This war on terrorism is bogus

[BecauseIKnow]

Just keep evading and deflecting...... it won't help, but why stop now........ Achmed the failed terrorist......

Princess, just go to sleep....

I have a joke for ya....

Knock, knock.
Who's there?
The FBI.
OHHH SHIT!!!!!! HIDE THE DETONATORS!!!!

You're funny......

 

[Claudette]

Gee. Guess someone should ask all the dead terrorists if the war on terror is bogus??

 

[BecauseIKnow]

The word terror is something that can't be identified to anybody, it's dehumanizing at best, for political reasons. People fighting in their own sovereign land does not make them terrorists.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

The word has been found to have more than 100 meanings, it's a politically and emotionally charged word, it's not precise. And it used to further political objectives.

 

[MisterBeale]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqbBUZKpWvY&list=UUAUGaJAqN-bdHJysU71pgxQ]Iran Is No Enemy - Elite Criminals lied about Iraq, Libya,Afghanistan,Pakistan,911 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Redbone]

The word terror is something that can't be identified to anybody, it's dehumanizing at best, for political reasons. People fighting in their own sovereign land does not make them terrorists.

It also does not by default make them freedom fighters either. What they fight for and what method they use determines with the method being used by far the greater factor in making that determination.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

The word terror is something that can't be identified to anybody, it's dehumanizing at best, for political reasons. People fighting in their own sovereign land does not make them terrorists.

It also does not by default make them freedom fighters either. What they fight for and what method they use determines with the method being used by far the greater factor in making that determination.

That's true. But it seems terrorism is applied to every case of violence overseas by the media. Which won't put in the real struggle or the one fact that matters. The media has an agenda which is cleary anti Muslim. It won't report news, it just fabricates news or reports government agency news.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Michael Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus | Politics | The Guardian

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".


Edited for Copyright.

Please, only include a small portion of an article.

another good read

 

[whitehall]

Cut to the chase. Does Brit politician Meacher really suggest that the the terrorists attacks in the U.K. and Europe are legitimate payback for the U.K.'s role in freeing Iraq from the tyrannical Saddam regime? The Brits must be scratching their heads over that one.

 

[JBond]

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. ... our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.


Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, …

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998

Dec 16, 1998 · Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike. CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, ... create and use weapons of mass destruction, ...


Tom Brokaw: President Clinton Thought Saddam Hussein Had WMD ...

newsbusters.org › Blogs › Brad Wilmouth's blog

A lot of people believed that he did have weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton did, in fact. ... for Clinton + "Larry King" + Iraq. Not much there, folks.

Then how do you explain the above. While you are blaming Bush, Cheney and others you omit the above fact that Democrats and their Progressive leaders also believed the same. Had Gore won, would 9/11 occurred? Yes!, Had Gore won would we have invaded Iraq? The answer is also yes. Unless you were all deaf, dumb and blind your overt revision of history is ridiculous.

Dems simply ignore the fact that the drumbeats for war were continually beat by Dems for years. Then they ignored their continuing funding of the war.