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.

 

Machine Guns, Bloody Lipstick, Google Secret Agents & Dirty Dossiers: The Big Story under the radar

page: 2
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

When the MSM says its okay, then and only then will it be okay.



I guess I should have loaded this one with 'memes' so they could at least insult me for it being another one of my "memes threads".




posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
a thread I made a while ago

Regime change in Syria is nothing new and has been on the cards since as far back as the 50s. Iran, Syria and Iraq were all on the cards as far back as the first Gulf war. If you control the resources, you control the world. That's what the middle East is all about. In the days of Empire this was called the great game. That's what can be seen again here.

What worries me is the fact that, even here on this forum, when this issue is raised people can be dismissive. It doesn't matter where people would want to live or if Putin is worse than Clinton. Some of these replies are the kind of replies you would expect to see from people who believe everything their TV tells them. The fact is Western Governments are hell bent on domination and some of the stunts we have pulled in the past few decades are nothing short of Tyranny.


I hadnt heard of that 1957 case. I will be putting that info to good use.

Here goes the source article cited:


Macmillan backed Syria assassination plot
Part of the "preferred plan" reads: "In order to facilitate the action of liberative forces, reduce the capabilities of the Syrian regime to organise and direct its military actions, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time."

The document, approved by London and Washington, named three men: Abd al-Hamid Sarraj, head of Syrian military intelligence; Afif al-Bizri, chief of the Syrian general staff; and Khalid Bakdash, leader of the Syrian Communist party.
Advertisement

For a prime minister who had largely come to power on the back of Anthony Eden's disastrous antics in Suez just a year before, Mr Macmillan was remarkably bellicose. He described it in his diary as "a most formidable report". Secrecy was so great, Mr Macmillan ordered the plan withheld even from British chiefs of staff, because of their tendency "to chatter".

Concern about the increasingly anti-western and pro-Soviet sympathies of Syria had been growing in Downing Street and the White House since the overthrow of the conservative military regime of Colonel Adib Shishakli by an alliance of Ba'ath party and Communist party politicians and their allies in the Syrian army, in 1954.

Driving the call for action was the CIA's Middle East chief Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of former president Theodore Roosevelt. He identified Colonel Sarraj, General al-Bizri and Mr Bakdash as the real power behind a figurehead president. The triumvirate had moved even closer to Nikita Khrushchev's orbit after the previous year's disastrous attempt by Britain and France, in collusion with Israel, to reverse the nationalisation of the Suez canal.

By 1957, despite America's opposition to the Suez move, President Eisenhower felt he could no longer ignore the danger of Syria becoming a centre for Moscow to spread communism throughout the Middle East. He and Mr Macmillan feared Syria would destabilise pro-western neighbours by exporting terrorism and encouraging internal dissent. More importantly, Syria also had control of one of the main oil arteries of the Middle East, the pipeline which connected pro-western Iraq's oilfields to Turkey.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

At this point, there will be no order in the Middle East in our lifetimes unless it is imposed from outside or one of the myriad tribal factions inside the region succeeds in imposing its own control, caliphate if you will.

If order is imposed from without, you're looking at having to completely restructure the culture of the region from the ground up which is a generational endeavor.

If you are looking at allowing one of the cultural tribal entities that currently exists to do it, you're looking at an entity possibly like the Ottoman Turks were in scope, but with the societal predilections of today.

So what options do we have? What are hoping for? It's a huge mess.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I briefly spoke about this same duck earlier . You presented the same Duck but plucked naked ...good post



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

if you believe everything that was told in the OP, then yeah


Which part is causing doubts, is needing citations?



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
What is WITH your title? Just throw a buch of keywords at the wall?



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
What is WITH your title? Just throw a buch of keywords at the wall?




Strange question to ask considering that your writing style is goofy.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

Well since there are those different threads all running in tandem to piece the Jigsaw together, seemed a fun way to whip something crunchy out off the top of my head real quick.

Although in hindsight now I'm wondering, do you think to denote the terrorists part I should have had it say "Beheaded Corpses", or it it better with just a plain "Machine Guns"???


edit on 26-10-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Your whole angle is, Russia the scapegoat is always getting picked on, poor poor innocent Russia.

Look back in history. What was the simultaneous act of Al Qaeda that coincided with their attack on 9/11?
I am willing to bet everyone has forgot. That also was by design, msm design.

Al Qaeda assassinated "the Lion of Panjshir".
Who was he you may ask?


He was assassinated, probably at the instigation of al-Qaeda, in a suicide bombing on September 9, 2001, just two days before the September 11 attacks in the United States



He was a powerful military commander during the resistance against the Soviet occupation between 1979 and 1989


Al Queda's pre 9/11 act, was to take out the biggest Afghan enemy of the former Soviet Union, in other words they acted on behalf of Putin.

Al KGBda is their real name. Then they show up in Syria killing the guys who are killing Assad's men, again acting on behalf of Putin.

Qaddafi makes peace with the West after being a traditional ally of the USSR throughout the Cold War, next thing you know Al Qaeda is running rampant across his nation and take him out.

Then we have people who fell for Putin's intrigue hook line and sinker like the OP who claim Al Qaeda is Al CIAda, when Al Qaeda only acts on behalf of Putin which history has proven time and time again. It's not his fault though, the MSM is very good at hiding and obscuring real history.

Source

So knowing real history, we can see that Putin wanted Qaddafi taken out. What did Hillary do? She helped. So did Obama. Russian collusion.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

What in the world....

You're kidding, right?

You've got to be kidding.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: TinfoilTP

What in the world....

You're kidding, right?

You've got to be kidding.



History doesn't kid, ignoring it allows you to.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Massoud fought the USSR in the Afghan War.

So did OBL.

They were both in cahoots with the US against the USSR, together.

Afterwards Massoud broke ties with the elements that became Al Qaeda / Taliban radicalism, and up he come as their rival with the Northern Alliance. Later Taliban bans the dope trade, now the invade Afghanistan angle drives up the 9/11 motive, and it was the Taliban that killed Massoud for all we know. It was his rival. Al Qaeda being drug runners them turning treacherous against the Taliban not too far a stretch. We already saw OBL went to war alongside the CIA in the Balkan's most the decade leading up to 9/11, hell he probably owed the CIA one for helping him expand Islam up into the region which following 9/11 helped establish the Islam corridor that came to flood the EU. Now that you've got me thinking about it.

I seriously have no idea where you're even getting this theory of yours from, I've never heard anything like it.

I guess you might start by explaining what OBL was doing working together in Afghanistan, and then against Hussein in Iraq during the Gulf War, and then the Balkan's... then came 9/11 whom Michael Schauer of the Bin laden unit is on record saying many times "that US foreign policy is marching to the drummer of Al Qaeda", then as a destablizing force across the ME both during the 90's, and then at an increasing pace ever since now climaxed with them marching against US 'enemies' alongside their "ISIS" splinter group. The agenda to take out the Assad's goes back before I was born, in comes Al Qaeda to the rescue. The bizarre flip flop relationship with Qaddafi likewise duration of history. Whenever there's a merc task across that whole region, and especially when it involves the opium drug corridors over there, there be found the CIA and Al Qaeda side by side. 9/11 was the only true hiccup in the PR metrics, the rest before that was a sideshow.

You might also explain this history off Russia trying to KILL Qaddafi. I've never heard that one either and your link there didn't seem to offer any insights on that tip.
edit on 26-10-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Enemies and turncoats in the eyes of Putin kept dying at the hands of Al Qaeda.

Putin who has historically irradiated a known enemy has a proven fetish for payback.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Then why didn't he kill OBL??



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Then why didn't he kill OBL??


OBL was just a foreign mercenary compared to the Lion of Panjshir. Why would Putin kill someone who sold out to him to do his bidding?



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

So OBL came in and lead troops against the USSR, worked with the CIA+KLA into July 2001, and you're insisting he was a Russian double agent because a guy in the Northern Alliance blew up over a decade after the end of the Soviet-Afghan War?
edit on 27-10-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Great thread. People seem to forget the Saudi, Turkey and Qatari angle on Syria and our training and arming of Syrian Rebels in Jordan. Hell we made common cause with the Muslim Brotherhood (no fan of Assad) and frikken Al Nursa)/Al Qaeda in Syria and no one went WTF are we doing?

The crazy thing is, the reporting and timeline is there for anyone to see.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Is it so wrong to say I think we should work with Russia to stabilize the region, but at the same time say, "Yeah, I know Assad is your SOB, but let's be plain. Maybe you need a new SOB."

We had Saddam as our SOB for a long time, and he had to go finally because he wasn't worth it.


Who or what is the alternative to Assad in Syria? Do they make the country, more or less stable? Assad isn't a good person, but compared to the alternatives in Syria, he's infinitely better than all of them from a stabilizing point of view.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Look at it historically. Osama bin Laden had been a CIA asset since the eighties at least.

Why does anyone question the notion that AQ are an owned asset, when the progression over the years is so obvious?



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Well I mean I get that, but then there's that whole 9/11 as a pretext for war sticky situation.

If Al Qaeda never ceased being Al CIAda, well then there's a whole forum in this site of 9/11 Conspiracies that all needs another look.

Or if they did go rogue, 9/11 wasnt a CIA operation, well there should be no going back for US.

I'm pretty sure you're old enough to remember. The way that event impacted my life, there was life before 9/11, and then after 9/11. Just what the firefighters and even the surviving first responders alone all went through there's just no ever going back on this issue in my eyes. Never. Ever. For ever.




new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join