Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Matrix

Jeremiah Cornelius's Journal: The Pseudo-War on Terror: METICULOUS 24

Journal by Jeremiah Cornelius

http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/4005?utm_source=October+7%2C+2013&utm_campaign

Peter Dale Scott

Since 9/11, above all, constitutional American government has been overshadowed by a series of emergency measures to fight terrorism. The latter have mushroomed in size and budget, while traditional government has been shrunk. As a result we have today what the journalist Dana Priest has called two governments: the one its citizens were familiar with, operated more or less in the open: the other a parallel top secret government whose parts had mushroomed in less than a decade into a gigantic, sprawling universe of its own, visible to only a carefully vetted cadre - and its entiretyâ¦visible only to God.1

...In the course of writing this essay, I came to another disturbing conclusion I had not anticipated. This is that a central feature of the protection has been to defend the 9/11 Commission's false picture of al-Qaeda as an example of non-state terrorism, at odds with not just the CIA but also the royal families of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In reality, as I shall show, royal family protection from Qatar and Saudi Arabia (concealed by the 9/11 Commission) was repeatedly given to key figures like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged âoeprincipal architect of the 9/11 attacks."

...The establishment claims that the wars fought by America in Asia since 9/11 have been part of a global âoewar on terror." But this "war," or pseudo-war, has been fought in alliance with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan - precisely the principal political and financial backers of the jihadi terrorist networks the U.S. has supposedly been fighting. Meanwhile the most authentic opponents in the region of these Sunni jihadi terrorists - the governments of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran - have found themselves overthrown (in the case of Iraq and Libya) subverted with U.S. support (in the case of Syria), or sanctioned and threatened as part of an âoeaxis of evil" (in the case of Iran). We should not forget that, just one day after 9/11, âoeRumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and âgetting Iraq.'"5

...I conclude that the pseudo-war has been fought for other motives than the official one of fighting terrorism - indeed few informed observers would contest the obvious and often-voiced observation, from U.S. intelligence analysts among others, that U.S. wars overseas (as opposed to intelligence and police actions) have radically increased the dangers of terrorism, not reduced them.7 Among the hidden motives, two stand out. One is the intention to establish a permanent U.S. military presence in the oil- and gas-rich regions of Central Asia. Another is to justify a permanent domestic apparatus, in part to contain the threat of opposition to militarist policies, opposition either by direct action or by the publication (as in this essay) of suppressed truths.8

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Pseudo-War on Terror: METICULOUS

Comments Filter:
  • When the West closed, there needed to be a new direction: Progress.
    And so they froze the size of the House in 1910, started an income tax & crippled the states in 1913, and brought in the Federal Reserve to fund vote-buying schemes.
    And from Wilson to FDR to LBJ to BHO, the government has grown, cancerously, with only occasional interruption.
    The last decade of Total War has been the final distraction, as Wilson's Folly grinds to a halt.
    The debt ceiling will be reached without compromise, the sun will
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      And from Wilson to FDR to LBJ to BHO, the government has grown, cancerously, with only occasional interruption.

      Yeah, right, just Democrats. Here's a hint, Smitty, the federal government has grown under every single President since FDR. It grew faster under Reagan than any previous President, grew faster under Bush than Reagan, government growth slowed somewhat under Clinton (who balanced the budget for the first time in ages) and EXPLODED under Bush II.

      Your partisanship is unwise, when it comes to most poli

    • ...the government has grown, cancerously, with only occasional interruption.

      Can/will you tell us when this/these period(s) of interruption actually happened?

      • You got me. Other than Reagan firing the air traffic controllers, my chief point here is that government may have grown more linearly under Republicans than the exponential Democrat efforts. But my point was weak.
        • You got me. Other than Reagan firing the air traffic controllers...

          No, I didn't. You're just trolling with your eternal Reagan worship. You ought to see somebody about that. Reducing the pay scale of people who actually do the work is not shrinking the government. In fact, no president did more to destroy the family than he (his puppet masters) did by eliminating the single income household and feeding the prison industry with escalation of the drug war... And getting back to that, since you claim to be all

          • You're just trolling by calling me a Reagan worshipper. I'm a Jesus-only kinda guy.

            Masters of accounting tricks they are.

            Let's just agree that our government doest do anything that can be reasonably called "accounting", OK? "Government accounting" is an oxymoron, you know it's an oxymoron, and there's no real point in maintaining a discussion without admitting it's an oxymoron.

            • Let's just agree that our government doest do anything that can be reasonably called "accounting", OK?

              :-) Fine by me. I shall refer to that when someone, say, you for instance, brings up the debt, or deficit. Now, back to the "liberty" question, yes or no?

              • And getting back to that, since you claim to be all for "liberty" 'n stuff, would you vote for or against a referendum, local or national, to end prohibition?

                I'm going to read 'prohibition' as 'war on drugs' and infer you mean:
                - Legalize all currently controlled recreational substances,
                - Cashier the DEA,
                - Un-incarcerate all prisoners held solely on drug charges.
                I could support that, given a time lag for states to write their own laws and figure out what they want to do on a per-state basis.
                But re-asserting state sovereignty should as well imply a load-shedding of the 16th Amendment, the Detp. of Education, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and all the other recreati

                • No, that's not an answer. It's quibbling. Why let the states decide? That's no different than the feds. Time isn't a factor. Prohibition is prohibition (which, by the way, includes all consensual acts where you can't scientifically prove harm to others. The "moral" garbage does not count), and liberty is liberty. Which do you prefer? That's why I asked how you would vote on such a referendum on abolition, even a statewide one, anywhere outside your house.

                  • Quibbling? It's the point of the 9th & 10th Amendments.
                    Our problem isn't our Constitution; it's the idiotic developments of the last century.
                    Why do you H8 the liberty to select one of 57 states that most conforms to your weltanschauung?
                    People don't scale, and the idea that you can produce some optimal, Procrustean solution is the height of conceit.
                    • :-) Yes or no? While your attempts at diversion and avoiding the question are admirable, where is your right to tell me what kind of plants I can cultivate, process, and possess, state, federal, or any other authority you try to claim over any other person?

                    • Oh, ah! See, I thought you were asking a practical question of law, not proffering a theoretical query pertaining to the social contract.
                      So I can see where you thought that by simply answering your question in a the manner of how I thought the country should proceed, you might think me engaging in some admirable diversion.
                      Returning to you theoretical inquiry, "where is your right?" the point here is that "we" are not asserting any specific, absolute right. Rather, "we" are pointing out that some people re
                    • Redistribute power, not wealth...

                      Even though I'm talking to the hand, I will remind you again that that is impossible. They are the same thing.

                      As to the question, where I could not have been more clear, I will have to take your non answer as a "no" to any referendum for abolition (to be even more obvious, specifically something similar to what was passed in Colorado and Washington), and thus the only logical conclusion is to say you are only for the liberties you personally approve of as dictated by your bi

                    • Even though I'm talking to the hand, I will remind you again that that is impossible. They are the same thing.

                      I suppose if you have a unified field theory, and can show that electricity and magnetism are the same thing, I might believe you.
                      But I know many people of power who lack money. And those with money are powerless to prevent their demise.

                      thus the only logical conclusion is to say you are only for the liberties you personally approve of as dictated by your bible.

                      Patently absurd. The Bible only pertains to important, eternal, spiritual, wholly voluntary matters.
                      The idea that faith can be legislated is false, and precluding such is a Primary. Reason. This. Country. Was. Founded. It is true that the President who signed DOMA, Clinton

                    • Like I said, you refuse to deal with the direct, very simple question at hand that only requires a simple yes or no, nothing more.. You have not connected any dots at all, and your obfuscation does not impress. It only confirms that you are not for liberty.

                    • I've told you that I'm for liberty, on federal Constitutional issues. I'm not interested in defining 'liberty' in any way at the State level. Would I not be taking the liberty from the residents of the other 56 states if I forced them to adhere to MY definition of liberty?
                      This thread seems to've become some wild intellectual judo on your part.
                    • I've told you that I'm for liberty, on federal Constitutional issues.

                      I wish you were around in the early 1800s. That would put you in favor of slavery as a matter of property rights. Prohibition (and the present one is far from constitutional, but it's no better when the states do it) is very similar, prison being the new slavery that it is. Arguing states rights puts you right into that camp. Qualifying liberty the way you do means you're not for liberty, except for some. You remain in favor of pri

                    • I wish you were around in the early 1800s. That would put you in favor of slavery as a matter of property rights.

                      Do you see how you've set me up with YOUR definition of liberty there?
                      I flatter myself that, as a matter of Christian faith, if this counter-factual were true, I'd've been amongst the abolitionists.
                      But what's more interesting and contemporary is the way the evil of slavery is being reborn, economically, in the form of debt.
                      We're cheerfully shackling unborn generations with a lousy economy, in the name of some bogus quest for #Fairness.
                      In Hell, Satan likely chuckles.

                    • We're cheerfully shackling unborn generations with a lousy economy...

                      Nonsense. If they grow any balls, they'll zero the books and start fresh. The"economy" is bullshit. Slavery is for real. The unborn better learn which is which and form a government that is not subservient to pirates.

                      And you shouldn't let the government define liberty. That is what you are doing when you base it on a 200 year old document written by aristocrats. The ink wasn't even dry before the authorities ripped it to shreds anyway.

                      I fl

                    • I am impressed at your willingness to sound all authoritative about counterfactuals based on a person with whom you've only this online acquaintance.
                      The mask slips, and what looks like an inner authoritarian seems to shine through.
                    • What authoritarian?? You're welcome to display yourself as you wish. I would prefer that you're playing a caricature of the goofs out there.

    • FIFY

      Corporate hegemony and capture of political agenda has grown, cancerously, with only occasional interruption.

      • I'll accept that edit, but what do you think is the remedy? I'd argue: competition born of removing barriers to market entry erected by corporate hegemons.

"You stay here, Audrey -- this is between me and the vegetable!" -- Seymour, from _Little Shop Of Horrors_

Working...