Global War on Terror a fraud

[Paul Baxter #4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071102710.html

Why are these views so starkly at odds with what the Bush administration has said since the beginning of the "Global War on Terror"? This administration has heard what it has wished to hear, pressured the intelligence community to verify preconceptions, undermined or sidetracked opposing voices, and both instituted and been victim of procedures that guaranteed that the slightest terrorist threat reporting would receive disproportionate weight -- thereby comforting the administration's preconceptions and policy inclinations.

We must not delude ourselves about the nature of the terrorist threat to our country. We must not take fright at the specter our leaders have exaggerated. In fact, we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are.


This is the second senior analyst, considered the expert in this subject matter, to come forward upon retirement and spill the beans. When you add in Imperial Hubris, written by CIA analyst Michael Scheuer under the pseudonym Anonymous, it exposes a very dirty little secret about the Global War on Terror; it is a disinformation campaign used domestically to curb our personal freedoms and allow the pillage of our treasuries.

Let the free-for-all begin!

[llama64]

Interesting... sounds very much like Naomi Klein was on to something.

Anyways, this guy is a bit late to the party. Everyone who has the capacity to understand the motivations behind the "War on Terror" has already come to the same conclusion. Those that hold out are the "true believers" and no rational argument will ever dissuade them from their path.

While protecting America from the credible threat that is global terrorism is a noble goal, it's a farce to actually believe that it was the true motivations behind the decision to attack Iraq.

[Gozer]

You've let the terrorists win! You fool!

[Traditional_Ale]

[Jayems]

In fact, we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are.

One of these things is not like the other.

They're not that big, useless at planning attacks, shouldn't be thought of as tough opponents, oh but they are deadly.

Tell that to the 9 dead Americans recently killed in an outpost ambush in Afghanistan this week.

No doubt this is a propaganda war, but I just don't understand how you can try and sneak in "lethal" into a sentence trying to downgrade their effectiveness.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

c'mon people if the truth about the war gets out, the terrorists win!

[dissentowner]

The biggest global terrorist by far is George Bush. Take away all the media and brainwashing and you see a man that invades countries, takes actions that invite hatred and conflict against his country, even fixes elections to keep himself in power. A man who turned the blame of 9/11 towards Iraq even though Bin Laden was the clear mind behind the attack and yet he has never been found. Of course it is awfully convient that the Bin Ladens have millions invested in the Bush family and Oil. Thank god his reign of terror will soon be at an end but the damage politically to the U.S. has unfortunately already been done.

[Slava]

I don't know anything about the war on terror, but I have heard a lot about the "War on Terra"!

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The biggest global terrorist by far is George Bush. Take away all the media and brainwashing and you see a man that invades countries, takes actions that invite hatred and conflict against his country, even fixes elections to keep himself in power. A man who turned the blame of 9/11 towards Iraq even though Bin Laden was the clear mind behind the attack and yet he has never been found. Of course it is awfully convient that the Bin Ladens have millions invested in the Bush family and Oil. Thank god his reign of terror will soon be at an end but the damage politically to the U.S. has unfortunately already been done.

World's most cunning mastermind?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Jayems

One of these things is not like the other.

They're not that big, useless at planning attacks, shouldn't be thought of as tough opponents, oh but they are deadly.

Tell that to the 9 dead Americans recently killed in an outpost ambush in Afghanistan this week.

No doubt this is a propaganda war, but I just don't understand how you can try and sneak in "lethal" into a sentence trying to downgrade their effectiveness.

The article isn't talking about Taliban forces and other similar military forces, but rather terrorist organizations (and regardless of whether the Taliban is listed as a terrorist organization by any watchdogs out there, they behave like a guerrilla army rather than terrorists).

I don't think the author is trying to 'sneak in' the sentiment that these forces are dangerous. He refers repeatedly in the article to the need to neutralize these organizations and individuals, and acknowledges the persistent desire of Al Qaeda to launch another attack on the US. But he makes an important distinction that all of these perceived extremists fighting against western interests in the middle-east are not part of any organized anti-american movement; they have goals, methods, and scope very different from Al Qaeda, and little connection to them.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by fotze

Generally I would take a box of tissues to be comment about tears, but it's Fotze.

[ShaolinFlame]

Originally Posted by llama64

Generally I would take a box of tissues to be comment about tears, but it's Fotze.

[Calgaryborn]

I think this statement is quite telling about the source: "I spent 23 years in the CIA. I drafted or was involved in many of the government's most senior assessments of the threats facing our country. I have devoted years to understanding and combating the jihadist threat. "

It's been well documented that the CIA were at odds with the administration from the first day Bush was in office. When 9/11 occurred there was also a lot of finger pointing both ways. Bush has since slowly purged the CIA of what he perceives as hostiles who would put political affiliation above country.

This raises a couple interesting questions: Was Carle one of the agents eventually forced to retire by the Bush administration? Was Carle part of the CIA brain trust who underestimated the rumblings heard before 9/11?

I can't be sure of the answer to the first question but, the second answer appears to be a "Yes".

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think this statement is quite telling about the source: "I spent 23 years in the CIA. I drafted or was involved in many of the government's most senior assessments of the threats facing our country. I have devoted years to understanding and combating the jihadist threat. "

It's been well documented that the CIA were at odds with the administration from the first day Bush was in office. When 9/11 occurred there was also a lot of finger pointing both ways. Bush has since slowly purged the CIA of what he perceives as hostiles who would put political affiliation above country.

This raises a couple interesting questions: Was Carle one of the agents eventually forced to retire by the Bush administration? Was Carle part of the CIA brain trust who underestimated the rumblings heard before 9/11?

I can't be sure of the answer to the first question but, the second answer appears to be a "Yes".

This is ridiculous. The reason the CIA and the Bush administration were at odds was because the administration was manipulating many intelligence reports and disregarding other reports to back up their policies. Let's also not forget that the CIA gave the administration warning weeks before the 9/11 in the now infamous memo.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't know anything about the war on terror, but I have heard a lot about the "War on Terra"!

Living in Boston, I pretty much always hear about the "War on Terra."

I also hear about the neighbour's "Irish Setta" and how he likes to "chase vamints," though. So....

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Bush has since slowly purged the CIA of what he perceives as hostiles who would put political affiliation above country.

Ha ha ha. This guy was hired under Reagan and served 4 Presidents. He retired in 2007. But if you are going to shoot the messenger and ignore the message, you'll find whatever it takes.

I think it's going to take a confession from George himself to convince some people that this thing hasn't been on the up-and-up since day 1.

[driveway]

The single greatest sacrifice that is required if one wants to live in a free society is that you make yourself vulnerable to people who wish to hurt you. The War on Terror as an ideological action is absurd on the level of Scientology or the Flat-Earth Society. It is purely an economic activity, and could possibly be a success, viewed through that lens.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't know anything about the war on terror, but I have heard a lot about the "War on Terra"!

Let me take this one for Calgaryborn

"the ice caps are not melting; rather, the water has been liberated".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is ridiculous. The reason the CIA and the Bush administration were at odds was because the administration was manipulating many intelligence reports and disregarding other reports to back up their policies. Let's also not forget that the CIA gave the administration warning weeks before the 9/11 in the now infamous memo.

The CIA has been incompetent and unable to do its job properly since Carter became President.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

The CIA has been incompetent and unable to do its job properly since Carter became President.

Still doesn't change the fact that they adequately informed this administration of an impending terrorist attack.