It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

US war on terror: the longest-ever knee-jerk reaction

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   

“Policymakers have a right to their own opinions, but not their own set of facts.”

These words belong to former CIA director George J. Tenet, the man many accuse of being indirectly responsible for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It is thought that the Bush Administration made the decision to deploy troops based on intelligence gathered by Tenet and his agency. But in his book “In the Center of The Storm”, the former director claims President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were determined to attack Saddam Hussein long before the tragedy of 9/11 – and frequently embellished intelligence reports in order to get support for the war.

The politicians’ desires had perfect timing, too. The post-9/11 nation was gripped by fear and insecurity, so that many readily believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Moreover, a Gallup poll taken in 2002 showed that most Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for the WTC attacks themselves. And their fear was used to fund the military campaigns US troops led around the world.

An argument can be made for the US invasion of Afghanistan at the time – it was a direct military response to an attack. But what began as a reaction was taken by the policymakers and changed into an action – one of military aggression and nothing shy of a hostile takeover. And as the days went by, bringing more and more casualties and taking away taxpayer dollars with it, many began to question these actions, wondering why one day in the United States justified 4000 days in Afghanistan, with hundreds of soldiers and civilians dying daily – and the fact that not one of the 19 people directly involved in the 9/11attacks was actually from Afghanistan.



The operation to kill all-time super villain, Osama Bin Laden, carried out by Navy SEAL commandos inside Pakistan with no notification to a supposed ally, was typical of the “war on terror”. Still, it gave hope to many, hope of bringing this costly – every possible meaning – war to an end. But instead, the FBI and Interpol have replaced Bin Laden with Gaddafi on their wanted lists as the devil du jour. And the war goes on…

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death,” said Dr Martin Luther King. He was speaking about the Vietnam War, but it is still appropriate today, because “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” – Dr King again – is still waging its clichéd war on terror – and does not look likely to stop.

endthelie.com...


A great article I found. This shouldn't be news to anyone but it is interesting to put it all in perspective here. As far as reactions go it was one of the most aggressive in history.

When we take a look at the death tolls from the war on terror in the graph provided we can see a pretty clear picture as to how strong a reaction it was. It seems to me that the war on terror was an action disguised as a reaction, an action which has entailed full scale unilateral military invasions of sovereign nations in a vaguely defined war on an emotion (terror).

The article raises some very interesting ideas and notions. How does one day in the US justify 4000 in Afghanistan? Have a read, Cheers




posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
It doesn't. You cannot wage war on terrorism just like you can't wage war on drugs. These "enemies" are concepts, not entities of any kind. What I cannot figure out is how there are enough people in DC that honestly do not fathom this line of reasoning (assuming of course that there was no hidden agenda). Can anyone honestly tell me that the same government who now has the world wiretapped and under satellite video monitoring could not possibly find and bring to justice those who were resposible for 9/11 in a more swift and cost efficient mannor?

PS- sry for the bad spelling, its late and im on a phone... you get my point
edit on 10-9-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
It doesn't. You cannot wage war on terrorism just like you can't wage war on drugs. What I cannot figure out is how there are enough people in DC that honestly do not fathom this line of reasoning (assuming of course that there was no hidden agenda). Can anyone honestly tell me that the same government who now has the world wiretapped and under satellite video monitoring could not possibly find and bring to justice those who were resposible for 9/11 in a more swift and cost efficient mannor?


first of all, they are not on ATS or leaving a large "footprint" anymore.

like all the training camps we knew of back in the day.

they got spanked.

we just killem' where we find em'.

you just kill the rats you find in your kitchen or try to get them all?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 


yes you try to get them all, but you don't default on your mortgage to buy rat traps. what good is having a rat free kitchen when the house has been foreclosed on?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Approximately 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attack. The U.S. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.Over the next 10 years many people killed. Innocent people, children. Many people abused, totured murdered. Many U.S. troops dead. Many , many more commiting sucide after returning home.

in 2001, the year of 9/11 approx. 42,000 people died in motor vehicle accidents in the U.S.

in the last 10years approx. 398,000 people have died in motor vehicle accidents in the U.S.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnySeagull
 


I dont really understand the point you're making with the car accidents, can you please elaborate? Very true what you're saying though.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


i guess the U.S. should be declaring war on people who drive cars.

they invaded 2countries, killed many people, after 3000 people were killed in a terrorist attack, yet over 10times that number die in car accidents every year in the U.S.

some people will argue that you cannot compare the 2. well maybe that is why i can't get my head around how this planet works.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnySeagull
 


The big difference is that people die in car ACCIDENTS, 3000 people didn't die in a terrorist accident, it was an attack. I can't see the logic in your statement man, car accidents are pretty irrelevant when you think about it....



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnySeagull
 


Good point man



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join