US Plans Greater War On Islam

Presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark says the White House devised a five-year plan after the 9/11 strikes to attack seven majority-Muslim countries.

A former commander of NATO's forces in Europe, Clark claims he met a senior military officer in Washington in November 2001 who told him the Bush administration was planning to attack Iraq first before taking action against Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

www.overthrow.com...

"I hate Illinois Nazis!"

I would look at the source. The website is a NAZI website!!!

really? i dint know that! pants!

anything is startin to make sense now, The war on terrorism is really a war on isalm

I supose if its a nazi stie it kinda makes sense, since they hate all other races and religions etc..

Yay! We're going to have another crusade!

Levl 7 of the onion skin is peeled back at ATS, only two levels to go in the purpose of the fake 'War On Terror'.

Now do you suppose there is the possibility that terrorists coincidentally inhabit countries with large oil reserves?.

www.oilempire.us...

Or is it that terrorists are a fiction,and it's really just about oil?.

Yes.

Aside from the fact that it makes for good conspiracy theory fodder - this web page article that started this thread is from a nazi (ie: racist fascist) web site.

I would consider anything posted on such a site and not substantiated by a more respectable medium, as extremely suspect.

I would sooner believe what I read in the National Enquirer than the racist spew from that garbage website.

intelgurl

How could a nazi be attacking Bush?

Don't you mean anarchist/socialist/communist/globalist?

First off, you assume the magazine (a questionable source?) is correct. Secondly, you are assuming Clark knows a darned thing to begin with, which is highly doubtful.
No onion skin has been peeled back as of yet, non at all. Not by any credible, confirmed information. In order to declare the war on terror is a war on Islam in specific is to deny alot of truth and accept alot of assumptions and factless theories.

Originally posted by THENEO
How could a nazi be attacking Bush?

Don't you mean anarchist/socialist/communist/globalist?

Interesting thought NEO...
I see what you're saying... how can a house divided against itself stand and all that... ie: a nazi isn't going to slam another nazi...

The web page in question is most certainly nazi - aryan nation leaning in ideals... just read further than the article.. a good start is where they are talking about jews...

Re: the implication that Bush is a nazi - Regardless of how one feels about Bush one must be able to see that he is anything but a nazi by definition - he may be right wing, he may be a lot of things both negative or positive depending on one's political worldview... but one thing occurs to me - Condoleza Rice and Colin Powell, hand picked by Bush are definitely not members of the blonde haired blue eyed Aryan super-race... and in fact could be debatably the smartest people in his administration.

intelgurl
[done with this thread]

[Edited on 15-10-2003 by intelgurl]

Originally posted by Kalistenics
Presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark says the White House devised a five-year plan after the 9/11 strikes to attack seven majority-Muslim countries.

A former commander of NATO's forces in Europe, Clark claims he met a senior military officer in Washington in November 2001 who told him the Bush administration was planning to attack Iraq first before taking action against Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

www.overthrow.com...

Sounds good. Count me in! That whole den of snakes needs to be taken care of.

If it is not a PC organization a lot of people won't take it seriously.
PCPCPCPCPCPCPCPCPCPCPCPCP
Politically Correct?,these words don't belong in the same sentence.
I don't care if there are swasticas on the home page,it doesn't make me a nazi to read an article and add the info it has to offer to what I already know and make comparisons,add to the equation,etc.
Just because of the author's, or the sites political orientation does not make it is straight out lies,there may be info there in the rant that is useful to try to figure out what is actually going on.
I tend to give everyone credit and take what they say into mind until that info is proved false,unless it is downright unbelievable and obviously wrong.
Political or racial orientation does not mean anything to anyone unless it has an effect on them,and then it is that person's personal responsibility to learn how they are effected,and why.
In the end,you will realise that non PC,racist,nazi and other views serve to clarify the picture,it takes a wide array of viewpoints to see the truth,if that is what you are looking for.
I tend to think that many here are willing to accept things as long as those things agree with their preconcieved notions of reality and what they believe to be the truth.
Finding the truth is not that easy,finding lies is the easiest thing in the world.
If you are not prepared to consider some far out sources,listen to some obnoxious rantings,read some outright lies,you are not looking for the truth.
Stick to CNN or FOX then,you'll be safe there.
First step in the wrong direction is claiming loyalty to anyone or any party,any race or religion, it immediately hazes your vision,it keeps you looking the same direction as the party,thinking their thoughts,looking at things their way in agreement with their policies.
Free up your mind,accept information into it for the sake of finding the truth,if it is wrong toss it aside.
When it comes to God,my loyalty is complete,but that is a personal thing.
I guess I have an advantage here,I have been forced away from many groups which I was once part of,these groups were OK,but some of their views fell into question by me and I started asking questions and pointing out what I thought was in error,people don't like that.
You can see a clearer picture when you wrench yourself free of the influence of the group.
All I seek is the truth,there is nothing else.
If you can't outright debunk what the author says within the context of the actual article,without coming across in a biased way,don't.
Theory is not fact.
www.dieoff.com...
www.redmoonrising.com...
www.hermes-press.com...

[Edited on 15-10-2003 by uNBaLaNCeD]

i don't undertsnad the point of it being a nazi site, would it be more true if it was on a site of any other belief base? people get hung up on the wrong stuff when trying to decide truth or not, how can u think anything is true if you won't believe something because of the beliefs of the place it's presented. You should just be looking at where the info came from not where it is.

What i don't understand is how when anyone in 1st world countries is attacked it's terrorism but in 3rd world it's not, or more when we do it it's fine when they do it it's terrorism.

i knew way back that usa was gonna go fer the rest of the middle east, the 10 kingdoms under 1 man maybe?? It's been a war on islam for a long time i think, it's a war over many things but the most prominent reason is what we must figure out

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by Kalistenics
Presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark says the White House devised a five-year plan after the 9/11 strikes to attack seven majority-Muslim countries.

A former commander of NATO's forces in Europe, Clark claims he met a senior military officer in Washington in November 2001 who told him the Bush administration was planning to attack Iraq first before taking action against Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

www.overthrow.com...

Sounds good. Count me in! That whole den of snakes needs to be taken care of.

Maybe you didn't see the title of this thread...

Maybe I did. see, I don't think it has as much to do with their religion as it does with their goal of mass genocide of everyone who doesn't take it. So, yes, you may count me in the resistance of this.