It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The "War on Terrorism" is Bogus!

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2003 @ 04:37 PM


"Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".

The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".

Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways."......

This is a very good read and deserving of attention and thought.
Did the 9/11 attacks give the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its "superpower" status or for global dominance?

Here is some further things I dug up on PNAC:

PNAC= Project for a New American Century and it was written up by the JewishInstitute for National Security Affairs.

The Earlier Document they call about was Clean Break: A strategy for securing the (Jewish) realm, it was put together by the IsraeliThink tank the Institute for Advanced Political and Strategic Studies.

Does this underpin a/an Jewish Conspiracy or not?
Found this informative article:
"The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel"

And this one:
"Ghost Riders in the Sky...."

The above 'theory' doesn't require 10 or 20 patsies to understand. I mean, who would bank on 20 people (nay, brainless hacks) to pull this off? No-one with any knowledge of military planning, I say. I'd have gone the Global Hawk route from the start, and used the brownies as red herrings, were I running this op.

Which is what I suspect happened. Else how the high-g turns? It's much easier to fake airport surveilance tapes of passengers than radar tracks and flight envelopes.

So, for all the good of people criticizing Bush for being, well, lame, I do not think it serves us well to stop the criticism at "iraq" or "neo-con". Red herring, all the way.

Those MUST be the straw men. I'm beginning to think the CIA is about ready to be sacrificed for the coverup. They've been getting some poor press.

It's weird. I feel like I know the players, and the goal, and now I'm just watching the minions fumble around trying to get these mystery orders right. Watch the press. Not what they say, but about whom and when.

It's all damage control.

I'm not saying "ghost riders" IS what happened, only that it explains how these incompetents who are supposed to be terrorists could possibly pull off the stunt, ie: by not interfering. In fact, it doesn't seem plausible (to me) to pull it off at all, if these ay-rabs are to play a role OTHER than patsy.
Reality is a pretty maleable concept. We humans are reality projectors. We have been duped into supporting this phony reality. We can just as easily project our own preferred realities, and this is what they don't want you to find out. This is one of the main reasons marijuana is a banned substance, it helps the dupe understand he has been duped.
There is a online grouping of some 70 professional pilots who are saying the same thing. Global Hawk is the only way that 9-11 could have been successfully carried out. It would have taken just one awacs plane over the region to do the deed.

Most of the people would prefer to stick their heads firmly in the sand (or up their collective butts) and refuse to acknowledge that truth. It would mean recognizing that their freedom is illusiory, that they - we - are no more than servants, thralls, to the frenzied faith of a "chosen few" and that - the truth - is more awful than the comfortable lie. Which is why those who stand by the truth and try to draw people's attention to it are so firmly derided and despised by those who'd rather watch the fireworks instead.

Motive is power and control
Means is money and the media
Who controls the money and media of the US and
indeed most of the so called Free world.
They have identities and names and their names and identities, not to mention their ethnicity is well known.

Comments or thoughts?


posted on Sep, 10 2003 @ 04:42 PM
i believe it is greater than what the masses think its over...
i do not believe oil is the main objective...
something greater than a momentary monetary possession lies there...

posted on Sep, 10 2003 @ 04:53 PM
I had read that the real reason was not oil, but oil money. I saw a giant theory on this posted online. The gist of the theory was that Iraq had either already switched or was switching to euros to price its oil, devaluing oil that was priced upon U.S. dollars and potentially setting up a time when the euro would become the standard for oil pricing.

posted on Sep, 10 2003 @ 05:06 PM
I would say that the majority of us with at least half a brain knew from the onset that this was not just about oil(completely). I still stand with the Euro vs. Dollar as a trading currency being a driving factor, hence:

discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role

There are also the strategic advantages of having large amounts of hardware and personnel pre-deployed to the region.
Yes, I agree that the PNAC report is a blueprint for world domination by the U.S.. There is no way anyone could dispute that fact. They seem to be succeeding as well.
My question is this:
What else would you do if you had the strings of the worlds ONLY superpower?

Disclaimer: I am NOT in support of this "blueprint" I'm just stating opinion and posing a question.


posted on Sep, 10 2003 @ 06:10 PM

Originally posted by bigsage
i believe it is greater than what the masses think its over...
i do not believe oil is the main objective...
something greater than a momentary monetary possession lies there...

It's about the return of 'Christ' in my opinion.

posted on Sep, 10 2003 @ 06:11 PM
who has half and who a full deck...
when credits are the standard trading currency,
those with more of the more powerfull form of currency has more credits?...
and who distuingshes that, raw products to be bartered?...
like a time before jhon law but doing it over again...

posted on Sep, 10 2003 @ 06:16 PM
To much text.. i will get a head ache if try to read it..

But Seekerof, if the POINT NUMBER ONE that you are making is that: "War on Terrorism is Bogus"..

Well like you all know i couldnt agree more..

makes me sick that today is god damn 11.9.2003

Who ever did WTC and Pentagon should have done it on Xmas.. so there wouldnt be this "hype" around in years after..

posted on Sep, 10 2003 @ 10:51 PM
This is an interesting counter debate to Bush's recent speech:

new topics

top topics


log in