"Hajj Jafar" <Hjafar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:HYCUj.15536$sp.13564@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Neocons Admit that "War On Terror" Is a Hoax
> George Wa****ngton Blog
> Wednesday, May 7, 200
>
> Key war on terror architect Douglas Feith has now confirmed Donald
> Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Wesley Clark in admitting that the
so-called
> War on Terror is a hoax.
>
> In fact, starting right after 9/11 -- at the latest -- the goal has
always
> been to create "regime change" and instability in Iraq, Iran, Syria,
> Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon so as to protect Israel. And the goal
> was never really to destroy Al Qaeda.
>
> As re****ted in a new article in Asia Times:
>
>
> Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US
> defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military
> objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but
> overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other
> countries in the Middle East, according to a do***ent quoted extensively
> in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's recently
> published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith's account further
> indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle
East
> by military force and the threat of force was sup****ted explicitly by
the
> country's top military leaders.
>
> Feith's book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts
of
> the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30,
2001,
> calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin
> Laden's al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establi****ng "new regimes" in
a
> series of states...
>
> General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty
> Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003
book
> Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November
> 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of
defense
> Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya,
> Sudan and Somalia [and Lebanon].
>
> When this writer asked Feith . . . which of the six regimes on the
Clark
> list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, "All of them."
>
> The Defense Department guidance do***ent made it clear that US military
> aims in regard to those states would go well beyond any ties to
terrorism.
> The do***ent said the Defense Department would also seek to isolate and
> weaken those states and to "disrupt, damage or destroy" their military
> capacities - not necessarily limited to weapons of mass destruction
(WMD).
>
>
> Where does Israel come in?
>
> Well, the Asia Times article continues:
>
>
> Rumsfeld's paper was given to the White House only two weeks after Bush
> had approved a US military operation in Afghanistan directed against bin
> Laden and the Taliban regime. Despite that decision, Rumsfeld's proposal
> called explicitly for postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the use
of
> ground forces in sup****t of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order
to
> try to catch bin Laden.
>
> Instead, the Rumsfeld paper argued that the US should target states
that
> had sup****ted anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
>
> ***
> After the bombing of two US embassies in East Africa [in 1988] by
> al-Qaeda operatives, State Department counter-terrorism official Michael
> Sheehan proposed sup****ting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in
> Afghanistan against bin Laden's sponsor, the Taliban regime. However,
> senior US military leaders "refused to consider it", according to a 2004
> account by Richard H Shultz, Junior, a military specialist at Tufts
> University.
>
> A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department
> counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes
> characterized more than once by colleagues as a "small price to pay for
> being a superpower".
>
> And if "terrorist strikes" were a "small price to pay for being a
> superpower"- and that is the reason that the U.S. government refused to
> disrupt the alleged planners of the 9/11 attacks - doesn't that add
weight
> to the claim that the U.S. government intentionally allowed the 9/11
> attacks to occur? In other words, doesn't this statement by a senior
> officer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tend to prove that 9/11 was
> intentionally allowed to occur as the "New Pearl Harbor" which would
allow
> America to act like "a superpower" and re-make the Middle East in its
own
> (and Israel's) image?
>
> This is not an unreasonable question, especially given that Feith,
> Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and most of the other key architects of the "war on
> terror" were part of the Project for a New American Century and its plea
> for a "New Pearl Harbor" to justify expansion of American militarism and
> regime change in the Middle East.
>
> And remember that many of the key members of PNAC and architects of the
> "war on terror" had previously created the "Clean Break" strategy for
> Israel, which called for a policy of war and regime change against
> Israel's enemies.
>
> The war on terror was never intended to be about fighting terrorism. As
> even Newsweek has now admitted, the war on terror is a hoax.
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/070508_b_admit.htm
The only "terror" comes from ZioNazis and US terrorists
|
