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.

 

Have Al Qaeda been U.S. puppets all along?

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
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.
edit on 9/13/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
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.
edit on 13-9-2014 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Theyre preparing the world for the antichrist.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

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.


Interesting... like celebrities who refuse to play along with the "Illuminati"...

The parallels are interesting and I never thought of it that way.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

The end game is to prevent an end to the money, power and prestige of those invited to be willing, informed participants in the status quo, and to keep everyone guessing and divided against one another so that nothing is ever done about it, nothing effective anyway.

That is how I read it.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
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.


edit on 13-9-2014 by Shuye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

There it is. You are seeing clearly. More clearly than most.

See what taking the red pill will do?

War is business and right now business is better than ever.


]So the CIA has been arming, training, and funding Islamic fighters for over half a century… and for what?


In the middle East, its primarily oil. The CIA has been meddling in foreign affairs the world over for as long as its been around. I don't know what they called the meddling agency before then but it also manipulated through subterfuge many other foreign countries for a hundred years if not longer.

As far back as Native Americans and Mexico, etc.


edit on 13-9-2014 by intrptr because: redacted repeat statement



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

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.



You're right. I adjusted my thread title accordingly. I meant in the modern sense. I know the conflict has been raging for centuries but certain groups found a way to manipulate it for profit.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Pretty much. Religious extremism is a great tool for TPTB. As they are demonstrating and have in the past that a "boogeryman" is needed for general control, money, resources and other influences such as political. Otherwise who would back them anyway.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
The world used to be a happier place before I, as a United States citizen came to the conclusion that much of the evil in the world has roots in the CIA.

Starting in 1953, when Ike took office, the covert posture of the CIA was formed. Allen Dulles, IMHO, is one of the most evil SOBs that ever lived. His secret reign of terror has continued with successor after successor.

Consider those proven conspiracies:

Project Mockingbird
MK Ultra
Northwoods
PRISM

When you consider the way the joint chiefs were ready to kill innocent Americans to justify war with Cuba (Northwoods) why are 911 "truthers" so scorned?

Yes, I am of the belief that both Al Qaeda and ISIS are, in large part, CIA creations.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer
Just look at the rifles the jihadists are carrying, do they look like AK's? You could look up Chinese oil fields in north Iraq. Maybe Russia is pissed cause China is buying oil from Iraq instead of more oil from Russia. Maybe Russia is using Syria to send isis into Iraq to create a problem. Maybe the US is sending troops and air support to defend Chinese Exxon oil. All isis is, is just a mercenary fighting in the Mideast, they just use Islam as an excuse to kill for money. Arm manufacturing do profit from the US, Russia and China. It's a three way game of greed. It seems that China is winning.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
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?


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.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

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.


You're a little jaded... I wasn't being sarcastic. I was asking genuinely to understand your reply more clearly.

I read it as saying that we arm and fund these groups thinking they have good intentions and the money/guns end up in the wrong hands because we can't keep track of where it goes.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

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.


There is justification if there is massive poverty, little social welfare, minimal public health, extreme inequality, etc. This is why there are huge global initiative to help peaceful yet impoverished countries and peoples.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Well everyone including China, North Korea, and Russia are puppets


I find it weird how we just name collective groups of millions like that.
As if there aren't many people within those nations that solemnly dissent on an unseen level

Am I Canada? Do I personify my nation as a statistic among the collective rather than live a unique identity within it?


what is the end game?


CT's vs T's in perpetuity, where the citizens wait to be saved from the government every single time, or end up taking arms against it while the people who make the weaponry and ideologies continue on the sideline making profit existing in a security dragnet created/guarded by the citizens they use as pawns to be hidden behind, used and discarded



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

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?



That's another point that I've thought about... we destabilize the middle east so they can't unite against Western interests.

Another possibility is that the whole crazy thing is nothing more than a proxy war against Russia... preventing them from profiting in the region.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join