollars goes into creating these documents and they hide no details.

How can people still not think there is an agenda of regime change in the middle east?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The blacked out portions of the document are still classified. That doesn't mean the entire document is classified. No offense, but it appears you are just upset that you can't view something you don't have the clearance to see. If I'm wrong then tell me. But security clearances are important.

I understand that only portions of the document are still classified and never insinuated a blanket "black-out". But yes I am frustrated (not so much upset) that I can't read those parts because when reading the document(s) in question, the "blacked out" components appear to contain the juicy stuff so to speak when read in its entirety - sure black out names etc to protect the interests of individuals but not what the military have observed, recorded and/or retrieved - Mr Good found it appropriate to comment of the black-out parts as well - just generates more conspiracies, imo.

I'm big enough and ugly enough to take the news on the chin - who gives one individual the right to withhold (potentially game-changing) information from others - only those who have a vested interested in keeping the information a secret and seemingly for reasons that benefit the few - not the many.

Yes - security clearance is vital - but when the government time and time again says that UFO's are NOT a national security threat yet refuse to release info regarding same - then I smell a rat - and a big stinky one at that!

reply to post by Sublimecraft


If you're a fan of history read what happened during the War of the Worlds radio broadcast of the 20th century. The public went bat-crazy. To the government that displayed that the general public cannot receive that kind of information without turning into wild animals. For some odd reason there was mass hysteria.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Yes - I'm fully aware of that broadcast and the consequential effect resultant from the publics perception of it being a real event. In this regard the way the story was delivered, and the contents of it, was the cause of the panic (and deaths) - even though he warned prior to starting that it was mere fiction - still that didn't help those that tuned in after the broadcast started...............anyway I digress.

I think you and I can both agree that we (society in general) have been very well desensitized since those days to perhaps better accept what the military may or may not have come across in the past when investigating UFO's - even if the news was not pleasant or beneficial to the human race (well I am prepared anyway - lurking here for long enough pretty much prepares you for any eventuality; from humans being nothing more than imprisoned recycled souls through to food sources for aliens)

Nothing would surprise me at this stage in the game.

Thanks for the comments though and yes I am a history buff, amongst other things.