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.

 

I could have sworn we beat Al qa..adfe...uehbd... That terror group... Al-Qaeda

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Kazber

You said that there are too many people and religions in the world for us to have peace.

That is not true.

If you think that the War on Terror had anything to do with religion, then with respect, you were not paying attention to the correct things. The CIA recruited Bin Laden in the eighties, and funded his little band of renegades to fight against the Russians, who were occupying Afghanistan at the time. They funded his war against the Soviet forces. He was, and has always been, an asset of the US intelligence community, and they have funded his, and other organisations like it, through intermediaries since that time.

The US and UK governments previous to the beginning of the War on Terror, were adamant about moving into Iraq. Bush had been planning to go there from the moment he set foot in the White House. He and Blair discussed the thing in closed meetings often, and all of this was WAAAAAY before 9/11 ever happened.

They had no justification for it however. There had been no action there, and contrary to what the press were told, what the dossiers alleged, there was no actual change in the status in Iraq. Sure, things were not as we would have them in our own back yard, but if anything things were quieter in Iraq than they had been for some time. Then all of a sudden, an unthinkable attack from AQ under Osama Bin Laden, who is, remember, a CIA asset. All of a sudden, this is being used to justify an invasion of Iraq, a nation which we know now to have had no actual connection to the attack, aside from the POSSIBILITY that SOME of the attackers MIGHT have traveled through the place, at some vague point before traveling West. All very tenuous, at best.

But none the less, the murderous thugs, Bush and Blair, used this as a justification for an illegal invasion of Iraq, which ultimately created more terrorists than it killed. They then went on to Afghanistan... now... the attackers themselves were largely speaking Saudi Arabian. In fact, of the 19 men who are supposed to have been involved, 15 are from Saudi Arabia, 2 are from the UAE, as well as one Egyptian and one Lebanese. You will note, that there are no Afghani persons listed amongst them.

So, thats two nations, neither of which had specific links to the attacks themselves, being invaded in the name of protecting the West from religious extremism and weapons of mass destruction.

To say that these wars were ONLY about money, not about religious extremism or terrorism, is not an understatement. If the governments of the US and the UK were concerned about extremism, they would not have been funding, equipping, and training elements of the key terror groups of the day, something which has continued until VERY recently indeed, and may never have ended at all. After all, things are kept from us "for reasons of national security". Its possible that one of the things that is being kept from us, is that because some of our least reputable countrymen here in the UK and over in the US, still want the option of carving their places in the history books, and making money hand over fist from the MIC, that these extremist elements will still be on the pay roll when you and I are well past our prime and in our graves. If they are prepared to spy on their own people, which they do, despite the fact that it is illegal to do so, then what makes anyone think the intelligence services would not kill us, or allow us to be killed, to achieve an objective they are given by their top brass?

The reality is, we are all considered expendable by the people that give the orders. We are nothing more than numbers, pawns to be moved around, pieces on a board in a game which has no winner, only varying degrees of wealth inflation. Its all smoke, mirrors, and lies on top of those, and we go along with it, because those of us who look behind the curtain see things that make us appear mad when we say them, to people too witless to understand the trap they are in.

Its a bad business, but its nothing to do with space, and its nothing to do with religion or population. The ONLY issue we have, is that our leaders are dishonourable dogs, who should have been dragged into the street and shot for their abuses of their position and for their lack of moral direction.




posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Ok, so after some reading, and lots of scratching my head. This is what I came up with.

Bush had stated that the Iraq war was won. Then we pulled out our troops, ISIS took over, and then Obama sent troops back over to start bombing.

So we took out one guy just for another to take over.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Sorry to make you type all that but that is not what I thinks about.

I was just saying what I feel. And it had nothing to do with what is going on over there.

I think peace will be hard to come by with the amount of people in the world and the power that religion gives. Not say that religion has anything to do with what is going on over there. but some of the biggest wars have been fought because of it.

Religion, power, money,



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Kazber

Thats pretty much the sitaution, although looking deeper is always a good idea.




posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I think you summed it up quite nicely. I get pissed off when I hear the likes of Obama say 'Iraq was a mistake' or words to that effect. I always think of all those children killed, maimed or left to endure all sorts of abuse. Not to mention the countless adults. 'Mistake', doesn't quite cut it for me. It is galling to hear the faux outrage at Russia's actions when those in the Western alliance are guilty of so much more.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: midicon

Indeed.

It is hypocritical in the extreme for the US to shout foul at Russian bombing runs. Its not as if the American military is known for their ability to hit targets with precision, or with minimal collateral casualties.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
No, we never destroyed Al Qaeda. The people in charge just hung another carrot on a different string for us to chase. They took a few bites out of the Al Qaeda carrot before being redirected.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   
The article quotes a Navy captain at the Pentagon and shows stock photos of Air Force bombers. Obviously, the Navy captain spokesman is just saying what he was told to say. I'm pretty sure he has no first hand knowledge of what actually happened.

I think it's just as likely that the US bombed some random civilians in Syria and decided after the fact to label them Al-Qaeda to justify it. If we're going to kill people in Syria now, we have to make sure they were terrorists.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

exactly, same people same backers,just change the name and they can keep the terrorist threat alive and making money for the MIC indefinitely.
the intelligence agencies get to decide who is a terrorist and who isn`t based on their classified info that we never get to see. that`s why they purposely chose the ambiguous name " war on terror"



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
The US was giving Syrian rebels some of whom were Al-qaeda weapons. The intelligence community and hence obama was well aware of this.
There are a lot of dictators in the world, Assad is not anything special. Gadaffi relative to other dictators would be considered a nice guy.

The US deep state could care less about terrorist, pwns to be played. The goal of US interest in the ME is to keep the petrodollar in place and keep chinese and Russian Influence out of the area.

Its a geo-political game. I can't see it being a net benefit, US influence/occupation vs debt.




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join