SALAM FUCKEYKUM SALAH YOU CAN CONGRATULATE ME AND ISRAEL WITH 60TH
ANNIVERSARY!
On May 8, 2:09=A0pm, "Hajj Jafar" <Hja...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Neocons Admit that "War On Terror" Is a Hoax
> George Washington Blog
> Wednesday, May 7, 200
>
> Key war on terror architect Douglas Feith has now confirmed Donald
Rumsfel=
d,
> 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 reported in a new article in Asia Times:
>
> =A0 Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US
> defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military
objecti=
ve
> of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning
th=
e
> regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the
Middle=
> East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary
o=
f
> 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 supported explicitly by the country's top military leaders.
>
> =A0 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 establishing "new regimes" in a
series =
of
> states...
>
> =A0 General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty
Organiza=
tion
> bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning
Moder=
n
> 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].
>
> =A0 When this writer asked Feith . . . which of the six regimes on the
Cla=
rk
> list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, "All of them."
>
> =A0 The Defense Department guidance document made it clear that US
militar=
y
> aims in regard to those states would go well beyond any ties to
terrorism.=
> The document 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).=
>
> =A0 Where does Israel come in?
>
> =A0 Well, the Asia Times article continues:
>
> =A0 Rumsfeld's paper was given to the White House only two weeks after
Bus=
h
> 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 support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order
to=
> try to catch bin Laden.
>
> =A0 Instead, the Rumsfeld paper argued that the US should target states
th=
at
> had supported anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
>
> =A0 ***
> =A0 After the bombing of two US embassies in East Africa [in 1988] by
al-Q=
aeda
> operatives, State Department counter-terrorism official Michael Sheehan
> proposed supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Afghanistan
> against bin Laden's sponsor, the Taliban regime. However, senior US
milita=
ry
> leaders "refused to consider it", according to a 2004 account by Richard
H=
> Shultz, Junior, a military specialist at Tufts University.
>
> =A0 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
attac=
ks
> to occur? In other words, doesn't this statement by a senior officer of
th=
e
> 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,
Rumsfel=
d,
> 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
Pea=
rl
> Harbor" to justify expansion of American militarism and regime change in
t=
he
> Middle East.
>
> And remember that many of the key members of PNAC and architects of the
"w=
ar
> on terror" had previously created the "Clean Break" strategy for Israel,
> which called for a policy of war and regime change against Israel's
enemie=
s.
>
> The war on terror was never intended to be about fighting terrorism. As
ev=
en
> Newsweek has now admitted, the war on terror is a hoax.
> =A0 =A0
=A0http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/070508_b_admit.htm=
|
