What's the end game?

Originally posted by Kahuna
So just what were the attacks on 9/11 all about if they were not an attack on freedom and what America stands for?

It was an attack on freedom.
FYI Osama said he didn't do it.... www.prisonplanet.com

Originally posted by Kahuna
FYI in case you hadn't remembered WWII was 60 years ago. In addition, Canada also fought in Korea (something everyone seems to forget, including a lot of Canadians) but since then their military has gone downhill fast and is picking up speed. They buy second hand submarines which catch on fire and kill sailors

From recent news, the US has submarines that run aground and kill sailors. Your point?

So just what were the attacks on 9/11 all about if they were not an attack on freedom and what America stands for?

LOL good question. The answer: this was an attack on the Amrican policies in the Middle East, and not democracy or anything. The policies include the military presence in Saudi Arabia (which now shifted to Iraq) and 100% support of Israel.

It was an attack on the value of the United States. Values like democracy. And democracy is what people like that fear the most.

No, that sound really silly.


[edit on 18-1-2005 by Aelita]

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I keep thinking about the "War on Terror", and wonder what the logical conclusion to this could possibly be.

Terrorism could be considered many things, to include the actions of a few "patriots" in the early part of this country as well. As I've always said, the only difference between a terrorist and a patriot, is what side you are on.

So, has anyone any ideas as to the official end game, theorized any closure, etc on this War on Terror?

Identify the opening gambit for a peek of the end game. We opened up by having an agenda formulated by the Neo-Conservative wing of the Republican party on how they would not only establish rule domestically, but also map global hegemony. Part of it is somewhat altruistic, in a Darwinian sense; the three powers on our tail , the EU/ Russia /China, are sure to establish their quest for hegemony just as nefariously. ( note: the whole "Fall of the Soviet Union" ploy has put Russia leagues ahead of where they would have been had they continued the public face race. Now, they have a tremendous capitalistic mechanism, are established as a global energy resource player, and have an even stronger single party rule format......yeah, we "WON" the Cold War! All we did was get played like a Carnival rube!! ) The EU being the least threat, since their is no cohesive military arm to their quest - military initiatives with broad coalitions of equal partners tend to break easily.
So based on the interpretation ( Neo Con) that the US has to adopt a FASCIST MODEL in order to survive, the End Game has met all of it's objectives , save for the institutionalization of single party power. That will be gospel, should this Bush Cabal survive this term without being brought to justice.
SO, we've made an overwhelming enemy where there was none, mobilized capital and popular opinion towards it's destruction before it brings about ours, and instituted a modern day Manifest Destiny on a global scale. The complete corporate ownership of these initiatives are the needed proof in the pudding; corporations allowed the power grab by not reporting or boycotting funds, have reaped the profits and continue to quell opposite opinion by not reporting the malfesance.
In basic terms, the End Game to the War on Terror was single party rule enabling corporate rule, thus establishing a "domestic market" even in non-domestic regions.

Line up for your bar code , CITIZEN!

Where did I ever say that the U.S. was a democracy? I said we value democracy.

So you are saying that all countries should just sit back and wait to be attacked. So if you see a nation preparing for war, massing troops on your border, just sit there and wait and see....

I agree you can't live in fear of terrorists and terrorists acts. You have to live your life. But to not do anything to try to stop terrorism is just plain stupid. So how does attacking terrorists and those countries who breed, sponsor and harbor terrorists diminish my freedom? Take the fight to them.

Originally posted by Kahuna

Originally posted by Vegemite
It will never end. It is just like the War on Drugs. Billion dollars are being spent to make drugs/ terrorism more profitable, in a matter of speaking.
The terrorists will always be there as long as we keep displeasing them. There like Internet trolls the only way to beat them is to ignore them

You are right -- you can never stop all terrorists. You will never be able to always stop the single nutcase who is willing to die for his cause. What you can do is stop organized terrorism and state sponsored terrorism and make way more difficult for that lone terrorist to accomplish anything of value. Ignoring them only gives them time to get stronger. Clinton ignored the Al Queda threat for 8 years and look what happened. Britian didn't get anywhere with the IRA by ignoring them.

As for the war on drugs -- it has (like many government things) been done half-assed at best. If you really wanted to stop it, it could be done but no one has the political balls to do it.

The whole tactic of Terrorism is to make Terror. If people stayed calm but not afraid it wouldnt work they will give up.

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by Kahuna
FYI in case you hadn't remembered WWII was 60 years ago. In addition, Canada also fought in Korea (something everyone seems to forget, including a lot of Canadians) but since then their military has gone downhill fast and is picking up speed. They buy second hand submarines which catch on fire and kill sailors

From recent news, the US has submarines that run aground and kill sailors. Your point?


At least we didn't send them out in second hand junk.

So just what were the attacks on 9/11 all about if they were not an attack on freedom and what America stands for?

LOL good question. The answer: this was an attack on the Amrican policies in the Middle East, and not democracy or anything. The policies include the military presence in Saudi Arabia (which now shifted to Iraq) and 100% support of Israel.


Let's see -- we were occupying Saudia Arabia by force or allowed in there by a legitimate government.

It was an attack on the value of the United States. Values like democracy. And democracy is what people like that fear the most.

No, that sound really silly.


Really? Show me a fundamentalist muslim country run by a democracy?

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Aelita]

Originally posted by Kahuna
Let's see -- we were occupying Saudia Arabia by force or allowed in there by a legitimate government.

The so-called "legitimate govt" is a first rate tyrannical regime, and the US is happy to have it this way. I dont' see the US spreading democracy in Saudi Arabia, do you?

Well, the terror attack was an atempt to put pressure in the US to change it's affiliation with the House of Saud. To a degree, it worked. However, the US blind support for Israel endured.

Originally posted by Kahuna
So you are saying that all countries should just sit back and wait to be attacked. So if you see a nation preparing for war, massing troops on your border, just sit there and wait and see....

Iraq was not massing troops on the US border,
nor was it preparing for war.
If such a case was occuring (ie. cuban missile crisis) Then it can be taken care of, through whatever means are applicable.
I'm saying that The US Neo-Cons ARE terrorists in the truest sence of the word.

I agree you can't live in fear of terrorists and terrorists acts. You have to live your life. But to not do anything to try to stop terrorism is just plain stupid. So how does attacking terrorists and those countries who breed, sponsor and harbor terrorists diminish my freedom? Take the fight to them.

Because the atmosphere of fear allows the elite to pass such freedom robbing policies as the patriot act 1 and 2.
if you give up your freedom to be safe, you are niether safe or free.

I think perhaps we need to invest less in the defense of our country abroad, and worry about the investment in domestic security and fixing the multitude of problems we have right here.

Terrorism is not a new concept, but the US policy in many parts of the world is wrong plain and simple (although it might not seem like it when you aren't on the business end of our paperwork).

We ignore genocide the world over. Not once was the point raised by the Bush administration that thousands of thousands of children die from these dictators (and there are quite a few).

Yet we do nothing.

Iraq is the answer?

No.

The neo-cons would say you have to pick your battles.

They pick the ones that make them the most money.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Halfofone]

Do you guys even think it's possible that Bush and his buddies are not trying to take over the world?

What the REAL end game will look like?

Terroists sneak a nuke and detonate it on US soil, who-where-when, who knows but immediately after that, the U.S. rightfully will nuke the location of the camp the terrorist came from but definitely WILL bomb something for some reason. And that, I feel, will be the end game. 2 spots on earth get nuked, the entire world gets the pissed scared out of it and a hundred years of peace are to follow. I believe in Nostradamus's prediction of WW III, which many believe envolves nukes and "1,000's of years of peace". We always pressumed the 1,000 years of peace was due to the fact we thought the earth we be unliveable because of all the nukes used in WW III. I believe the use of nukes in our current "war" we are in we be limited and when the pictures come back of the devastated cities that were nuked on both sides, the world will cry out and the antinuke society will quadruple and world peace will finally be obtained.

Originally posted by Kahuna
You think waste of money. I think incredible investment.

Woot, look at that money fly away!

Investing in death is less encoraging when you look at what you could have had instead.

"Oh, im sorry billy but you'll have to die, because the money we set aside for your immunizations are needed to buy an artillery shell so we can bomb a poor Iraqi family."

...

Let's look at some of those up to date facts shall we?

"Instead, we could have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for: 50 years."

"Instead, we could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for: 6 years."

"Instead, we could have fully funded world-wide AIDS programs for: 15 years."

"Instead, we could have built: 1,358,072 additional housing units."

War.... It's fantastic.



[edit on 20-1-2005 by Johnny Redburn]