Thread: "War on Terror" a hoax

Ever wondered why Bin Laden is still at large and operating?
Catching Bin Laden has not been a priority, but "regime change" in the ME:

Yes, the Pentagon did want to hit Iran
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's recently published account of the Iraq war decisions.
...
Feith's book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing "new regimes" in a series of states by "aiding local peoples to rid themselves of terrorists and to free themselves of regimes that support terrorism".
...
General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

I said from the beginning, you can't fight a war on 'terror', as terror is a war tactic, not an actual enemy, so this so-called war was never going - or intended - to end. Regime change (invading a country for this purpose is illegal under international law, I believe) was the aim from the start.

Originally Posted by Shitman

this so-called war was never going - or intended - to end.

disgraced former sec of defense rumsfeld used to refer to it as 'the long war'. but that was quickly dropped when they came to realize that iraq would be longer than they thought.

what a mess.

If, Feith, the Jewish Zionist published a book, I am curious to read it.

Thanks for the heads up, Stroller.

Really though, haven't we known this for several years?

I suppose the great unwashed will read it a bit more now, and think that it is news.

Boy, those neo-con's screwed it up in one helluva big way.

Originally Posted by Milkman

If, Feith, the Jewish Zionist published a book, I am curious to read it.

he was interviewed on 60 minutes a few weeks ago (attempting to hype his book, but only confirming tommy franks' opinion of him), and it's probably still online.

Originally Posted by sabang

Really though, haven't we known this for several years?

I suppose the great unwashed will read it a bit more now, and think that it is news.

Boy, those neo-con's screwed it up in one helluva big way.

Again, a big negatory on that K. Sabang.

Iraq being the locus of Terror - better there than the streets of your hometown, eh? These islamofascists aren't going to give up the goal of restablishing a Caliphate with strict Sharia Law just because we want 'em to.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Iraq being the locus of Terror

I'm tossing up whether that was the biggest screwup of all. Iraq only became a 'locus of terror' (others would say resistance) after the invasion.

But I suspect the decision to arm and fund the Afghan Mujahadeen might just carry the prize.

You have only got to look at the distribution of US troops in the M.E. to see where their priorities lie. And now the Yanks are crying for more NATO support in Afghanistan. The whole thing would be a bloody joke if it wasn't so serious with hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians being killed.