You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #2: Thanks for posting. Good, SOLID arguments [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thanks for posting. Good, SOLID arguments
Heres's a list of the sub-headings:

I. The threat of terrorism is wildly exaggerated.
II. Al-Qaida barely exists at all as a threat.
III. There is no Terrorist International.
IV. Iraq will not, and could not, fall to al-Qaida.
V. The Taliban is not al-Qaida.
VI. Neither Iran nor Syria sponsor anti-U.S. terrorism.
VII. It is not a “war.”
VIII. There were never any al-Qaida sleeper cells in the United States.
IX. Vulnerabilities are not threats.
X. No one is in charge.


One concise paragraph for each sub-heading. Solid logic and analysis of how the whole thing is fabricated. Fabricated for what reason? Well, as Dreyfuss points out, you can't fight a "war on terrorism" because:

Although the Pentagon has garnered 90 percent of the money for the so-called war on terrorism, and although the Pentagon’s special operations command is supposedly in charge of the “war,” it is not a war. Terrorism cannot be fought with tanks, planes and missiles. The Defense Department cannot invade the London suburbs or mosques in Hamburg or the teeming cities of Pakistan. Cells of angry Muslims will coalesce spontaneously to seek revenge for real or alleged wrongs for decades to come. That is a problem for the CIA, the FBI, and, especially, foreign police and intelligence services, not Donald Rumsfeld’s legions. “I hate the term ‘global war on terrorism,’” John O. Brennan, who headed the National Counterterrorism Center until last year, told me. “The Department of Defense and others insist very strongly on calling it a war, because that allows the Pentagon to prosecute the military dimension of the conflict. It fits their strategy.”


It is just a con job, a cover to empty the US Treasury into the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex, then use an empty Treasury as the reason to have to gut all the social spending and funding of our national parks, forests, our very heritage.

If they can't steal it, they plan to sell it off. And there will be no money of Grandma Millie, the little old lady those ENRON employees so callously figured it was OK to fuck.

Every good con has a cover that looks very sound. War on Terror: who really benefits? Follow the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC