It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: Answer
Well everyone including China, North Korea, and Russia are puppets of the Globalists. Like Shakespeare said "All the World is a Stage"
Those that tried to be independent from the Globalists' control get taken out like Qaddafi for example.
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer
One reason is because during these conflicts we bleed $$ and cannot track them. The whole thing fills certain pockets, allows much easier hiding of rackets that have been going on since WWI. It empowers persons who had no power and now it is helping to build private armies that we will never know who really is in controls.
]So the CIA has been arming, training, and funding Islamic fighters for over half a century… and for what?
originally posted by: Shuye
a reply to: Answer
Well Jihad is a very old term and Muslims have been fighting "infidels" and each other for over 1400 years. Nowadays I believe you are right, we see the conditioning of the war-mongering angry Muslims as a tool for TPTB to keep stupid people ignorant.
I'm sure it would've been different if they loved the west and they were placing tents outside shopping malls a week before an iphone launch.
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer
One reason is because during these conflicts we bleed $$ and cannot track them. The whole thing fills certain pockets, allows much easier hiding of rackets that have been going on since WWI. It empowers persons who had no power and now it is helping to build private armies that we will never know who really is in controls.
So you think the CIA has good intentions but it keeps falling apart? They just haven't learned from their umpteen mistakes?
originally posted by: Answer
The military industrial complex is a monster that must be continuously fed. It has held influence over the operations of our government since WWII.
Whenever a war is winding down, another conflict pops up to keep the monster fed. We cycle through new enemies to keep a justification for defense spending: the Nazis, the Red Bastard Commies that eventually became The Soviets that eventually became Russia, when people stopped fearing Russia a new threat appeared: Islamic terrorists. When Islamic terrorists became less of a threat, Iran and North Korea were the new enemies... then when the American public stopped taking them seriously, Syria got a bit of attention. Now there's an amalgamation of "threats" from Russia, Syria, Al Qaeda, ISIL/ISIS/IS.
During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA funded, armed, and trained Mujahideen fighters in a proxy-war against the Soviets. Most people don't know that the CIA was toppling Middle Eastern regimes even before that: Syria in 1949 and Iran in 1953. So the CIA has been arming, training, and funding Islamic fighters for over half a century... and for what? It seems that all they've accomplished is creating more conflict and worse enemies. Al Qaeda was founded and operated by those same Mujahideen fighters trained, armed, and funded by the CIA.
Enter "The War on Terror". Terrorists are the best possible enemy to feed the military industrial monster because there can be no clear victory. It's a perpetual threat that can be altered to fit any justification needed by the U.S. The Gulf War didn't satiate the monster so a new threat from Al Qaeda had to emerge and so people would take them seriously, 9/11 was used as a justification for all-out war in a country that had nothing to do with the attack. The American public was so revenge-hungry that many were easily persuaded... another successful CIA-backed operation to feed the monster. Now the most recent "resistance fighters" that the CIA funded, armed, and trained have banded together to form ISIS/IS/ISIL and are the new boogieman being used as justification for military action.
The real question is what is the end game? Is there even a goal in mind or is the whole purpose just to keep the world in perpetual conflict so the monster can be fed? It's painfully obvious that the U.S. wants an unstable Middle East that's in constant turmoil.
originally posted by: Char-Lee
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer
One reason is because during these conflicts we bleed $$ and cannot track them. The whole thing fills certain pockets, allows much easier hiding of rackets that have been going on since WWI. It empowers persons who had no power and now it is helping to build private armies that we will never know who really is in controls.
So you think the CIA has good intentions but it keeps falling apart? They just haven't learned from their umpteen mistakes?
I am not sure how you got that from what I said...whatever.
originally posted by: beezzer
There s no profit in peace.
There is no justification of a large cumbersome government if there is peace.
Government requires conflict to justify its existence.
Corporations are just capitalizing on governments need for control.
Well everyone including China, North Korea, and Russia are puppets
what is the end game?
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I agree with everything you are saying.
To answer your point about "why have we been doing this for 60 years if all that seems to happen is more chaos or instability in the long run," I think that part of the secret here is that the Pentagon or powers that be couldn't care less about the stability or people of some of these countries. Their goal is either to retain control of a region or to stop an enemy such as Russia from having or retaining control over a country or region (read Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Iran, etc). They are willing to disrupt a place to achieve that end.
Another piece that is maybe just opining on my part is that perhaps the west wants to keep many of these countries slightly chaotic such that they do not become powerful enough to threaten western interests.
Here is an analogy from my video game experience. When I used to play war strategy games, I caught on very quickly that it is much easier to attack the enemy early while they are weak and then keep on periodically attacking to keep them weak than it is to wait until they grow a force big enough to defeat you and also attack. Just food for thought, but maybe this explains one or two of these situations as well?
Thoughts on those?