The War On Terror, Or The War For Terror?
The U.S. Is Inciting More Terror Than
It Stops. This Makes No Sense, Unless...
NewsFocus Op/Ed, by Tim Watts - 110811
With every military campaign, we have been led to
believe there is always an objective, but ever since the advent of the Wolfowitz
/ Bush Doctrine of unprovoked warfare, it would seem that objective has become
quite questionable for many Americans, and the international community as a
First we were told we had to attack Afghanistan to
kill the Taliban for not turning over Osama bin Laden, even though
they did offer to turn him over to Bush.
Then we invaded Iraq with Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Bush and Cheney both said that Saddam had ties to 9/11, so we had to ransack the
country, even though
Bush later admitted that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
And now we've attacked our third country since 9/11
with the unprovoked invasion of Libya and the
overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, under
U.S. charges that he was a brutal tyrant, even though Gaddafi was set to be
human rights award from the United Nations. Libya enjoyed the
standard of living in all of Africa, even better than oil rich countries
such as Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Russia. Some tyrant. He sure had the UN fooled.
Funny how he became a tyrant once he refused to no longer accept fiat money in
the form of U.S. Federal Reserve notes. This was the same mistake that Saddam
Wow. Three unprovoked invasions of innocent
countries since 9/11. Looks like the U.S. takes that Wolfowitz / Bush Doctrine
of unprovoked warfare to heart.
What ever happened to the "three strikes and
you're out" law?
With 700 bases in over 130 countries around the
world, it's hard to think we are "just helping out," especially when we
now consider offensive force to be our prerogative.
Another country we've bombarded is Pakistan. We've
been bombing them senseless with drone strikes since the Bush administration.
We've killed thousands of innocent civilians, including women and children. This
brutality has increased under the Obama administration.
research has revealed that the number of US drone strikes in Pakistan
has risen from one in 2004, to one every four days. Some say it
is much higher, but the figures are hard to get because
the U.S. won't detail every strike.
Officials in the U.S. continue to falsely
claim that drone strikes are ‘the most accurate weapon in
history’. Somehow I think thousands of dead Pakistanis would
dispute that contention, if we hadn't murdered them first. Some
claim over 168 children have been killed, but again, others say
the number is much higher.
So when did we declare war on Pakistan? Osama and the
CIA led Al Qaeda forces were the original reasons we supposedly started bombing
Pakistan, but Osama is long dead, certain enough after two separate death
admissions in both 2001 and 2011.
We supposedly went in to Pakistan to get Osama and
also Al Qaeda, very interesting since both are
long known assets of the CIA.
If you doubt this, do some hard research, as others already have. Be forewarned
first, the truth hurts and it isn't pretty.
Ask yourself this, how can we claim to be hunting Al
Qaeda in Pakistan when they are
working for U.S. interests in Libya? Al Qaeda fighting side by side with
Libyan rebels and NATO forces? Hard to believe for some, but it's true.
How is it we still claim to be hunting the Taliban
when we let them escape Afghanistan under Bush? Maybe that had something to do
first official Taliban meeting after stealing the presidency. Many suspected
U.S. was actually funding the Taliban in Afghanistan. That's right,
the U.S. was funding our alleged enemy.
So, if Osama is officially dead, twice over, and the
CIA originated Al Qaeda is working with the US in Libya, and we've been funding the
Taliban, what the heck are we doing blowing up wedding parties and civilian
gatherings with gutless drone attacks?
I use the term gutless because we are killing at no
risk to ourselves, using unmanned Predator and Reaper drone aircraft attacks.
Not that I want U.S. soldiers in harms way, because no one wants that, but we
kill civilians with no chance of being personally identified for war crimes, nor
risk the threat of being shot back at.
To this reporter, the best way to honor and support
our troops is to quit sending them into foreign lands to attack innocent
countries for greedy banksters who are too scared to put on a uniform
One quick aside... more US soldiers die as a result
of suicide now than they do in battle. Three years in a row this horrific figure
has risen. We are asking our soldiers to commit unspeakable atrocities that they
are having problems coping with, and it is clearly taking its toll. We dope them
up with dangerous psychotropic SSRI drugs and then leave them to cope on their
own. The drugs only exacerbate the horrors of war, along with a resulting
fragile mental state, an unnecessary burden for our beloved service men and
I say support our troops by bringing them home to a
normal way of life with their loved ones. Quit sending them into harm's way in
the first place.
The drone attacks are a new faceless way to wage
war. Fighting from a distance from the end of a joystick
disenfranchises the operator from the horror of war. Most drones are remote
controlled from Langely, Virginia, the home of the CIA. This remote killing makes the act seem like
just another level from the best selling software games Call of Duty, or Warfare, only
this is no X-Box or PlayStation video game. Real people die. Worse yet, innocent
civilians are murdered, including women, children, and the elderly.
All the way around, no matter how you look at it, it just seems
very morally wrong.
So who is the real terrorist?
After attacking and destroying three innocent
countries with unprovoked wars, it is a legitimate question to ask.
Like the incredibly futile (non-existent) war on
drugs, the war on terrorism can be viewed as an unwinnable war, which is why it
is so popular with neo-cons and the military industrial war machine. It was
purposefully set up this way, open-ended, for maximum profit.
When you think about it, the "war on terror"
is a vague, intellectually deficient term. They may as well have called it the
war on "bad," or my favorite moronic Bushism, a war on "evil-doers."
Barring the second coming of Christ, how is anyone going to end a war on bad
people, or terror?
Again, it was set up this way to be a never ending
war for profit. Most Americans are simply too shamefully stupid to realize the
absurdity of the phrase "war on terror."
The unmistakable horror of war in the last 100 years
is the rise in civilian casualties.
- In WW I, the civilian casualty
rate was roughly 40%.
- In WW II, the civilian
casualty rate rose to over 60%.
- Today, the civilian casualty
rate is a staggering 90%.
The end result of all this is clearly anti-American
sentiment. Even national security officials, including those involved in the
drone program, are warning that the drone strikes are increasing anti-Americanism and boosting recruitment
of rebels wanting to defend their homelands and fight back against the
unwarranted murders of their countryman and innocent civilians.
Note: we call these rebels, who rightfully try to
defend themselves and fight back against the senseless civilian slaughter of
A commanding three-fourths majority of Pakistani
residents oppose the U.S. drone attacks. Over half of those surveyed believe the
unmanned aerial drone attacks kill mostly innocent civilians. Even more
illuminating, sixty-percent believe that suicide bombings against the U.S.
military are, more often than not, quite justified.
Sify News of India, "The yearly report of Conflict
Monitoring Centre (CMC) has termed the CIA drone strikes as an
'assassination campaign turning out to be a revenge campaign."
The CMC report also accuses the US and Pakistan
of purposefully trying to hide civilian deaths. The report
alleges that the US and their bought-off Pakistani officials lack
any proper mechanism to assess the toll of civilian deaths. The
CMC report also
accuses them of blatantly overlooking civilian
ANI reported, "Civilian
casualties were deliberately overlooked to avert the public
Pakistan officials claim that 140 civilians are
killed for every one alleged terrorist. The US Brookings Institute
significantly tries to water that number down, saying that ten civilians are
killed for every militant.
I don't know about you, but even the latter figure
is an unacceptable loss of innocent human life. A ten to one ratio is appalling.
If the Pakistanis are correct, we are worse than Nazis.
Add it up any way you like, the innocent civilian
murder rate is criminal and barbaric.
Pakistan’s government reported that US aerial drones killed just civilians in 39
out of 44
attacks in 2009 alone. That year, over 700 innocent civilians were killed,
as estimated by the Pakistani press. In 2010, the death toll soared to over 950
What is most troubling is that Pakistan has
denounced the US attacks, yet we continue on, under our own pious, bully
So under what legal authority are we doing this? If
the official Pakistani government and its people are calling for the US to stop,
why in God's name are we attacking a country that is alleged to be an ally?
To coin an old phrase, with friends like the US,
who needs enemies?
In case you miss the obvious in this, when the
Pakistan government and its people are begging you to stop bombing their country and
killing innocent civilians, this makes the US guilty of war crimes. Period.
There can be no argument to the contrary.
If Pakistan were doing this to us in our country,
what would Americans think?
Despite numerous civilian protests throughout
Pakistan, including thousands in Karachi, the Pentagon says that it will double
its drone strikes in the next few years.
Presidential hopeful Ron Paul has stated,
everyone you kill, you probably create ten new people who hate our guts and would
like to do us harm."
No pun intended, but that's probably a conservative
This gets me to the long-winded point of this
piece... why are we doing this?
For what possible reason are we killing innocent
men, women and children, including the elderly? The question begs to be asked.
The senseless slaughter of innocent civilians creates more adversaries than we
can possibly deter. Just do the math.
In light of the previous facts already pointed out
above regarding a dead Osama, a US allied Al Qaeda, and a US funded Taliban
insurgency, why are we doing this?
What is our real purpose? What objective are we
If you learn one thing from this piece it is the net
effect of our actions... we are creating anti-American hatred, while seemingly
inviting retaliation from a another country, one which possesses nuclear weapons.
Knowing that the powers that be, the
Rothschild-Rockefeller banking cartel, are a devious lot with no moral regard
for anyone but themselves, I see a most unsettling possibility in all of this,
inviting an attack on American soil. If not that, then laying the foundation for
another false flag event that can be blamed on Pakistani "terrorists."
With 81% of Americans thinking that the government
is hiding something from us regarding 9/11, and with the Occupy protests
spreading across the country to end the crooked Federal Reserve cabal, coupled
with a surging Ron Paul candidacy to take back our government, it's certainly
not out of the realm of deviousness for these rat-bastards to resort to any
diabolical plan to save their own slimy reptilian skins.
The US corporate media puppets are already setting
up this possible scenario, even though Pakistan says such reports of
possible American plans to secure the country’s nuclear arsenal is "pure
fiction." The US media is suggesting the plan in the event of an extremist
threat, saying "no one should underestimate its (Pakistan's) capability to
defend its national interests."
Well at least they got one thing right, that
Pakistan would simply be "defending" itself. It would not be an
offensive attack, such as those waged by the US on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
A Pakistani Foreign Office Spokesperson said the
article “The Ally From Hell” was “baseless and motivated”.
“The surfacing of such campaigns is not something new. It is orchestrated by
quarters that are inimical to Pakistan,” the statement said.
So the wheels are turning and the trial balloons are
being floated in the US media about potential foreign blowback.
One could very successfully proffer the argument that we are
easily creating more "terrorists" than we are subduing or killing, and it
appears to be by calculated design.
It is a scary thought to think about pissing off a
country with nuclear weapons. It is an even scarier thought to think this might
be orchestrated on purpose, to set us up for another false flag attack.
One thing appears to be painfully clear, the result
of our actions is not justified. The end is certainly not justifying the means, unless of
course, perhaps, our intent is indeed something wholly different.
Rational, compassionate, sentient human beings have
to wonder, are we fighting terrorism, or merely fomenting more?
You can be certain that the powers that be do have a goal in mind. They're just
not sharing it with us.
Beware the terrorist that comes from the inside.
They are the most insidious of all.
The Attack On Libya Is Not As
You've Been Told
More drone info
Anger of Pakistan drone victims
CIA Drones Kill Large Groups Without Knowing Who They Are
Pakistan: unlawful US drone war kills 140 innocent civilians for
1 alleged terrorist
US denial of civilian
deaths in drone
attacks dismissed as
Pakistan orders US drones out of
Report slams Pakistan drone attacks
Drones Kill Our
Pakistani Civilian Victims
Vent Anger Over U.S. Drones
US drone strikes in
Pakistan claiming many
Killed 700 Civilians
Drone Strikes in 2009
957 Pakistani civilians
in 2010: Report
2,043 people, mostly civilians,
US drone strike
Pakistan plan legal
Pakistan holds exhibit
of drone attacks
Pakistan In Pictures
About The Author:
Tim Watts is a veteran San Francisco
broadcaster with 25 years experience in the industry as
an on-air talent, Program Director, and consultant. He
is the creator and sole author of the websites
TheAmericanTruthNetwork.com. He has been
writing about U.S. corruption over the last decade, while also investigating 9/11 from the moment that the first tower
fell. He has documented his 9/11 research on a website
A September Coup.