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.

 

The real reason why the US wants to destroy a secular Mideast and build up Jihadi forces

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Why did the US support the overthrow of a powerful secular ally like Mubarak in Egypt and the other secular Arab regimes such as Syria and Libya?

Why did and do still the US strangely support surreptitiously ISIS?

Why do they directly support Al Qaeda, jihadi forces in Syria?

Many people say the west or the US supported the destruction of Libya and Syria for, in the case of Syria a pipeline and Libyans attempt to buy oil in Euros rather than dollars made Khadafy a dead man. These are logical economic predatory reasons. THEY ARE NOT THE REASON FOR THIS!


What is the reason they supported the Egyptian overthrow of Mubarak? Certainly there are no economic reasons such as apparently like Syria and Libya.

Well the fact is they have an overriding reason for supporting the destruction of secular Arab regimes and oddly supporting jihadi groups nearness to power in the ME.

Isn’t that strange?

People wonder why the US surreptitiously supported and supports ISIS

The reason for this US and Western very odd behavior is this regard has NOTHING to do with economics:

They want to build up a powerful enough ISIS like coalition of Jihadi powers in the ME so they can have a giant war of civilizations.

That’s the reason Obama and Hillary both oppose a huge western military expeditionary force to defeat ISIS because the time is not ripe for it yet. Isis however powerful is not powerful enough to justify a huge war until they have either overthrown or taken over a state like Syria or have an ally like Turkey or another ME jihadi country LIKE EGYPT.

Get It folks.

That’s why mysteriously the US supported a nutty Muslim brotherhood led government in Egypt knowing full well that that would lead Egypt into the jihadi side eventually.

This is a relatively long range plan that they hoped would materialize in and about the time of Hillary’s ascendency to the presidency.

Their plans were waylaid mainly by Russia and the worlds demand to get ISIS.

Though they stubbornly stick to the plan




posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Divide and conquer, divide and rule. Keeping people divided against one another weakens the population, prevents them unifying against corruption.

In Egypt's case, its about the Suez Canal.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
"They" want to have a "giant war of civilizations." That's your answer? Why? How do you know?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

To understand why in the ME we are seeing what we are seeing you have to factor in Israel .If they end up being the main power there all the other places once broken into pieces makes them the colonial regional power .imo



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
What's happening is the people in the ME are not white so obviously the majority of this country hates them.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
"They" want to have a "giant war of civilizations." That's your answer? Why? How do you know?



Try to follow the logic of the op. Think about it


Egypt wasn’t for any economic reasons and Syria and Libya on the surface seemingly economic but that in relationship to Obama and Hillary’s strange actions spells plot to create an environment for a big fat war.

Relatively its along range operation


Consider:

Why overthrow known secular regimes while at the same time claiming to be against jihadi philosophy when they know full well the vacuum they create will only strengthen jihadi forces.


Obama downplayed ISIS in fact so they could have time to have some success enough to build a credible force so the NATO allies could justify a big war that FINALLY destroyed jihadism.

Recall Turkey at first supported ISIS. Imagine having a Muslim Brotherhood Egypt as well.

Other than that why would they support a MB Egypt?

They hoped for ISIS plus one or two jihadi countries like a Turkey or Egypt would be enough for their big war.

Now with either Hillary or Trump they have two candidates, one, Hillary all in on the plan and one Trump who is very willing to take part in it and even use nuclear bombs.

They need a credible jihadi leader to be conned into this like Erdogan or Mursi.

Erdogan now knows he was suckered and Mursi is now in jail for life



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
"They" want to have a "giant war of civilizations." That's your answer? Why? How do you know?


This is a conclusion they have arrived at after looking at what is going on in the M.E and North Africa. The creation of a force so terrifying that the rest of the world must come together as a coalition in order to overcome them.

It makes sense to a large extent. We have seen the countries that have experienced a spring, suffer a power vacuum and the extremists have been provided with an opportunity to grab the power. Obviously not fully in most instances, but they certainly hold the power in certain regions of the area.

The Russians are just as loathed to put boots on the ground to fight them, instead choosing a more indiscriminate method of air attacks, along with the west.

Maybe that is the bigger plan, maybe it's not?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

It's a good chance to bet on. I would add my value to the OP's opinion. And maybe elaborate a bit... it's not about a big war of wars. Its about the constant suffocation of human potential to get rid of the powers that be, by evoking the powers of hell on earth (terror hatred and such). Its more like a cold war against humanity. When they are ready with the one world system, they will end this conflicts, but then it's gonna be late...

Don't get fooled this plan is set at least 80 years ago. And the blueprint for it is hundreds of years old. Nihil novi sub sole...



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
There's just no other logical reason for the US to support jihadis in Syria and a MB government in Egypt

It doesn’t make any sense other than they want to build up temporarily a force they could justify a big war against.

ISIS alone isn’t enough...

Consider all that and the strange actions of Hillary and Obama as point men for the plot

It almost worked. And still can work because it’s a long operation.

Russia, Iran, and SISI of Egypt are the ones who if anyone defeated this plot



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Also understand this. These sinister forces NEVER do anything for merely one reason.

They do evil for many reasons and my theory may be the main reason but they have other options to themselves when they fail or succeed

Such as benefit to their puppy Israel. Their pipeline. and the most lucrative option of all: satisfying the Military Industrial Intelligence complex beast.

Remember the plan elucidated by General Wesley Clark to destroy 7 ME countries in 5 years




posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: schuyler
"They" want to have a "giant war of civilizations." That's your answer? Why? How do you know?


Try to follow the logic of the op. Think about it


Except that it is not logical and has no foundation. The idea that TPTB want to have a "big war of civilizations" makes no sense from any angle, whether it is economic or some other reason. The Suez Canal, as one example, is now open to traffic, including our Carrier Battle Groups, which traverse it once every few months. Why would we want to destabilize Egypt and put it under jihadi control so that we couldn't do that any more? It makes no sense. From both an economic point of view and a military point of view, that's just a stupid idea.

The rest of it is just as idiotic. It's a simplistic and ill-informed conspiracy almost as valid as chemtrails.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I don't think this reasoning is correct & I think you left out a lot of things, but I'll play along anyway. Assuming your reasoning is correct, then please explain how these 3 major things (that you left out) fit into your reasoning.

1. Israel. US policy in the Middle East is always going to be based on Israel. They're our largest recipient of foreign aid (HERE). And Egypt is our 2nd largest recipient, but that money is literally part of the agreement to keep the late 1970s Egypt and Israel peace treaty together (aka the "Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty"). So how can you leave out Israel's role in US Middle East policy?

2. The petrodollar. The US will always move to protect and strengthen the power of the petrodollar. The bond between energy prices and the international need for the US Dollar will always play a part in our policies in the Middle East.

3. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has been gone for years. This is what you put in the OP:


That’s why mysteriously the US supported a nutty Muslim brotherhood led government in Egypt knowing full well that that would lead Egypt into the jihadi side eventually.

But why did you ignore what happened afterwards? You know, when the Egyptian military staged a coup against Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood allies? Not only did the US support General Sisi's coup, but we also refused to label it a "coup" because our laws prevent us from supporting officially recognized "coups". And after General Sisi came to power, he banned the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and started doing large scale arrests of its members (including Morsi). The Army even killed more than 1,000 protesters during their coup and not only did we still support them, but we still support them to this day. So how does this info fit into your reasoning?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The US would simply take control of the canal if Egypt started banning certain countries vessels from using it.

I too believe that the end game is a west vs Islam, Letting large amounts of muslims into the west and having the radical ones commit attacks justifies a police state, especially once this war goes hot.

The economic collapse will kill most of the people around the world. Free(ish) trade supports a much larger population than most countries can maintain if trade dissipates and tariff walls are built.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The thing is, if Hillary & Co are "de-stabilizing" the ME, they are doing it because that's what the left WANTS them to do in the name of social justice. The idea is to get rid of evil dictators who are subverting the "will of the people" and making themselves rich, so that;s done and who takes over? religious dictatorships, exactly what the left wants. What we are seeing here is not some TPTB agenda, but a leftist one that is blowing up in their faces.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

What you just typed has nothing to do with the Left wing. Unless you're saying that all of the Right wingers who supported the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq also did it for the Left wing.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell




Why do they directly support Al Qaeda, jihadi forces in Syria?

its called daesh, but the idea was to remove assad. watch the news.


Why did and do still the US strangely support surreptitiously ISIS?

they don't anymore, they cut off some journalists heads and the west started bombing them. this is basic info dude.


Why did the US support the overthrow of a powerful secular ally like Mubarak in Egypt

mubarek wasnt an ally to anyone, he was a dictator unpopular in his own country, where do you find these lies?


Well the fact is they have an overriding reason for supporting the destruction of secular Arab regimes and oddly supporting jihadi groups nearness to power in the ME.

iran destroys your argument.


That’s the reason Obama and Hillary both oppose a huge western military expeditionary force to defeat ISIS because the time is not ripe for it yet.

america got owned in iraq and afghanistan, wars started by bush, did you miss them too?
by the way only one person starts wars, nice to see you blaming the ex secretary of state.
any argument you had collapsed.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Our enemy is not big enough, therefore we shall build him and nourish him and make him bigger so that we can then go in and knock sh*t out of him in a justified manner?

LOL I mean... what could go wrong with that plan?

Are you sure you thought this through?





posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

If I recall correctly, Webster Tarpley's theory was that the CIA organized the ouster of Mubarak to seize control of the Suez Canal through which travel something like 10% of all goods shipped internationally.

Let me cut to the chase. Here's the fundamental problem with your theory:

"They want to build up a powerful enough ISIS like coalition of Jihadi powers in the ME so they can have a giant war of civilizations."

That's not a motivation.

At best it might be the means to an end. What's that end? That would be the motivation. As it stands your basically saying that the US and it's allies are trying to bring about WWIII for the sake of WWIII.
edit on 2016-9-24 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

First of all it’s a long range plan as I wrote that goes back
(This started about around 911) and even likely before 911 but accelerated
recently through the Arab spring events and after and during the Iraq war ramifications.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Hillary Clinton Sponsored Secretive Arab Spring Program that Destabilized Middle East


www.breitbart.com...

Explain this

Then you tell us why the US is supporting jihadis in Syria and ISIS strategically

Obama’s ambivalence in supporting Mubarak was a clear sign of US meddling. In fact Egypt indicted US NGO’s

www.bbc.com...

www.aljazeera.com...

www.aljazeera.com...



Egypt strains US ties over NGO indictments


Sure SISI made friends with the US, he had to in order to get aid. He knows that they undermined. Same thing with Erdogan. Both of them have to kiss up to the US after being double-crossed by them



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Willtell

If I recall correctly, Webster Tarpley's theory was that the CIA organized the ouster of Mubarak to seize control of the Suez Canal through which travel something like 10% of all goods shipped internationally.

Let me cut to the chase. Here's the fundamental problem with your theory:

"They want to build up a powerful enough ISIS like coalition of Jihadi powers in the ME so they can have a giant war of civilizations."

That's not a motivation.

At best it might be the means to an end. What's that end? That would be the motivation. As it stands your basically saying that the US and it's allies are trying to bring about WWIII for the sake of WWIII.


Semantics.

I didn’t go into the deep motivations behind the scheme.
But if you don’t know about the neocon doctrine of “ Clash of Civilizations” then check







 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join