UK :
Israel:
Home | Business | Mid East | IDF| Judaism | Readers Stories | Muslim Zionism | Anti-semitism alerts | Forum |Today’s Weblog



related articles

Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11
The Goy Who Cried Wolf
New kid on the block – The American-Jewish lobbying group J Street
Mearsheimer and Finklestein Debate On Al Jazeera: INSIDE IRAQ Motives For War
Are You Listening, Joe Lieberman?
Time to Retire (Most of) the Old-Line American Jewish Organizations
Liberal Jews support Obama in part because they blame the Jews too
Is the Pentagon Policy Shop Funding Likudist Fronts?
Washington Post Columnist Gives AIPAC Talks on How to Help Israel in `08 Election
Yes, There Is a Guerrilla War Against Zionism in the U.S.
Jewish Neocons Are Dead Wrong, Not Disloyal
Again: The Natives Are Gettin Restless Over U.S. Policy Towards Israel
Taking on the Israel lobby
A Discussion with Walt and Mersheimer: The Power of the Israel Lobby
Right Ho, Lobby
‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ Cites Power of Israel Lobby. Who Gave Them Permission?
AIPAC Hijack: With Friends Like Theseā€¦
The Israel Lobby (part 2)
The Israel Lobby (part 1)
The Deadly Embrace – Zion-power and War: From Iraq to Iran (Part 3)
The Deadly Embrace – Zion-power and War: From Iraq to Iran (Part 2)
The Deadly Embrace – Zion-power and War: From Iraq to Iran (Part 1)


Neocons Admit that `War On Terror` Is a Hoax
Filed under: Middle East, Jewish diaspora, Terrorism around the world, USA foreign policy, News, Intelligence (foreign), Lobby Groups, USA news, Zionism
On: Friday, May 09, 2008 – By: Israel e News

Key war on terror architect Douglas Feith has now confirmed Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Wesley Clark in admitting that the so-called War on Terror is a hoax.

In fact, starting right after 9/11 — at the latest — the goal has always been to create “regime change” and instability in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon so as to protect Israel. And the goal was never really to destroy Al Qaeda.

As reported in a new article in Asia Times:
Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith’s recently published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith’s account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country’s top military leaders.

Feith’s book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing “new regimes” in a series of states

***

General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia [and Lebanon].

***

When this writer asked Feith . . . which of the six regimes on the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, “All of them.”

***

The Defense Department guidance document made it clear that US military aims in regard to those states would go well beyond any ties to terrorism. The document said the Defense Department would also seek to isolate and weaken those states and to “disrupt, damage or destroy” their military capacities – not necessarily limited to weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
 
Where does Israel come in?

Well, the Asia Times article continues:
Rumsfeld’s paper was given to the White House only two weeks after Bush had approved a US military operation in Afghanistan directed against bin Laden and the Taliban regime. Despite that decision, Rumsfeld’s proposal called explicitly for postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the use of ground forces in support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order to try to catch bin Laden.

Instead, the Rumsfeld paper argued that the US should target states that had supported anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas.


***
After the bombing of two US embassies in East Africa [in 1988] by al-Qaeda operatives, State Department counter-terrorism official Michael Sheehan proposed supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against bin Laden’s sponsor, the Taliban regime. However, senior US military leaders “refused to consider it”, according to a 2004 account by Richard H Shultz, Junior, a military specialist at Tufts University.

A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterized more than once by colleagues as a “small price to pay for being a superpower”.

And if “terrorist strikes” were a “small price to pay for being a superpower”- and that is the reason that the U.S. government refused to disrupt the alleged planners of the 9/11 attacks – doesn’t that add weight to the claim that the U.S. government intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur? In other words, doesn’t this statement by a senior officer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tend to prove that 9/11 was intentionally allowed to occur as the “New Pearl Harbor” which would allow America to act like “a superpower” and re-make the Middle East in its own (and Israel’s) image?

This is not an unreasonable question, especially given that Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and most of the other key architects of the “war on terror” were part of the Project for a New American Century and its plea for a “New Pearl Harbor” to justify expansion of American militarism and regime change in the Middle East.

And remember that many of the key members of PNAC and architects of the “war on terror” had previously created the “Clean Break” strategy for Israel, which called for a policy of war and regime change against Israel’s enemies.

The war on terror was never intended to be about fighting terrorism. As even Newsweek has now admitted, the war on terror is a hoax.
 

del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | reddit | Tailrank | Technorati |

Email This Article ... Printer Friendly ... Export to plain text document ... Export to MS Word Document ...




Talkback comments can be read by clicking on the blue headline, and replied to if you are logged in. An icon shows beneath the headline, if the writer has opted to receive emails. Clicking on will enable you to send a private email to the writer.

Please log in to post comments. We encourage Talkback participants to avoid posting comments that violate our code of conduct. Thank you for your co-operation.

Username
Password
Remember Me


First time here? Click here to register  Password reminder

 

 

all channels

search

Search News For: Search In:               Search Help

newspoll

forum
Click here

Israel e News RSS Israel e News feed

About us | Features | Islamic fundamentalism |Xtian Zionism| USA | Entertainment| Erotica | Authors | Donors | Contact us
copyright ©2006 israelenews.com all rights reserved