Neocons Admit that "War On Terror" Is a Hoax

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.

 

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?

 

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:

 

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...

 

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...

 

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]

 

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).

 

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)

 

Okay I'm back. Where's Martin?