It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A covert coup? The U.S. Is at war with itself.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 03:23 PM
a reply to: DJW001

I think this post and your next one offer a good summation.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Having been around at the time of My Lai, I remember Hersh's past offerings. This one especially struck me as thin and contradictory. Here is a good read that seems to clarify my thinking

1) The fatal flaw at the heart of the story

Hersh alleges that the mastermind of this entire conspiracy was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey, whom Hersh says was horrified by Obama's plan to arm Syrian rebels and sought to aid Assad. This claim is difficult to believe: While in office, Dempsey famously and publicly clashed with Obama over Syria because Dempsey wanted to do more to arm Syrian rebels. Contemporaneous accounts of arguments within the White House support this, with Dempsey arguing the US should more robustly arm Syrian rebels, and Obama arguing for less.

Yet Hersh claims, with no evidence, that Dempsey was so opposed to arming Syrian rebels that he would commit an apparent act of treason to subvert those plans. Hersh makes no effort to reconcile this seemingly fatal contradiction, and indeed it is not clear Hersh is even aware that Dempsey is known for supporting rather than opposing efforts to arm the Syrian rebels.

2) The lack of any proof whatsoever Hersh provides no proof of any kind, other than quotes from one anonymous "former adviser." Hersh does not bother to establish why this adviser would have such information.

3) The story is fundamentally at odds with reality as we know it The story on its face is so implausible that one struggles to imagine it unfolding even in a pulp Tom Clancy novel or on an episode of 24. It alleges that many or all (it is unclear) members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top of American military leadership, conspired jointly to undermine their own president's foreign policy and secretly ally America with its adversaries. The claim would go against everything we know about how the military leadership works, and would demand us to radically transform how we see the relationship between the US military and the US government — all despite the fact that there is no apparent precedent for such a conspiracy.

We are required to believe that the senior-most leaders of our military one day in 2013 decided to completely transform how they behave and transgress every norm they have in a mass act of treason, despite never having done so before, and then promptly went back to normal this September when Dempsey retired. Hersh is asking an awful lot of us, and he's giving us little reason to trust him here except for his word. Given that the bulk of his stories for the past five to 10 years have also made bizarre claims that have never been substantiated, it is difficult to go out on a limb for him once more.

VOX article

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 03:55 PM
Damn. I thought this was going to be one of those threads about wars between factions of the government and secret government in deep underground military bases and cities. Complete with nuclear warfare and aliens and s#.

Instead it's a General so and so doesn't like what the CIA spooks have been doing in arming religious extremists like during the Reagan days (Taliban much?).

Also never forget (unlike Reagan who couldn't remember anything) Iran-Contra.
Poppy Bush pardoned all of those who were held in contempt for not talking a few months into their country club prison sentences.

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 04:02 PM
Not at all worrisome, rosin! After all, an enemy who wars with himself is doomed to failure.a reply to: Rosinitiate

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 04:19 PM
The US has had an ISIS first stance since ISIS disrupted the rebel advance on Assad. In the US view ISIS is the primary threat and once it is defeated Assad will be easy pickings. Since ISIS made its mark the US has push the rebels to deal with ISIS first. Assad falling to early could mean ISIS grabbing up his weapons and territory faster than the rebels could. So that the US would share some intel against ISIS with Assad would not only not surprising but expected. The US does not want Assad to fall to ISIS. Thus the US has not been bombing Assads forces or been doing anything to weaken Assad until ISIS is defeated.

In a conflict that has multiple factions all fighting each other you have to play a complex game. This is why you have had Assad bombing ISIS at the same time he has bombed Rebels in support of ISIS advancing forces, or Russia bombing rebels and also bombing ISIS in support of rebels, you have arming the Iraqi Kurds but, not much because then they might go after other iraqi forces later, you have Israel supporting groups that attack it just so they will be able to maintain a buffer zone between Israel and ISIS/Assad, you have Turks bombing one group of Kurds and arming another group of Kurds.

The US is maneuvering to get the outcome they want. ISIS dead and Assad gone in that order. They operate with that in mind while at the same time being very careful not give one faction the feeling they are being screwed over. It is extremely complex which requires a complex response. Everybody always seem to be surprised by things because they try and simplify the conflict. And it can not be simplified.

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 04:29 PM
"I didn't join the Marine Corps to fight for al Qaeda in a Syrian Civil War"

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 04:31 PM
It is strange - the US military is clearly the biggest purveyor of death, detruction, and suffering on the globe currently, but almost every veteran I know (who is, let's say, over 30) is a down-to-earth, reasonable, worldly person. The younger generation are mostly gung-ho morons, because you have to be a moron to not see through the ever-cheapening pro-war propaganda, but there are definitely a lot of solid, good people still in the ranks from earlier days.

I never knew there were enough of them to pull something as bold as this though. My respect for our military went from 0.1 to 0.5 (out of 100). Weird feeling!

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 04:42 PM
a reply to: desert

Dempsey: Syrian rebels wouldn't back US interests
Associated Press By BRADLEY KLAPPER Aug 21, 2013 9:57 AM

"Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides," Dempsey said in the letter Aug. 19 to Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. "It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not."

That is but one of the search results about Dempsey views on the Syrian "rebels". To says this "article" by vox is disingenuous would be an
edit on 22-12-2015 by sosobad because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 04:44 PM
if the Obama administration is arming isis then obviously the military doesn`t want to be a party to treason so they aren`t towing the administration line. can`t say that I blame them.

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 05:29 PM
a reply to: Rosinitiate

It’s called factionalism.

You have the CIA and the state department running a COVERT OPERATION on Syria and the ME wars. This op was started during the neocon Bush era that Obama is still running.

The Army has its own intelligence operations and the JCS but don’t run the COVERT OPERATIONS that are run out of the NSC/CIA/State Department with consultations with the senate intelligence committee

That’s why you had Benghazi

Obama is tied to the COVERT OPERATION that is determining what he does and how he thinks regarding Syria

edit on 22-12-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-12-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 05:31 PM
a reply to: sosobad

The link embedded in the Vox article did not transfer to my source insert.
Here is the link that was left out, part of the first paragraph... "While in office, Dempsey famously and publicly "
famously and publicly

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta acknowledged that he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, had supported a plan last year to arm carefully vetted Syrian rebels. But it was ultimately vetoed by the White House, Mr. Panetta said, although it was developed by David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director at the time, and backed by Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the secretary of state.

“How many more have to die before you recommend military action?” Mr. McCain asked Mr. Panetta on Thursday, noting that an estimated 60,000 Syrians had been killed in the fighting.

And did the Pentagon, Mr. McCain continued, support the recommendation by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus “that we provide weapons to the resistance in Syria? Did you support that?”

“We did,” Mr. Panetta said. “You did support that,” Mr. McCain said. “We did,” General Dempsey added.

Neither Mr. Panetta nor General Dempsey explained why President Obama did not heed their recommendation. But senior American officials have said that the White House was worried about the risks of becoming more deeply involved in the Syria crisis, including the possibility that weapons could fall into the wrong hands. And with Mr. Obama in the middle of a re-election campaign, the White House rebuffed the plan, a decision that Mr. Panetta says he now accepts.

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 05:35 PM
It's all a part of the plan......the theater

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 05:39 PM

originally posted by: Tardacus
if the Obama administration is arming isis then obviously the military doesn`t want to be a party to treason so they aren`t towing the administration line. can`t say that I blame them.

The administration can just conveniently forget ala Iran-Contra.
The military and their suppliers of weapons of mass destruction were all in agreement there.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 05:41 PM
There's a lot of compartmentalization in agencies like the CIA for operational security. The sometimes unfortunate side effect of this is that some section chiefs/dept. heads or higher-ups can run their own intelligence networks and operations for personal gains ... or for hire.

As long as you and your agents are doing the things you've been assigned, who's to stop you from convincing them to do other activities off the books, or hiring more and keeping them in the dark? Perhaps you'd let your people think the missions and intel they're gathering is a legit CIA operation ... when it really isn't.

Secrecy is needed, but it also can hide a lot. It's a double edged sword.

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 05:46 PM
a reply to: Rosinitiate

intriguing title.
I'm of the opinion that each election cycle is actually a coup in disguise...

the present constitution contradicts the initial foundation we expect to live by...

reagan said it best with 'reaganomics'

it's a free for all but the only ones taking advantage of it are keeping it to themselves.
edit on (12/22/1515 by loveguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 05:50 PM
"It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking" - Ron Paul

All wars are Bankers wars

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 06:03 PM
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Haven't read all yet but wanted to reply to the rouge military. Saw a report in an article about a month ago about a bombing that took placed in Syria via a part of the military that was in opposition to the official military but no one will speak of it or do anything about it.

Have read for years about there being 'two factions' within the gov and military. Maybe this is it.

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 06:19 PM
a reply to: liveandlearn

Have read for years about there being 'two factions' within the gov and military. Maybe this is it.

No, it's just a routine case of the government not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 06:28 PM
a reply to: Rosinitiate

America seems to love far right wing dictators in their friendly nations list . The only thing is that they must do what they are told .If they don't they get offed. That's not speculation its historical fact. Assad, Saddam , Gadhafi , etc. didn't want to play ball. This is supposed to be a modern civilised country, but it seems the foreign policy makers are a bit retro. The guys actually running things ,cant do business with a democratic nation, only bought and paid for strongmen. This will effect the Presidents power, and everything else. Its a recipe that's worked in the past, but it might be wearing a bit thin in this day and age.

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 06:47 PM
a reply to: anonentity

Actually, both Saddam and Gadaffi played ball. As Henry Kissinger said: "Sometimes America treats its enemies better than it treats its friends."

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 07:01 PM
The military stops errant ideas all the time ,I have no links off hand but I am aware the last 3 presidents wanted Iran and the military said no.

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in