WAR ON TERRORISM, ANOTHER INSIDE JOB
This is a modified version of the article cited below; it is just a SIN PERMISO sharing of info. All that is in brakets are my additions. HAZ, december 2, 2010.
In Nov 11 was published -in http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26797.htm- the most clear article on the war on terrorism. It is a nasty dirty business, suggest Phillip Giraldi in CFL, a business in which “it is reasonable to assume that close to a trillion dollars has been spent” only in the matter of gathering intelligence since the 9/11. The war on terrorism, he suggest, was invented or designed to justify spending still more money in a never ending cycle until the cash runs out. Who benefit from this waste of money? Michael Chertoff “who headed the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush, and now is a partner in a company that sells security equipment for airports. He is not alone. [Behind] is the hidden empire of the military industrial complex with tentacles into nearly every congressional district that supports the endeavor”. Please open the original document IN http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26797.htm Here some extracts of this article:
Zero Based Terrorism. By Philip Giraldi. November 11, 2010. Original in "CFL", Nov, 09, 2010--
There is indication that the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives will support an open ended policy to "win" in Afghanistan, whatever that means. The Republicans would also support extending the war on terror to include the most recent in Yemen and the perennial favorite Somalia. The only fly in the ointment is the presence of a bloc of Tea Party Republicans in the new majority, a group that might be inclined to support American imperialism in all its glory but will be opposed to paying for it through higher taxes and an expansion of the military to actually do the fighting.
[Officially] Obama’s budgeting is $80 billion for intelligence programs for 2011. That figure is certainly too low, as many programs are hidden in other budgets or secretly funded because of their sensitivity. And it is reasonable to assume that the intelligence budget has been elevated since 9/11, meaning that something close to a trillion dollars has been spent. If one also includes part of the defense budget, which has doubled since 2001 based on the terrorist threat, the numbers are staggering, with Washington spending a minimum of two to three trillion dollars countering the terrorist menace, creating a massive governmental and private sector infrastructure ostensibly dedicated to keeping Americans safe.
[Given] a series of letter bombs which did not explode and did no damage, the call is for increased security, costing many more billions of dollars which will enrich former senior officials like Michael Chertoff. Chertoff, who headed the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush, now is a partner in a company that sells security equipment for airports. He is not alone. Security has become a vast and lucrative enterprise for those in the military industrial complex with tentacles into nearly every congressional district that supports the endeavor.
What about the terrorist threat itself? Most Americans would be surprised to learn that no US citizen has been killed in the United States since 9/11 by an actual member of any of the groups that the State Department defines as "terrorist." Recent attacks were carried out by "loners," individuals who wanted to get even for US attacks on Muslim civilians worldwide. As Ron Paul has noted, they have attacked us because we are over there, in foreign lands killing civilians. If, as FOX news pundits frequently claim, terrorism is all part of a worldwide "Islamofascist" conspiracy to establish the Caliphate and kill unbelievers, it is all pretty lame.
People [[we intentionally suppress “The Tea Partiers”]] should look at both sides of the balance sheet before casting their votes on a continuing resolution to continue the war on terror. Assuming that Washington has spent some trillions of dollars against terrorists, it is important to note what the actual threat is and to evaluate what has been accomplished.
The fact that both Democratic and Republican administrations have been able to repeatedly cite "terrorism" to justify everything should suggest that either there are millions of terrorists running loose or that the policy to restrain them has failed. In spite of the most intensive manhunt in history, Usama bin Laden might or might not be still alive, but even if he is dead it has not been due to any effort by Washington to kill him. And the [vast amount of] money poured down [by the] government has not exactly hit the target. [We spent as]the terrorist groups operating in 2001 are still around, [that is] possibly by design to justify spending still more money in a never ending cycle until the cash runs out.
[[HAZ Note: In the last part of this article “the dog is barking to a wrong tree”. The tea party is a bunch of war-mongers and opportunists ready to be bribed and to accommodate into the establishment. This message should have been directed to people, I mean, to grass root organization and middle class unions and associations.
Let's read these last two paragraphs with my corrections added:]]
People should be asking themselves what exactly all the money is buying and should begin to question the bipartisan national security policy that has the United States invading and occupying country after country in an attempt to fix other people's problems. People should begin to ask just what would happen if the American voters were to finally demand that the Pentagon close its seven hundred bases overseas and bring our people home as part of a policy of non-intervention as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. America might then become free to be a hegemony based not on military might but on values and good example. Just imagine what that would be like.
Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served 19 years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. [[Go to the original doct to read the full article]]
Nuestro sistema politico es absoleto pues recrea el poder economico y politico de trasnacionales y socios internos quienes impiden el desarrollo sostenido del pais. La nueva democracia tiene que armarse a partir de organizaciones de base en movimiento. Imposible seguir recreando el endeudamiento, el pillaje y la corrupcion. Urge reemplazar el presidencialismo por parlamentarismo emergido del poder local y regional. Desde aqui impulsaremos debate y movimiento de bases por una NUEVA DEMOCRACIA
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario