On Thu, 8 May 2008 11:11:41 -0700 (PDT), xxarag@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>SALAM ****EYKUM SALAH YOU CAN CONGRATULATE ME AND ISRAEL WITH 60TH
>ANNIVERSARY!
WHEN DOES MRS XXARAG CELEBRATING SUCKING 60TH ARAB COCK THIS WEEK?
ELI
>
>On May 8, 2:09 pm, "Hajj Jafar" <Hja...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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
|
