This war on terrorism is bogus

[Gadawg73]

BecauseIKnow, is your post suppose to make me feel bad for SAND-*******, because its not working.
Let me tell you how the SAND-****** WORLD will go down, and you will see it happen in your lifetime.
Women can now have key combat positions in the US Armed Forces, having said that, a lot of money and political influence will go towards recruiting women for the military in dangerous combat positions, Infantry, Fighter Pilots, Artillery to name a few.
Once a substantial female US Military force is established, this ALL female military will take out Iran first, this has never been done in the HISTORY OF THIS EARTH nor has it been spoken of, an entire military force of women defeated an entire nation, as people will then speak of an all female military defeated Iran, the people of Iran will endure a shame and disgrace that will last 5000 years and beyond, as from that point nobody will claim to be an Iranian or a descendant of them, becauseTHEYwillKNOW such a claim will just cause them to be lightly bitch slapped, YOU WILL take on this disgrace and shame half way through your life, but your children and grand children will be born into this disgrace and shame, from that point the rest of the SAND-****** WORLD will ..... SUBMIT ...
to America.

This thread started out idiotic, but you've taken it to a completely different low.

 

[uscitizen]

What facts? If there are any facts anywhere in your post Glenn Beck is a genius, because this is exactly the same thing he does.

Every single thing he mentioned is a fact.

The sun is a ball of gas.

The oceans are wet.

Therefore, the sky is blue.

Everything there is a fact, yet the post makes no sense.

In a way the skys are blue becuase the sun is a ball of gas giving off visible radiation which is refracted thru our atmosphere which is maintained to a large degree by our wet oceans.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

Shouldn't this be in conspiracy theories?

No. Because there's nothing theoretical about it. The PNAC stuff is for real. Unfortunately.

yep. whoever doesn't know what the PNAC is/was should google it if they want to see where a TRILLION $ transfer from the treasury went Look who the founder of that organization is and the signatories.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

You don't any Iraqi's you pissant liar.

You know "hundreds" of Iraqi's, you seen "hundreds" of your "friends" die from prescription drugs...you truly are a dumbfuck kid.

An idiot posting the words of another idiot from an idiotic newspaper beloved of the British left. All this, because the demise of the Taliban, Al Queda and Saddam are great tragedies to some I guess.

Says the guy who's never seen any proof of a Al Qaeda, I know hundreds of people from Iraq, they never spoke about Al Qaeda, they spoke about the American invasion, and they're all Christians.

Yes I do, why the heck would I lie about that, I live in Michigan and many Iraqis live here. Everyone here knows Iraqis.....

 

[GHook93]

it's unfortunate Americans, 85% of them support drone attacks.

Esp if it was your parent's house (that way it might get you in their basement)!!!

 

[Doc91678]

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.

 

[Antares]

Of course you do, if we don't believe we can just ask you.

You don't any Iraqi's you pissant liar.

You know "hundreds" of Iraqi's, you seen "hundreds" of your "friends" die from prescription drugs...you truly are a dumbfuck kid.

Says the guy who's never seen any proof of a Al Qaeda, I know hundreds of people from Iraq, they never spoke about Al Qaeda, they spoke about the American invasion, and they're all Christians.

Yes I do, why the heck would I lie about that, I live in Michigan and many Iraqis live here. Everyone here knows Iraqis.....

 

[Antares]

The only response you'll get is "They were taken out of context".

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.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

Shouldn't this be in conspiracy theories?

Refute one of those facts you coward.

When it shows facts and not interpretations and extrapolations............ Apparently your 5th columnist subterfuge tactic doesn't want people to realize that. Nice try anyway Achmed.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A snippet from a 3 hour BBC documentary I highly recommend:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfFdpd1Rk]BBC: al Qaeda Does Not Exist - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BlindBoo]

From 2003?

 

[Oldguy]

An idiot posting the words of another idiot from an idiotic newspaper beloved of the British left. All this, because the demise of the Taliban, Al Queda and Saddam are great tragedies to some I guess.

Says the guy who's never seen any proof of a Al Qaeda, I know hundreds of people from Iraq, they never spoke about Al Qaeda, they spoke about the American invasion, and they're all Christians.

I have an acquaintance who frequently travels to the remote regions of Pakistan on church business. Your nonexistent al Qaeda has put a price on his head.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

An idiot posting the words of another idiot from an idiotic newspaper beloved of the British left. All this, because the demise of the Taliban, Al Queda and Saddam are great tragedies to some I guess.

Says the guy who's never seen any proof of a Al Qaeda, I know hundreds of people from Iraq, they never spoke about Al Qaeda, they spoke about the American invasion, and they're all Christians.

I have an acquaintance who frequently travels to the remote regions of Pakistan on church business. Your nonexistent al Qaeda has put a price on his head.

Taliban exists in Pakistan, I'm aware of that. But the overplayed threat of them is not the reality. Let me expand on that, the overplayed threat of the reason for war attributed to them is overplayed and doesn't add up.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Shouldn't this be in conspiracy theories?

Refute one of those facts you coward.

When it shows facts and not interpretations and extrapolations............ Apparently your 5th columnist subterfuge tactic doesn't want people to realize that. Nice try anyway Achmed.

So those aren't facts? Right....

 

[BecauseIKnow]

From 2003?

I just wanted to show facts from that time and context during the war.

 

[BlindBoo]

From 2003?

I just wanted to show facts from that time and context during the war.

I do agree the pseudo-conservatives used 9-11 as a pretext to project US military might into the ME. However I think the amaturish handling of the Iraq occupation blew the shit out of their plan. Furthermore I think it will prove to be the most serious strategic blunder since Genreal Lee decided on a stand up fight at Gettysberg.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

From 2003?

I just wanted to show facts from that time and context during the war.

I do agree the pseudo-conservatives used 9-11 as a pretext to project US military might into the ME. However I think the amaturish handling of the Iraq occupation blew the shit out of their plan. Furthermore I think it will prove to be the most serious strategic blunder since Genreal Lee decided on a stand up fight at Gettysberg.

That's what I'm trying to say, there aren't enough answers, and the pretext of war by making Al Qaeda seem more than what it is, is bogus. But it seems this war is expanding and have heard several officials from the world say the war on terror won't end. But in reality that shows their hidden agenda. It makes you stop and think. I mean seriously, a few hundred militants in Yemen who have guns and maybe RPGs at the most, no training, poverty, are these people really a threat of a giant terror attack inside the USA? A threat to the world power with most advanced technology and intelligence? It doesn't add up.

 

[BlindBoo]

I just wanted to show facts from that time and context during the war.

I do agree the pseudo-conservatives used 9-11 as a pretext to project US military might into the ME. However I think the amaturish handling of the Iraq occupation blew the shit out of their plan. Furthermore I think it will prove to be the most serious strategic blunder since Genreal Lee decided on a stand up fight at Gettysberg.

That's what I'm trying to say, there aren't enough answers, and the pretext of war by making Al Qaeda seem more than what it is, is bogus. But it seems this war is expanding and have heard several officials from the world say the war on terror won't end. But in reality that shows their hidden agenda. It makes you stop and think. I mean seriously, a few hundred militants in Yemen who have guns and maybe RPGs at the most, no training, poverty, are these people really a threat of a giant terror attack inside the USA? A threat to the world power with most advanced technology and intelligence? It doesn't add up.

I don't think they will ever be able to do more than sucker punch us like they did on 9-11.

You might like this. Or you may have already seen it. It's old but still relevent.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War Il and the Folly Of Intervention

As the United States finds itself in the aftermath of another crisis in the Middle East, it is worth the risk of opprobrium to ask why there should be hostility toward America in that region. Some insight can be gained by surveying official U.S. conduct in the Middle East since the end of World War II. Acknowledged herein is a fundamental, yet deplorably overlooked, distinction between understanding and excusing. The purpose of this survey is not to pardon acts of violence against innocent people but to understand the reasons that drive people to violent political acts.(2) The stubborn and often self-serving notion that the historical record is irrelevant because political violence is inexcusable ensures that Americans will be caught in crises in the Middle East and elsewhere for many years to come.

........

If the chief natural resource of the Middle East were bananas, the region would not have attracted the attention of U.S. policymakers as it has for decades. Americans became interested in the oil riches of the region in the 1920s, and two U.S. companies, Standard Oil of California and Texaco, won the first concession to explore for oil in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s. They discovered oil there in 1938, just after Standard Oil of California found it in Bahrain. The same year Gulf Oil (along with its British partner Anglo-Persian Oil) found oil in Kuwait. During and after World War II, the region became a primary object of U.S. foreign policy. It was then that policymakers realized that the Middle East was "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."(4)

Subsequently, as a result of cooperation between the U.S. government and several American oil companies, the United States replaced Great Britain as the chief Western power in the region.(5) In Iran and Saudi Arabia, American gains were British (and French) losses.(6)

 

[Ringel05]

Refute one of those facts you coward.

When it shows facts and not interpretations and extrapolations............ Apparently your 5th columnist subterfuge tactic doesn't want people to realize that. Nice try anyway Achmed.

So those aren't facts? Right....

Facts can be, and frequently are manipulated, you know, interpretations and extrapolations. Just look at the conspiracy theorists.... except they're not trying to spread disinformation for specific propaganda reasons........ well, not like you are...... Keep up the bad work Achmed.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

When it shows facts and not interpretations and extrapolations............ Apparently your 5th columnist subterfuge tactic doesn't want people to realize that. Nice try anyway Achmed.

So those aren't facts? Right....

Facts can be, and frequently are manipulated, you know, interpretations and extrapolations. Just look at the conspiracy theorists.... except they're not trying to spread disinformation for specific propaganda reasons........ well, not like you are...... Keep up the bad work Achmed.

What you accuse him of is what you are doing now, not refuting, just trying to make it into a too complex thing to understand and yada yada yada......

In other words, no, don't discuss the facts and don't ask questions.

You've done nothing besides deflect, so next time don't make a comment on my thread.