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.

 

History of prefacing a conflict repeating itself

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Many have been looking at Venezuela and seeing that the same old tactics are being used to prime the public for the possibility of conflict.


EVERY MAJOR U.S. WAR of the last several decades has begun the same way: the U.S. government fabricates an inflammatory, emotionally provocative lie which large U.S. media outlets uncritically treat as truth while refusing at air questioning or dissent, thus inflaming primal anger against the country the U.S. wants to attack. That’s how we got the Vietnam War (North Vietnam attacks U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin); the Gulf War (Saddam ripped babies from incubators); and, of course, the war in Iraq (Saddam had WMDs and formed an alliance with Al Qaeda).



This was exactly the tactic used on February 23, when the narrative shifted radically in favor of those U.S. officials who want regime change operations in Venezuela. That’s because images were broadcast all over the world of trucks carrying humanitarian aid burning in Colombia on the Venezuela border. U.S. officials who have been agitating for a regime change war in Venezuela – Marco Rubio, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, the head of USAid Mark Green – used Twitter to spread classic Fake News: they vehemently stated that the trucks were set on fire, on purpose, by President Nicolas Maduro’s forces.


How are we supposed to trust our government and media if they don't take the time to find the facts? There are no shortage of legitimate concerns surrounding the situation in Venezuela, so why must they run with stories before they are confirmed?

So before we look at what really happened, lets look at who pushed the story before the truth was known.

Marco Rubio

John Bolton

US consulate-Frankfurt and Mike Pompeo

CNN went as far as to say they could vouch for the claims

The Telegraph

BBC


But on Saturday night, the New York Times published a detailed video and accompanying article proving that this entire story was a lie. The humanitarian trucks were not set on fire by Maduro’s forces. They were set on fire by anti-Maduro protesters who threw a molotov cocktail that hit one of the trucks. And the NYT’s video traces how the lie spread: from U.S. officials who baselessly announced that Maduro burned them to media outlets that mindlessly repeated the lie.
Full Glenn Greenwald piece on The Intercept.

It's absolutely reckless what the Media and Government do to beat the drums of war. Peoples lives are at stake, and it gets played out like theater until it becomes a war theater.




posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

So you believe what is happening in Venezuela is a fabricated scenario? Genuinely asking because I have my doubts as well.

Of course Maduro isn't helping, tho. Letting your own people starve to death isn't what real leaders do.

I didn't know the trucks set on fire were labeled as fake news... I guess NYT has valid proof for their claims?
edit on 12/3/2019 by vinifalou because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou


So you believe what is happening in Venezuela is a fabricated scenario? Genuinely asking because I have my doubts as well.


I don't think I'd go as far to say fabricated right now, it's a fluid situation with a lot going on, we need more time an facts to be sure.


Of course Maduro isn't helping, tho. Letting your own people starve to death isn't what real leaders do.


Which is absolutely a valid point. All I ask is that the people entrusted to give us the facts do just that.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: vinifalou

All I ask is that the people entrusted to give us the facts do just that.


Oh wouldn't that be lovely...

Sadly we're living the information age and the rich bankers and politicians who own the media and the military complex will only tell us what they want us to know.

And there's nothing we can do about it. At least not divided.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou

I cannot agree more. One of the best posts I've ever read on ATS. Spot on.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

We are definitely going to war. I imagine Venezuela will attack some US military base in South America and we will be "forced to do something in response".



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I think the best resolution would be for a coalition of South American Nations, preferably those who share Venezuela's borders to help them get the situation back to some semblance of normalcy.

The US should have nothing to do with it.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I think politicians that vote for military engagement should automatically be enlisted into mandatory service. If they refuse, they lose all congressional privileges.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

I think that is one of the best ideas I've heard presented.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I think it's trending that way, but I'm hoping that it doesn't happen, I don't think it's an absolute yet. It would take a large event to make it inevitable.

a reply to: vinifalou

You're exactly right, sadly.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I've been saying this for almost a year now. Everything is falling into place. The nationalism, the wall, the keeping Venezuelan allies at bay, the division of the people. It's just to much of a coincidence and history is really repeating itself here.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Despite all the claims I cannot find a video showing a protester starting the fire. So why should I believe Blumenthal's and Greenwald's propaganda, especially since it sounds suspiciously like Maduro's?
edit on 12-3-2019 by Tartuffe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe
Despite all the claims I cannot find a video showing a protester starting the fire. So why should I believe Blumenthal's and Greenwald's propaganda, especially since it sounds suspiciously like Maduro's?


You must not have looked hard.

They're in the article.

Original article disputing American narrative

video one

Video 2

Video 3

Video 4

Video 5

Do you have anything to offer to counter?



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

None of the videos show fires being started by protesters.

One shows that the lit cloth of a molotov going over the truck, but none show the cloth starting the fire.

Do you have any better evidence?



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

The protesters threw Molotov cocktails and misfired burning rags, but the army dude asking them to stop the violence didn't carry a fcking flamethrower.

No evidence will help to ignore the context better, you're doing pretty good without.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Tartuffe

The protesters threw Molotov cocktails and misfired burning rags, but the army dude asking them to stop the violence didn't carry a fcking flamethrower.

No evidence will help to ignore the context better, you're doing pretty good without.


So, no better evidence, but we are to believe the very people who fought to get the trucks half way across the bridge burnt it to the ground with an errant burning rag.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe


So, no better evidence, but we are to believe the very people who fought to get the trucks half way across the bridge burnt it to the ground with an errant burning rag.


What evidence are you bringing to the table?

There are videos of protesters making and throwing moltovs. Maybe it was an accident, maybe it was to get the reaction they initially did (anger at Venezuelan government).

It's either occasms razor, or we listen to John Bolton.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Tartuffe


So, no better evidence, but we are to believe the very people who fought to get the trucks half way across the bridge burnt it to the ground with an errant burning rag.


What evidence are you bringing to the table?

There are videos of protesters making and throwing moltovs. Maybe it was an accident, maybe it was to get the reaction they initially did (anger at Venezuelan government).

It's either occasms razor, or we listen to John Bolton.


The protesters themselves stated what they saw, and the state department is giving them the benefit of the doubt. The Maduro regime says otherwise, and you guys constructed a story to prove them right.

With occam's razor, does an entire truck burn to the ground when a burning rag hits it?
edit on 12-3-2019 by Tartuffe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

There are videos of them making and throwing moltovs.

Why aren't there videos of the government using munitions.

You're discounting this without any evidence of your own.

Edit: A burning rag probably wouldn't burn a truck... A bottle filled with flammable liquid shattering with a flaming rag likely could.
edit on 12-3-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Tartuffe

There are videos of them making and throwing moltovs.

Why aren't there videos of the government using munitions.

You're discounting this without any evidence of your own.

Edit: A burning rag probably wouldn't burn a truck... A bottle filled with flammable liquid shattering with a flaming rag likely could.


Yet no evidence of a molotov hitting the truck. As the New York Times article that Greenwald cited stated:


"Unpublished footage obtained by The New York Times and previously released tapes — including footage released by the Colombian government, which has blamed Mr. Maduro for the fire — allowed for a reconstruction of the incident. It suggests that a Molotov cocktail thrown by an antigovernment protester was the most likely trigger for the blaze.

At one point, a homemade bomb made from a bottle is hurled toward the police, who were blocking a bridge connecting Colombia and Venezuela to prevent the aid trucks from getting through.

But the rag used to light the Molotov cocktail separates from the bottle, flying toward the aid truck instead.

Half a minute later, that truck is in flames."

archive.is...-429.0-447.45

The footage "allowed for a reconstruction of the incident" and it "suggests" a molotov "was the most likely trigger for the blaze", but then go on to say "the rag used to light the Molotov cocktail separates from the bottle, flying toward the aid truck instead".

So, no, not a molotov, but the rag used to light the molotov.

I am not discounting the evidence, I am discounting the lack of evidence, the "reconstruction" and what it "suggests", and the propaganda of a repressive dictatorial regime.
edit on 12-3-2019 by Tartuffe because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2019 by Tartuffe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

So we can operate under the assumption the liquid soaked rag left the bottle and landed on the truck.

The backs of the trucks are canvas or tarp covered. Can that not be ignited by a rag soaked in flammable liquid?


So since you don't have any video to dispute this, do you have an article that explains how Venezuelan government did this? What did they use?

Do you have anything to go on other than some tweets from Bolton and Rubio?




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join