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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

'Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists' - What's the updated meaning?

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I pointed out the similarity of the following statements in the thread linked below.

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," - President George W. Bush


m.youtube.com...

"It is time for our Western partners to determine against whom they are really fighting — the terrorists or Russia." - Russian Defense Minister General Sergey Shoigu


www.youtube.com...

Russian Defense Minister: 'It's time for our Western partners to decide whom they're fighting'

It appears Sergey Shoigu and the rest of Russia are trying to make sense of the U.S.'s position concerning supporting "moderate rebels" in Syria. I'm trying to do the same.

If we update George W. Bush's statement "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" for 2016, what does it look like?

"Either you are with us [and whatever we say are moderate rebels and our allies such as Saudi Arabia who openly support those we claim are extremists], or you are with the terrorists"


Saudi Arabia is the world’s leading sponsor of Islamic extremism. It is also a close U.S. ally. This contradiction, although responsible for a lot of human suffering, is frequently ignored. Yet it recently plunged back into the limelight with the Saudi monarchy’s largest mass execution in decades.
Saudi Arabia funds and exports Islamic extremism: The truth behind the toxic U.S. relationship with the theocratic monarchy



“Why has Saudi Arabia been largely immune from direct public criticism from political leaders simply because they are a few degrees separated from the terrorists who are often inspired by the ideology their money helps to spread?” Murphy said at the time. “There’s growing evidence that our support for Saudi-led military campaigns in places like Yemen are prolonging humanitarian misery and aiding extremism.”

...

“There’s an American imprint on every civilian life lost in Yemen,” Murphy told CNN in August. “Because, though the Saudis are actually dropping the bombs from their planes, they couldn’t do it without the United States.”
Senator Chris Murphy: US support for Saudi Arabia 'can't be unconditional'


"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" - What's the updated meaning?

My conclusion is today it means:

"Either you agree with our Orwellian view of the world or you might have problems with us depending on our subjective view of your position and/or your ability to give us problems."




posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

This whole notion of arming "moderate" rebels that work with Al Qaeda has always seemed like an exercise in Newspeak, a gauge to exactly how stupid the American public is.

Even when Bush originally used that well worded propaganda, he was really stating that we are the terrorists and you better be with us!



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Hillary has been supplying the Islamic State with arms through bribes paid through the Clinton Foundation. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more Middle East instability.

Trump is married to a Russian, would like to think there will be a bit more communication before fighting it out.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I recall a similar phrase championed over the years that the best way to defeat terrorism was to cut off its head.

Who knew those heads resided in Washington, DC.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I am increasingly reminded of John Titor, I think it was, that said there would be a very brief second civil war followed by intervention by Russia but they would be going against the U.S. government and understood that the citizens were not against them and were not the enemy. That really looks like a possibility these days.

Yes, it's a very backwards doublethink kind of thing right now.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I'm a veteran, a gun owner, and I won't ever vote for Hillary. Not even at gun point.

I imagine I'm on an "enemies list".



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion




"Either you agree with our Orwellian view of the world or you might have problems with us depending on our subjective view of your position and/or your ability to give us problems."


I think that is a good assessment, and becoming more commonplace.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
IS that the Bush w/the Cheney connection? Dick Cheney and Haliburton™ have made how much $$$ from the 'Iraq War' I hope they didn't pass this video off as "Insurgents"

www.youtube.com...

We are in Afghanistan for the opium, that is obvious. So if One dug would they find that these little wars fought 6,000 miles away all full of snip? Just another ploy to extract tax money and then funnel that $ to companies that pay politicians to stir the pot. "Better there than here" Yeah so We don't catch "them" playacting terror acts and then putting them off as "Happening Now"...

BOTH CROOKS are going through the $$$ tonight.. Game #7 of the World Series and each half inning is a HRC™ ad and then a Drumpf™ ad.. What a frickin FARCE!!!



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: elementalgrove
This whole notion of arming "moderate" rebels that work with Al Qaeda has always seemed like an exercise in Newspeak, a gauge to exactly how stupid the American public is.

Absolutely!!

Congress merely need declare a state of war and name the enemy. Then the President refrains from ANY declaration of Rules of Engagement.

It would only have to happen ONCE, and the world would quake in fear of the next.

The 'real' bad guys are the ones we are forced to vote on.

Who, in their right mind, could predict a Presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? Are these two really the best we have to offer??



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
I pointed out the similarity of the following statements in the thread linked below.

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," - President George W. Bush



Well since G.W. was a bit doolaly you can take it that someone else wrote a typical Hitlerian piece that seeks to demonise and generalise on an easily identifiable enemy which he disgracefully named, as an enemy.
However the Bush reality was not so readily identifiable, but he just said feck it, or the writer did, they're all the same anyway. Easy peasy for a fascist, Trump has done the same, wonderful how much that garners attention, instead of having some retrospect as to how much is actually true.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Profusion

I'm a veteran, a gun owner, and I won't ever vote for Hillary. Not even at gun point.

I imagine I'm on an "enemies list".

Seconded.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join