This is a warm-up to an article I'm working on and I thought I'd post a it here for you lovely P&R peeps. Since that fateful day back in 2001 on September 11th we have been fed info constantly on how every terrorist in the world is an imminent threat to the entire Western World and is coming to get us, although people in many parts of the world have lived with terrorism for decades, especially in countries like the United Kingdom. George W Bush has made the term "War On Terror ®" a very popular term, thanks in part to the mainstream media parroting the term at every god given opportunity. The "war" in Iraq is not going very well at all at the moment and people are beginning to see it for exactly what it is, and that is a sham, the house of cards is in danger of collapsing and the rats are starting to leave the sinking ship, Republicans are in turmoil with some of them even going as far as defecting because they can see that the public are beginning to smell a rat and are worried about what comes about when it comes to re-election. Republicans are now joining Democrats in asking for a troop withdrawal from the disaster created by the neocons because there is clearly never going to be a "victory", as if this is some kind of tacky PS3 war game. He's lost a few thousand troops through a very bad judgement, the main difference between real life and a PS3 game is that with the PS3 you can always reload a saved game. It is now just over six months since Bush announced his policy of escalation in Iraq to huge fanfare, especially by his friends at FOX, I remember that the most honest of men, Bill O'Reilly, a true bastion of truth and honesty even went as far to say, "We can’t force these people to stop killing each other. They’re either going to do it or they’re not, but now they know. Now they know. They’ve got six months and that’s it." Whether the superb media god Bill O has changed his mind considering that the six months have now elapsed is somewhat of a moot point as I can see Bill supporting this "War On Terror ®" for as long as he is told to do so. One of the ugliest women in the world, Condoleeza Rice said on the 12th January 2007 to Time Magazine, "Well, I think this will unfold — I think in the next few months you’re going to know whether or not this is working. They bring their forces in starting February 1st. They bring in another set of forces February 15th. And I think from then on you’ll have a good sense of how this is unfolding. So it’s not as if there is a date, at six months we’ll know and then we have to do something dramatic." Six months are up Condi. The main thing is that there is absolutely no chance of the US Administration coming out of Iraq any time soon, only last week General Petraeus said that "I don't know whether this will be decades, but the average counter insurgency is somewhere around a nine or a 10 year endeavour." Considering that we were initially told that Iraq would be a "cakewalk" this is odd news indeed. So on one hand we have got many senators asking for steps towards a troop withdrawal and on the other hand we are being told that it could take years and years before the situation is resolved. United Kingdom coalition forces are almost at breaking point because of the demands put upon them by efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Chairman Chairman Edward Leigh said, "The staffing situation has reached the point where there are simply not enough service people to meet levels of military activity planned some years ago - let alone the heightened demands now being placed on them by commitments such as the Iraq and Afghanistan operations." Seems like the UK's over zealousness to help the worlds policeman is having major effects in the "all singing, all dancing" mendacious "War On Terror ®" that Mr Bush reinvented on September 20, 2001 when he said, "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." The biggest worry is that as the fall of the house of cards is imminent barring some kind of major attack are we to expect something along the scale of 9/11 when 3,000 innocent civilians were killed happening within the next six months? The AP is already saying that (miraculously) Al Qaeda (are) Now as Strong as in Summer of 2001 Note the connotation to "just before September 2001." Al Qaeda is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States." It is worth bearing in mind that U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded this. Here is hoping that if there is a threat on U.S soil that the US is better equipped to deal with it than they were in 2001 when nineteen rouge terrorists armed with nothing more than box-cutters managed to commandeer four airliners and remain unchallenged in protected US airspace for over one hour before crashing into three out of four of their intended targets. It is rather ominous that the summer is traditionally the season where terrorist attacks are more likely including 2005 in the United Kingdom with the atrocities of 7/7 where four bombs went off with devastating effect, just two weeks later some Jihad wannabes had all their flour bombs fail and look a bit like a soggy pancake mixture that had gone rancid. Last year we had the utterly ridiculous "Liquid Bomb Plot" that wasn't even feasible. A couple of weeks ago three more car bombs utterly failed, thankfully. Rumour has it that the only thing that will save Bush and his bogus "War On Terror ®" is a huge attack that will of course bolster his failing approval ratings even though Mr Bush only has until the end of 2008 in the White House. Last month the new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval. "At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country." Of course we are all hoping that Mr Milligan was talking hypothetically but you never know with some of these Bush supporters.
You posted, "This is a warm-up to an article I'm working on..." That would indicate you are writing the article. But your article does not match up with the viewpoints that you have expressed on the forum. You have stated over and over that terrorists are not responsible for 911 and that you believe in a conspiracy theory that we blew ourselves up. But in your article you are trying to express some fake concern because we were not able to protect ourselves before from 19 terrorists with box cutters. You also said on the forum that the car bombs a few weeks ago were not real, that UK media just made it up. But now your thankfull the attempt was not successful? Which is it AGS?
Because I am submitting as a press release tomorrow and want it to be approved at as many places as possible. You've obviously never submitted a press release before Rebecca. If I launch in there as I would usually do here in P&R calling Bush & Co. terrorist scumbags (which they are) then it will not get accepted. If you read between the lines in my article you might be able to see that I am indeed ripping the piss out of Bush and his completly fake "War On Terror ®", and all the fake bombs and dumbass terror plots (especially in the case of the liquid bomb bullshit) that usually always fail miserably, but I feel you are a bit too dumb to actually see that.
You are far too dumb to see the irony in my quote aren't you? Read the article through again, it's what I call a "Controlled Bush bash." I think GTech will like the article because of the amount of self control I use. .
You are trying to get your propaganda out and really don't care if you have to lie to do it (In fact you are lying to do it). So, I point that out and your comeback is that I am dumb? You are a sad little person.
Im with Rebecca on this, 9-11 could never have been an inside job. Our government never lied to us about mossadegh, never lied about anything. Im on ur side all teh way rebecca. By the way would u care to check out some beachfront property in kansas i have for sale?
While I don't agree with with AGS conspiracy theories, That is a pretty naive viewpoint, you realy believe that governments never lie?
We are in Iraq because of the greed of our "so called leaders" who are very sick men, Cheney is only interested in Oil Company Interests, not the American people. The crooks in the White House were never elected by the American people, they are not working in the interest of the American people, they are a disgrace, even Republican Senators are turning against Cheney and will lead his impeachment if the will of the people is not worked. The house of cards fell long ago, only impeachment remains for Bush and Cheney.
thats a first....face it, if your boy Alex Jones gets ahold of this, then he might be mad at you, but then again, it goes to show that reporters will do anything to make some cash (which includes lying)....case closed, point proven.