Rumsfeld 'Kept up fear of terror attacks!"

Aha, sorry I misunderstood, I must be more tired than I thought. I'll have to return to this tomorrow.

reply to post by xpert11

He also urged staff to produce "bumper sticker statements" to rally the public around the war.

One memo, written in April 2006, contained a list of instructions to Pentagon staff including "Keep elevating the threat"..

There is a substantial difference between "awareness" and "marketing fear."

Did you even read the article?

reply to post by Osiris1953


Nope, the powers that be (i.e; those controlling the figureheads) would simply call for action from the military, and brand 'us' all terrorists, thereby providing a just cause for the slaughter of American freedom fighters.

In otherwords, you'd be dealing with a civil war, fighting over something that doesn't matter.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


I read the article did you bother to read my last post ?
You cant take one line from a memo and then make claims about Rumsfeld intentions without knowing what context it came from. It is hardly a crime to try and generate support for the war in Iraq.

This is just a case of people seizing on anything they can find and making it fit there agenda.

reply to post by xpert11


You're off base once again.


It's one thing to "drum up support" for a war and another to completely manipulate the people you're governing into believing there is a reason to sustain your efforts home and abroad. They pulled elements like Somalia and Indonesia into the equation to perpetuate the xenophobic fear, that at least some of us know from first hand experience, is just not there.

"Keep elevating the terror threat."

The context is within the quote itself.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
It's one thing to "drum up support" for a war and another to completely manipulate the people you're governing into believing there is a reason to sustain your efforts home and abroad.

The lines from the leaked memos don't prove your accusation.

They pulled elements like Somalia and Indonesia into the equation to perpetuate the xenophobic fear, that at least some of us know from first hand experience, is just not there.

What ?
Are you saying that there isnt an Islamic extremist threat in places Somalia and the Philippines's ?
BTW I added Indonesia to the list that country didn't appear in the source article.

The context is within the quote itself.

You cant make those kind of claims without reading the entire memo and the memos that came before and after it.


[edit on 3-11-2007 by xpert11]

reply to post by xpert11


There is Islamic fundamentalists in every corner of the world, and extremists in only a few. The threat that the tiny minority pose isn't relevant to the United States based on geography, or even practicality by itself..



Oh, and BTW, you weren't the only one, genius. Oopsy...


This game reminds me of those little punching bags you have when you're a kid. You hit it and it falls down, only to spring up, only to subsequently get knocked down again. They were fun then, they're fun now.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


Your argument would be flawed even if I lived in the US . If Islamic fundamentalists or extremists took over the Philippines or Indonesia at best millions of people freedom would be under threat and at worst there would be a direct security threat to the region. 9-11 proved that in a ever shrinking world geographical distance matters very little .

reply to post by xpert11


That depends strongly on the events pertaining to the hijacking of the planes.

Also, just because the world seems to be shrinking to one person does not mean the world is not just as huge to another.

That is the perspective of one in power.

reply to post by xpert11


Well, duh. The possibility of terrorism is possible anywhere at anytime. The definition alone is a broad one.

terrorism - ter·ror·ism - (těr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Anybody can do that if they decide to take any belief to the "next level." We have as much to fear from "Islamofascism" ( still can't say that without a smirk) as we do any religious, convolotued, and extremely bias idealogy that backed by people with guns who adhere to such nonsense. We're only making matters worse by purposely and openly portraying these men and women as our "enemies" through this very sort of propaganda.

The perpetual cycle of hate is carried on by no one group. Only a collective effort. And these "snowflakes" of memorandums by "public servant," in the capacity of THE UNITED STATES DEFENSE SECRETARY do not help things. What is it you don't understand?



[edit on 3-11-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

There is some truth in what you have said but I think it is reasonable to say that terrorists don't live in an isolated world . Lose track of a person and within twenty four hours and they can potentially be half a world away. The Internet provides a means of instant communication . You can be sure that the enemy would take advantage of such things. Sure the US and its allies has to fight the War on Terror in a lot smarter manner but that doesn't excuse anybody from letting there agendas get in the way of the facts.

Originally posted by xpert11
get in the way of the facts.

Pardon me for showing ignorance, but what exactly are these perceived 'Facts' You speak of?

Well in this case I think that the fact is that the source article proves nothing and that people are twisting the story to suit there own agendas . You cant tell what two people were talking about in a reliable manner without hearing the entire conversation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Of course others disagree with me.

One thing is for sure we live in a messed up world.

[edit on 3-11-2007 by xpert11]

Many so called Islamic fundamental terrorist are really just fighting a class war, they get and sometimes embrace the religious label. Why it offers them another option then the one the west offers. Many of the people angry in the middle east are angry at our empire, and the outlet becomes the group that is offering a solution. To call them all religious fanatics is like saying all Christians in the US are white supremacist or KKK.

It is an ugly situation we make far worse when we take as much resources, create pollution and force lower wages world wide through the WTO and world bank.

If it wasn't so tragic it would be comical, we have been supporting the ability for corporations to get cheap products and resources from countries for decades, actually centuries. And you still hear people say we are spreading freedom.

Capitalist empire has one goal, profit for shareholders, and those share holders do not live in the countries we economically invade.

It is so simple to see when you get past the pretty distorted pictures on the news and in the high school history books.

reply to post by xpert11


The world's always been messed up, if that's the way you want to look at it.

Rest assured, however - It doesn't have to be.

What you speak of about hearing the whole conversation holds a lot of realism, but moreso than i think you may be aware of.

It doesn't just apply to ATS or internet forums in general, the same can be said about any walk of life - but none moreso than in politics.

Of all the decisions made, i doubt that any have ever had the full debate told to the public; they'll keep the aggressive/defensive pretexts out of the public eye, because a sign of a divisive leadership will lose votes.

We don't need special interest groups to understand the situation we are in, although they do help as a frame of reference.

The fact, at least for me - is that there are too many disagreements in the world, too many discussions just left to flounder because of hot tempers or inflated Egos, too many decisions poorly made because of greed for power on one side or the other...

At the very root of all this lies our materialistic ways, our desire to strengthen our position in society, and how we've been conditioned into this by centuries of such mannerisms and discipline - History shows me the reasons why, that the way the old world was run has impacted on the Social Construct of modern life.*

When the world changes, i hope that the driving force behind humanity, our desire for power, takes a back seat in the face of the desire for humanity's success.


EDIT: This is a good reason to respect those that refused to move on with the world even when it pointed a gun in their face, trying to get them to do so, like the native americans or Aboriginal tribesmen, perhaps even the Inuit peoples.

It seems, however that even these people are beginning to feel the corruption of our materialism...


[edit on 3-11-2007 by Throbber]

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


Well I treat any person or group of extremists to be a threat to my freedom. I don't agree with some of the US governments policy's but I still regard Islamic extremists as the enemy and it is beyond me why anybody would think otherwise. I understand perfectly in this case you have no proof to back up your claims .

Would it be OK if I randomly took three words out of a few of your posts from differnt threads and then made claims as to what your opinion was and what action you are taking ?

reply to post by xpert11


I would say the skepticism from every terror attack should draw attention to why your assumption isn't 100%. Religious extremists from every walk of life are enemies of every single one of us. I understand that our actions will influence more hatred towards us in a particular region, but I honestly believe that the moral majority of Muslims understand the difference between the people and our government. Our discontent with the current government is no secret across the world and that is a dividing factor between the thought process between your average muslim and your extremist.

We will be evil in the eyes of any extremist anywhere. They have a fixation on us being bad, so nothing we could do will change that individuals thought process, but through better deeds, we could make our respects with the common people of any region and propaganda is a huge reason why that is not happening. It takes two to tango, and with these kind of memos, we're making sure every citizen brings their dancing shoes.

As far as the memos. I see where you're coming from and I completely understand. "One memo, written in April 2006, contained a list of instructions to Pentagon staff including." INSTRUCTIONS. That tells me that they have an AGENDA that must be FOLLOWED accordingly. They didn't say "An email said..." Specifically states "instructions." That in itself is pretty telling.

Scepticism from every terror attack ?
That is a very bold statement to make I have heard any conspiracy theory's related to the Bali bombings. Extremists will never see reason because of there beliefs it wouldn't matter what the western world would or could do the enemy would take advantage of any signs of appeasement . Really when the enemy flys planes into buildings and beheads people there isnt a great need for propaganda.

Well Rumsfeld probably issued dozens of instructions per day so that act by itself doesn't indicate anything. Without reading the rest of the memo there is no way of knowing if there was a legit threat somewhere that needed greater public awareness. DeadFlagBlues it looks like were just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

reply to post by xpert11


Are there, or are there not a large amount of people that challenge the official stories of every modern terror attack? WTC '93, Oklahoma City bombing of '95, U.S.S. Cole '00, WTC '01, London '07?


Okay, that's what I thought. Stop with the dramatics.



Edit: Is to Are. iLLi+3r@+E

[edit on 3-11-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

reply to post by xpert11


Don't be so naive to what's staring you in the face. You're intuition can't be telling you that that Rumsfeld wasn't purposely trying to create conflict and spread the threat of terror across the nation, can it? A terrorist from Somalia? Not impossible, but hardly believable.

You keep assuring me that my sources should be 100%, while yours are being questioned by a large number of people across the world. Do you see what I'm getting at.


And agree to disagree, if that's what this is going to boil down to. I'm fine with that, and totally respect you for putting up with me the past two pages. It was a worthwhile discussion, even if I couldn't sway you off that massive rock you're on. Maybe next time?