The So-Called, “War On Terror” (SCWOT) is a hoax.
BushCo needs a catchy slogan to bedazzle the American public into more stupefied taxpaying for corporate welfare on behalf of weapons makers and defense contractors.
In addition, national mind control can proceed under the guise of, “Information Warfare” by the Pentagon and the intelligence services.
Obviously when, according to Susan Milligan of the Boston Globe,
President Bush prepared the nation yesterday for a “long struggle” against enemy forces in Iraq and around the world and said more US troops would be needed to confront the global terrorist threat,
he needs to be able to explain how the “long struggle” and “additional troops” will “confront” the “threat.” The reporters aren’t asking the obvious question, which is, “How does more translate into better?”
The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts clearly show that our leaders are not confronting the “threats” appropriately, but are squandering taxpayers’ money in a misguided blitzkrieg of runaway spending.
The more we spend and the more people we kill, the less “safe” we get and the more dangerous the “terrorists” become.
Obviously, another response to terrorism and sectarian violence is needed than terrorism and military intervention. If we want peace instead of terrorism and war, we should be constructive instead of terrorizing and threatening.
Terrorism is a crime, not a causus belli. What is also a crime is deceiving the American people about this distinction in order to keep them in fear and abjection, selling their grandchildren into economic slavery.
.
VERY ESSENTIAL: IRAQ NOW AND NEVER WAS PART OF AL QAEDA TERROR!
BARNICLE: I think one of the things that people in Congress on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat–Michael Crowley alluded to this in terms of troop levels. This president and this Joint Chiefs of Staff were asked to increase troop levels years ago, months ago, from the inception of the war in Iraq–which is no longer the war on terror, it`s just a miserable civil war. This is not the war on terror in Iraq.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Look at the ‘war on terror’ this way:
Why would the US want and intend civil war raging across the Middle East, apparently threatening strategic interests like oil supplies and the security of a key regional ally, Israel? The era of the Middle East strongman, propped up by and enforcing Western policy, appears well and truly over. His power is being replaced with rule by civil war, apparently now the American Administration’s favoured model across the region.
Fratricidal fighting is threatening to engulf, or already engulfing, the occupied Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Iraq. Both Syria and Iran could soon be next, torn apart by attacks Israel is reportedly planning on behalf of the US. The reverberations would likely consume the region.
Western politicians like to portray civil war as a consequence of the West’s failure to intervene more effectively in the Middle East. Were we more engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or more aggressive in opposing Syrian manipulations in Lebanon, or more hands-on in Iraq, the sectarian fighting could be prevented. The implication being, of course, that, without the West’s benevolent guidance, Arab societies are incapable of dragging themselves out of their primal state of barbarity.
But in fact, each of these breakdowns of social order appears to have been engineered either by the United States or by Israel. In Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq, sectarian difference is less important than a clash of political ideologies and interests as rival factions disagree about whether to submit to, or resist, American and Israeli interference……