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.

 

ENOUGH ! The US government funded Afghan Mujahadeens, US funded ISIS, anyone see the pattern yet

page: 7
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Continue arguing that's what "they" want.

We can see the military-banking-industrial complex at work; those who realize this should not be divided.
edit on 20-11-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


Except that US policy has now made getting rid of Daesh the priority in Syria…

Don;t care what they say… the French carrier entering the fray is proof they are increasing the pressure on Assad as a direct result of Russias increased pressure on the US backed insurgency.

About ISaeshqadaban? Yah, look, every building in Syria has a big "daesh" sign on it. You can see that for your self right here on the world domination channel.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Don;t care what they say… the French carrier entering the fray is proof they are increasing the pressure on Assad as a direct result of Russias increased pressure on the US backed insurgency.


The French are coordinating with Russia. Is Russia bombing Assad's people? Also, since when is France the United States government?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014


NATO not in Syria?
Then who the hell bombed Syria during all this time?


Since you ask: Assad, mostly. France and Russia have also joined in. France is a member of NATO but has not invoked its charter. Russia is not even a member of NATO, by its own choice. The United States has recently expanded its bombing from Iraq into Syria, but again, that is not NATO. Saying that NATO is in Syria is like saying the Eurasian Patent Organization is in Syria.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Tyrion79

Where does he say that the United States is funding ISIS? He does not even mention it by any of its former names.


Well, his exact words are (from 10 seconds in the video):


"ISIS got started through funding from our friends and allies, because these people will tell you in the region, if you want somebody who fight to the death against Hezbollah, you don't put out a recruiting poster and say, you know, sign up for us or we gonna make a better world. You go after zealots and you go after these religious fundamentalists, that's who fights Hezbollah."


I agree that he doesn't say that the U.S. directly funded ISIS (although one could begin to wonder, if this didn't actually happen).
He diplomatically says that the funding was from U.S. friends and allies (which are funded by the U.S.) and by knowing this was happening, because it probably was very convenient at that time to fight Hezbollah, they are just as guilty in my opinion.
So I think it's more than just a little bit hypocritic on account of the U.S. to now state that ISIS is our biggest enemy, while they have let them get more powerful in the past, when it fitted their agenda. (or was it an Iraeli agenda to fight Hezbollah?)
Or do you think that the great masterminds at the Pentagon were just naive at the time, to allow the funding of one terrorist organization in order to destroy another?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79


I agree that he doesn't say that the U.S. directly funded ISIS (although one could begin to wonder, if this didn't actually happen).


Thank you.


He diplomatically says that the funding was from U.S. friends and allies (which are funded by the U.S.) and by knowing this was happening, because it probably was very convenient at that time to fight Hezbollah, they are just as guilty in my opinion.


It is no secret that terrorist organizations have received funds that originate in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Gulf States. Often this aid is from private individuals, or at least is not "officially" being given. This is not being done at the request of the United States.


So I think it's more than just a little bit hypocritic on account of the U.S. to now state that ISIS is our biggest enemy, while they have let them get more powerful in the past, when it fitted their agenda.


Even if the US looked the other way in the past, it is not hypocritical to bump them up on the enemies list if they have grown dangerous. This is like saying that it was hypocritical to declare war on Nazi Germany after doing so much business with them before.


(or was it an Iraeli agenda to fight Hezbollah?)


If it was, it was an unusually stupid blunder on Israel's part. The Israelis have made it clear they would rather be surrounded by countries run by strongmen who can enforce any treaty they sign (Egypt, Jordan) than countries fighting civil wars that threaten to spill over the border (Lebanon, Syria).


Or do you think that the great masterminds at the Pentagon were just naive at the time, to allow the funding of one terrorist organization in order to destroy another?


Contrary to what you think, the Pentagon does not issue orders to Saudi Arabian subjects or Pakistani citizens.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014

NATO not in Syria?

Then who the hell bombed Syria during all this time?


That's right. NATO is not in Syria. France and the US may be targeting ISIS in Syria, but NATO per se is not involved in Syria. Important point to note that.

Think it though.

On bombing Syria. Well now we have Russia flattening anything that opposes Assad including industrial facilities that may not contain combatants, and Assad of course has been flattening his own people quite merrily. Nothing new in the latter point, which is why his people rose up against him in the first place.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: kloejen
Al-queda was aided and funded by the CIA...

Experts debate whether or not the al-Qaeda attacks were blowback from the American CIA's "Operation Cyclone" program to help the Afghan mujahideen. Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, has written that al-Qaeda and bin Laden were "a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies", and that "Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians

wiki

IS is a result of the illegal war in Iraq.

Ohh and

Pentagon loses track of $500 million in weapons, equipment given to Yemen

Pentagon loses track of $500 million in weapons, equipment given to Yemen


Ohh, you may say potato, i say TOYOTA!

Just last year it was reported that the US State Department had been sending in fleets of specifically Toyota-brand trucks into Syria to whom they claimed was the “Free Syrian Army.”

The Mystery of ISIS’ Toyota Army Solved

And lately about 500 oiltrucks got bombed to smithereens by Russia. Allegedly they are used to transport stolen oil.

Revenues from oil smuggling are a key part of IS financing.

Russian jets 'hunting' IS oil tanker trucks
Could this be related to the recent drop in oil prices?


Riiiight. So it's "America's fault." Yet again. Not the fault of the guys pulling the trigger or the fault of the Soviet Union for invading Afghanistan to begin with or the fault of the World for DOING NOTHING while the USSR did as it pleased. No, it's America's fault. Just like it's America's fault that the World stood by while SH raped and pillaged Iraq. Of course it is. The blame America game is lazy and intellectually disingenuous.
edit on 20-11-2015 by jaffo because: Spelling.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Reality Check: Proof U.S. Government Wanted ISIS To Emerge In Syria


What you need to know is that according to this leaked DOD report, opposition forces, the United States, the Saudis, Jordan, Qatar and more, wanted a Salafist or fundamental Islamic group to take over eastern Syria in order to isolate and overthrow the Syrian President Assad’s regime.

It was a plan to overthrow Assad. Three years later, Assad remains in power, and now the most violent, radical terror group the modern world has ever known is entrenched in parts of Syria and Iraq, while exporting terror to Europe.


Just another one in the list showing that the U.S. supported ISIS all along.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I believe Washington took a lesson. And instead of prosecuting old man Prescott.
He was given a family dynasty in Politics.




The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.


A simple monkey see monkey do if you will.
Not so absurd at all when looking into the past.
Now they've learned to do it without the rise of a
one person like Hitler. To much hassle faking his
suicide and hiding him out when it's all said and done.
Now it's just Isis. You're all so naive, even the smart ones.
edit on Rpm112015v04201500000044 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LastInLine1

I don't see how anyone can say we are not funding ISIS. We regularly have millions of dollars that go unaccounted for. There's no spending oversight and no accountability.

The federal government is not above suspicion and they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795


Just another one in the list showing that the U.S. supported ISIS all along.


Not this again. If you read the actual document, you will see that the DOD is warning about terrorist groups filling the power vacuum in Syria. You will note that it does not say "we would like to see the establishment of a Salafist regime," it says "the supporting powers," which it specifically names as "Western Countries, the Gulf States and Turkey."




The actual document.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Well I guess you and I read two different things. The supporting powers includes the U.S. government. They wanted the Salafist principality. That's what I get out of it.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795
a reply to: DJW001

Well I guess you and I read two different things. The supporting powers includes the U.S. government. They wanted the Salafist principality. That's what I get out of it.


Read all the way through: they are concerned that ISI (Islamic State in Iraq) would shatter Iraqi unity. The US's first priority in the region has been establishing a stable Iraq. The events in Syria are a threat to that. Also, notice the use of the word "hypothesis." This is an analysis of a developing situation indicating potential dangers, not a plan. The expression "supporting powers" is used to indicate Saudi Arabia, which is the chief protagonist in the proxy war with Iran. With Salafist governments in Syria and the peninsula, the Shi'ite states would be effectively surrounded. None of "the West's" business, so long as the oil keeps flowing.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Yet, they supported Al-Maliki for years afterwards whose government had Iraq in a quasi dictatorship and created the ideal environment for DAASH to grow and advance in Iraq.

It still says they supported DAASH/ISIS even though they had some concerns.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795
Yet, they supported Al-Maliki for years afterwards whose government had Iraq in a quasi dictatorship and created the ideal environment for DAASH to grow and advance in Iraq.

It still says they supported DAASH/ISIS even though they had some concerns.



No, it doesn't. If so, please provide the exact quote.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LastInLine1

the US makes weapons and weapons need war. follow the dollars.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: reddragon2015

the US makes weapons and weapons need war. follow the dollars.


Yet the Middle East is awash with Russian weapons. AK's, RPGs, tanks, planes, missiles, rockets, artillery, bullets etc.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Western governments are well aware that ISIS agents have been inserted into refugee camps and are being imported into Europe and the U.S.
ISIS smugglers have openly admitted to this infiltration plan, yet the U.S. and EU governments continued the immigration surge.
The U.S. is set to receive over 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next couple months.
In the U.S., the federal government has been legally positioning for martial law for years, from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its indefinite-detention-without-trial provisions that apply to citizens, to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and mass surveillance measures without warrant, to resource confiscation provisions through executive order that apply during any event the White House labels an “emergency,” to elitist insiders like Wesley Clark planting the concept on national television of World War II-style internment camps for citizens deemed hostile to the status quo.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: LastInLine1

Hmm, although I agree that US just like ALL governments have their hand in the east, I would love to see more proof of payments going towards them. I am not denying it but I cannot condone that is true until it is so.

I can see that ISIS is a paid for mercenary group, by who is the question and for what end reason.




top topics



 
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join