• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

White House: No "war on terror"

R

rbell

Active Member
SOURCE

So...according to the nitwits at the the White House...
  • The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism."
  • Neither is it fighting "jihadists"
  • Nor is it in a "global war."
Excerpts...

"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.
Click to expand...

As for the "war on terrorism," Mr. Brennan said the administration is not going to say that "because 'terrorism' is but a tactic — a means to an end, which in al Qaedas case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate."
Click to expand...

Maybe someone should remind these numskulls that words mean things. And stupidly worded phrases also mean things.

To quote the great Bugs Bunny:

"What a maroon! What an ignoramasus!"
 
T

tinytim

<img src =/tim2.jpg>
Obama and his minions of Obamanites have spit in the faces of the 9/11 victims...

Come 2010 and 2012 it will be time to revive the cry, "Let's Roll!!!" and take back this country from the liberal terrorists that are running it now.
 
D

donnA

Active Member
maybe someone should tell the terrorists they can stop now, theres no more war on terrorism.
 
Tom Bryant

Tom Bryant

Well-Known Member
The president said he would open his hand to the Iranians and they should unclench their fist. He offered it to them and they started shooting people in the streets.

btw, tactics are short range, strategy is the overall plan. This administration has neither.
 
Crabtownboy

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Some other quotes from the article:

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

He was specific about ways in which Mr. Obama believes words influence the way America prosecutes the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting "jihadists" is wrongheaded because it is using "a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal" which "risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/06/white-house-war-terrorism-over/?feat=home_headlines
Click to expand...
 
poncho

poncho

Well-Known Member
There never was a "global war on terrorism" there was an imperial mobilization using 9/11 as a pretext. Constant fearmongering and clever sloganeering fooled alot of people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

donnA

Active Member
so what, terrorism doesn't exsit? and fi it does we should, what? let it go? here go ahead, fly our planes into our buildings and kill our civilains, lets sit down and have a beer together.
 
poncho

poncho

Well-Known Member
donnA said:
so what, terrorism doesn't exsit? and fi it does we should, what? let it go? here go ahead, fly our planes into our buildings and kill our civilains, lets sit down and have a beer together.
Click to expand...

Never said that. What I said was the "global war on terrorism" was a cover for an imperial mobilization.
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.


I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.


There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.


It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.


I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.


I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.


During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War hasn't changed any from Butler's time. It's still a racket and leaders who would take us to war still need pretexts to convince the people of the justness and need to surrender our blood and treasure for the greater good, of the "international community" AKA the transnational bankers and corporitos.

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii) (Eurasia means "the Middle East")

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)


"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

“The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
​
SOURCE

You may believe that we're fighting a "global war on terror" and that's understandable because that's what you are supposed to believe. But according to one of the most influential foreign policy planners that has held sway over several American presidencies we're just carrying out "a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy."

You go ahead and buy into all the hyped up wartime propaganda and I'll keep taking the word of the folks who actually planned the "comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy" you call the "war on terror".

Fair enough?





​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top