There Is No War On Terror (link)

[mymomwasright]

Excellent article by Robert Dreyfuss! Forgive me, if it was posted previously.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/13/there_is_no_war_on_terror.php

[mike_c]

1. K&R-- excellent article-- the WOT is a scam, and dems seem to be...

...utterly taken in by it. This is a MUST READ article.

[havocmom]

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.

[mb7588a]

4. 90% to pentagon? oh my god. nt.

[havocmom]

6. Yep, 90% of the funds for WOT to the department least able to do anything

about any real terrorists or the root of terrorism. What the Pentagon IS best at is creating conditions where more terrorists will foment more problems that the Pentagon can't address.

Oh, and the Pentagon excels at funneling $$ to companies which end up offering cushie jobs to people who retire... from the Pentagon after careers of funneling money. Nice retirement if you can get it. Too bad about all the injured vets created by the diversion of War On Terror. Not enough money to take care of them. They should have saved more, I guess :eyes: Isn't that how Cheney explains the plight of the not rich and famous?

[FoxOnTheRun]

7. Someone has to fill up the missing trillions. eom

[BootinUp]

3. Just what we need

to be complacent about terrorism. The truth is it has always been a threat since the 70's and will continue to be a threat until the world deals with the underlying issues that drives terrorism. I disagree with efforts to downplay or explain away the threat, especially considering the ongoing wars in the Middle East. We don't have to play the wrong cards to beat Bush and the Repukes fear mongering, we just need to be the adults.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Oh, BushCo will be donning the Al Qaeda sockpuppet to hit us again...

Probably soon. And then it will be WWIII.

And, by and large, Democrats will be scrambling all over themselves to prove just how "tough on terror" they can be.

What happens next?

Will BushCo succeed in taking over the world's remaining oil? Doubtful. Every day the East grows stronger and the West weaker in all measures except in Weapons of Mass Destruction. Ironic that.

Will we lose in said bid? Not without a fight where ALL weapons are used.

Will a group eventually emerge to truly challenge BushCo? That is my hope.

[AntiFascist]

20. When will the War on Terror become....

a war between the Shadow Government and the people of the United States? The criminals need to be locked away as soon as possible. I worry about things like the spinach incident, or anthrax mailings, getting out of hand.

[Subdivisions]

11. I agree with your summation, however

I disagree with the overall tone of your message. Yes, the threat of terrorist attacks is not new and we should be vigilant. But that vigilance can be best served by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies just as it has been, for the most part, right up to 9/11, while continuing to engage in diplomacy, which has proven fruitful time and time again.

As to whether or not there are "efforts to downplay or explain away the threat", I respectfully disagree. If simple facts (such as the fact that there has not been a single terrorist captured of the supposed 5000 Bush claimed were here in sleeper cells) are what "downplays" the threat, where is the issue?

And as for the "ongoing" wars in the Middle East, it would seem to me that most of that conflict, ie: the Israel/Hezbollah 34-day War, is provoked by the US/Isreal alliance and their foreign policy objectives, which are the same objectives espoused by PNAC.

[BootinUp]

12. "ongoing" as in currently in progress.

That word may have been ambiguous.

There are claims in the article from the OP that the author can't prove any more than BushCo's claims. Its not the kind of article that would be helpful in today's political environment. Debate about the threat is fine, but the article headline sets the tone and there is plenty of over reaching. Then go to the article he refers to and what do you find? A rather confusing argument on how serious the threat is and whether we have made any progress in reducing it.

[Amonester]

5. Even Gonzo (after a long "hesitation") acknowledged it's NOT a war

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601359.html

But don't count on the Corporate $tream medias to ever report on this incriminating "acknowledgement".

So what was that 1/2 trillion $ for (so far)?
(We, here, know the answer...)

IRAx FOR SALE
http://iraqforsale.org/
(The x is a Q or/and an N, imo.) :grr:

[Solly Mack]

9. Yep. agree. Total sham.

[BootinUp]

13. So having major landmarks and skyscrapers

bombed every 5 years or so is normal everday stuff?

[Solly Mack]

14. LOL Kisses

[BootinUp]

16. My strawman was a result

My strawman was a result of guessing at your logic, and also a result of my frustration at the article. Heres my analysis of the article.

There is no war on terror.

I. The threat of terrorism is wildly exaggerated.
Other attacks will happen on American interests does he deny this? And in the final analysis Americans don't want to get blown up, and they want their government to prevent it. This argument he is making is a loser.

II. II. Al-Qaida barely exists at all as a threat.
Apparently the Taliban are once again regrouping in Afghanistan and Pakistan, many have been released from Pakistan prisons, there is significant support in Pakistan for the Taliban and Bin Laden, there are plenty of radicals trained in the art of terrorism still looking for a new home. They hate the infidel America more than ever. Sure they are hurtin now, and so the author can make a case on that basis and people who want to forget about the threat apparently fall for it.

III. III. There is no Terrorist International.
Fine I'll give him that one.

IV. Iraq will not, and could not, fall to al-Qaida.
True, but who said Al Qaeda wanted to run the government, they just need a base of operations. If Iraq is divided into three states, Al Qaeda very well could find a home in the Sunni province.

V. The Taliban is not al-Qaida.
True, but his claim of problems between Al Qaeda and the Taliban does not convince me they would not become allies again. Any state that is run as poorly as Afghanistan was could harbor terrorists like Al Qaeda. Bin Laden is still seen as influential inspirational by many in the Arab world.

VI. Neither Iran nor Syria sponsor anti-U.S. terrorism.
I seriously question whether the author's intelligence data is any more real than what we hear from Bushco.

VII. It is not a “war.”
In the military sense that is true. In the political sense it is false.

VIII. There were never any al-Qaida sleeper cells in the United States.
Really? Where does he get this intelligence? He falls back to "no attacks in five years." Great that settles it, its over. If this is how Democrats think then why they blaming Bush for LIHOP? Oh and never mind about the plots and attacks we do know about in the last fiver years just because they weren't in the US.

IX. Vulnerabilities are not threats.
See my response to number eight.

X. No one is in charge.
This doesn't even pertain to his article premise far as I can tell.

[Solly Mack]

17. ROFLMAOPIMP

Jim4Wes said:" My strawman was a result
My strawman was a result of guessing at your logic, and also a result of my frustration at the article. Heres my analysis of the article "

Okey-dokey

[BootinUp]

18. you read it already? n/t

[BootinUp]

21. So whats the ....PIMP

part of the acronym? (Maybe I can get you to post more than three words.)

[malaise]

10. Great read

Truth will out. Fugg Bushco and their lies.

[indepat]

15. There is a war of terror and fear on the American people it could be

argued, a reign of terror on the Constitution, the rule of law, and this Republic, once the land of the free and home of the brave.

[bvar22]

19. Its NOT a War....Its a CON JOB!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[BootinUp]

22. The party you want wouldn't run the country just

argue damn semantics!

[bvar22]

23. ?

Slowly back way from the bar, and have the designated driver take you home.