Neocons Admit that "War On Terror" Is a Hoax

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, May 7, 2008.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    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.

    George Washington Blog.
     
    #1 poncho, May 7, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2008
  2. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==If chicken little told you that the sky was falling...would you believe it? The article, excuse me...personal blog, you linked to is interesting. It makes some good points, points I think most people learned about some time ago. However when he starts pushing the theory that the government allowed 9/11 to happen in order to build some new world order of some sort, he looses me totally.

    These wild theories don't stand up to all the facts. They are built upon selected facts (half truths) while other facts are ignored. However these theories do appeal to a certain group of people in our society. Generally these are the same people who believe every other conspiracy theory about the Bush administration. That is why people like Rosie O'Donnel take these type theories seriously. To listen to these people Bush is responsible for global warming, hurricane Katrina, flooding in New Orleans, droughts, war in the middle east, everything Israel and Russia does or does not do, 9/11, terrorism, a bad economy, corporations going over seas, every lay off, high gas prices, and the list goes on and on. I am amazed that they have not found a way to connect him to solar flares and sun spots. The facts are never as simple as "blame Bush", but many people like to take the simple way out. Blame Bush, blame Bush, blame Bush. While Bush maybe one of the worst Presidents in recent American history he is not responsible for 9/11 and I honestly doubt anyone ""knew"" that it was going to happen. Did they and the previous administration have warnings? Yes. Did they fail to take those warnings seriously? Yes. Was Bush, and others, looking for a reason to strike at Saddam? Probably. Was 9/11 used to push that agenda? Probably. However to claim that they knew 9/11 was going to happen, and that they knowingly allowed it to happen, is just going too far.
     
  3. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Why is it going to far Martin? Why is so wacked out and "illogical" to believe government is capable of doing such things when history clearly shows this is what governments do?

    What do you think the founding fathers of this nation warned us about over and over and over again? Were they talking because they liked the sound of their voices??? Did they write all those warnings down for no reason? Were they all wacked also?

    "Government is force" (G. Washington) Martin. It ain't your friend why is that so hard to fathom? It's a basic reality and founding principle of the country you call home. So again...why is it going to far?

    If the architects of the GWOT are calling it a hoax and it sure does look like they are (along with all the other evidence added in) then you're defense of government isn't based on evidence at all it's visceral. If it was based on the evidence alone you'd most likely be agreeing with me or at least asking some hard questions of government. In light of all that your attempt to defend government isn't logical.

    So, would you mind taking back the "chicken little" crack now?
     
    #3 poncho, May 7, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2008
  4. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==It is "going too far", it is "wacked out", and "illogical" because there is no solid evidence to prove it. In fact, I will go so far as to say that all the "evidence" that is presented is laughable. As I said, their evidence is one sided at best. When things are looked at on a larger scale their evidence just does not hold up.

    ==The founding fathers have nothing to do with this. They are not alive today and therefore can't respond to current events. Reading our situation back into them and trying to figure out what they would think, say, or do, maybe interesting but it is not serious proof of anything. The founders warned against the dangers of government out of control, yes. However that is not what we have here. Here we have claims that can't be supported by solid fact.

    ==Since I am one of the advocates of small government, I have no idea why you think I believe government is my friend (whatever that means). This is about evidence and fact. I can't go along with the "Bush did it" theories because they are not supported by the historical facts.
     
  5. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    This whole post is laughable Martin read it back to yourself a few times and think about what you just commited to type while I reply to it point by point...but don't wait up because I'm in no particular hurry. :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #5 poncho, May 7, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2008
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Point one.
    The above needs clarification...it's too vague.

    How large of a scale are we talking here Martin? How far back in history are you prepared to go? Are you taking sides with a political faction or are you looking at this as a disinterested witness? What evidence have you looked at? (list and references would be helpful) Who are "they" as in "their evidence is one sided at best? (names, links)

    Glittering generalities sure sound "reasonable" on the surface and appeal to emotions as I suppose they are intended to do but they aren't really debatable points so if you'd be so kind tell me about this larger scale some more and give me some specifics and details. Please?

    More to come...
     
    #6 poncho, May 7, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2008
  7. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's very little proof for the government's conspiracy theory. For instance, the 19 or so terrorists who were accused of flying the aircraft into the buildings/ground were identified within 24 hours I believe or at least 48. Where is the proof that any of them were involved. It certainly looked like a setup to me.
     
  8. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    First thing I noticed about Martin's post was the use of "poisoning the well" from the start. If it's like he says then there should be no need for this. Imho.

    Point Two.

    What are all the facts Martin do you have them? Does anyone have them? Has anyone been convicted for the crime? Has Bin Laden even been indicted for his role in the crime?

    If you've got all the facts then please feel free to share them.

    More to come...
     
    #8 poncho, May 7, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2008
  9. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==I am not going around in circles over this. I have said what I intend to say and I have very little to add to it (here). You are basing your whole position on a theory, a what-if conspiracy. I can't take that seriously. When you can present some actual facts that proves your thesis then do so. Until then, in my opinion, you are just pushing a theory that has very little behind it.
     
  10. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good enough reason for me and if we take out a terrorist every now and then in protecting Israel we're doing a good thing! :applause:
     
  11. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,250
    Likes Received:
    4
    I do not agree with the spirit of the O/P. But the facts are, the patriot act was written up before 9/11.

    But poncho, Clinton signed the regieme change papers with the U.N., concerning Iraq, 11/1/1998. This while a half million Iraqis died due to sanctions. ( I found that on you tube, BTW. You are correct, Albright was fine with all the dead Iraqis.)

    I am not denying that Bush has used this war on terror to perpetrate unprecedented crimes on our liberty. That 9/11 was viewed as an opportunity to ram these losses on our population with bi-partisain support.,

    Also, since the war on poverty has created more poor, the war on drugs has made billionaires out of street thugs along with creating more addicts, why wouldn't this war on trerror produce equally horrible results ?


    Hey, BTW folks, I'm posting from Dallas, Texas. My first time in this great state, and we plan on driving to Austin tomorrow, then on to San Antonio.
     
  12. dragonfly

    dragonfly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    Welcome to Texas. Come a little more south to Houston and say hello!
     
  13. betterthanideserve

    betterthanideserve
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Martin Please watch the movie "the birth of treason"as well as" in plane sight."
    If you want the truth and have access to you tube or google you will be able to view them. Unless you really don't want any answers.[/QUOTE]]
     
  14. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==I must have a higher standard for fact/evidence than some people do. A video on youtube, or dvd, does not prove anything. Such a format does not give solid evidence nor can anything be footnoted or documented. It is nothing but claims.

    I am familiar with the two videos you mention in your post and I have not been impressed by either. Both are propaganda for the conspiracy theory. I could find the same type videos for UFOs and aliens. But those videos don't prove to me that aliens visit our planet. Sure, people have seen things they can't explain, which they believe to be aliens and ghosts, but that does not mean that aliens and ghosts exist. You are doing the same thing the UFO and ghost people are doing (along with people who support all the other conspiracies). However none of that proves anything to me. If you want to prove your theory then come up with some hard evidence that proves it. Right now all you are running on is a conspiracy theory that is based on half truths, assumptions, and a strong anti-Bush/Government way of thinking. Maybe the great intellectual and historian Rosie O'Donnell, a major proponent of your view, can produce such evidence (sarcasm). Don't worry, I will not hold by breathe waiting for her to produce solid evidence.
     
    #14 Martin, May 8, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2008
  15. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I'm still waiting for all your facts Martin. If ya got em flaunt em. Lay em on us brother.

    Working on the next point...might take awhile gotta work longer hours so I can afford the gas to work longer hours.

    Btw, would you please define "run away government" for me Martin? I'd like to compare it with what the founders said. If you don't mind.


    http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

    Little something something from around 1996...

    [SIZE=+1]Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship[/SIZE]

    In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.


    Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.


    To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.


    Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

    To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.


    SOURCE...

    Keep in mind that the type of "foreign aid" they are speaking of is un-constitutional. Being a limited government guy I'm sure you can appreciate this Martin.





    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
    [/FONT]
     
    #15 poncho, May 8, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2008
  16. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,250
    Likes Received:
    4
    Awww, if I had two more days, I would. But Texas is turning out to be purt'near big as Montana.......:laugh:
     
  17. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    The psuedocons and loonie theories have been debunked a thousand times over.
     
  18. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Sorry for any misunderstanding Martin that's "government out of control" not "run away government".

    Could you give your definition of what a "government out of control" is...please.

    So...what? What are saying here Martin? I can't call Thomas Jefferson on the psychic line to consult with him so his words and wisdom are irrelevant? That's funny. :laugh:

    I'm not "reading back into" anything I'm simply comparing what we had with we what we got. You don't see a difference?

    Actually Martin the founders warned us by stressing on and on about the accumulation of power into to few hands. And that is exactly what we have today.

    Working on next point...feel free to pop in at any time with all the facts Martin I think I can find enough time to read them in between shifts. And about those definitons could type them down first so I can have a clearer baseline on your paradigm? (where you're coming from).
     
  19. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Then why are there more people today unconvinced by the official theory than ever before Tom? Nothing has been debunked. Alot of information has been overlooked and demonized but nothing has been debunked. Unless you're talking about all the weird alien and UFO stuff that been thrown into the mix. Throwing grabage in the grocies to make the whole thing stink. There's been alot of that going around but that's your "debunkers" and you doing that Tom.

    That isn't debunking BTW that's acting ignorant and childish.

    Add up the poll numbers Tom. They are not in your favor. Poisoning the well like you just tried isn't working it's magic anymore buddy.

    This thread is about facts and evidence and it's about the "war on terrorism" admittedly being a hoax not 9/11. There's no place for propagandists tricks here...okay? Martin says he only deals in facts and evidence and apparently he has them all so right now we're sorta waiting for him to come through for us and share them. We're just killing time till till does. Note * "we" means my very good friend Cisco and I.

    Be back tomorrow about five or six CST Martin can't wait to see those definitions and facts! "Bring em on!" (G.W. Bush)
     
    #19 poncho, May 8, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2008
  20. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Okay I'm back. Where's Martin?
     

Share This Page

Loading...