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.

 

Four bloody lies of war, from Havana 1898 to Baghdad 2003

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   
The Bush Administration's lies about its rationales for attacking Iraq fit a pattern of deceit that has dragged America into at least three other unjust and catastrophic wars.


1. In Cuba, the 1898 sinking of the battleship Maine brought the US into war with Spain. The people of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines were in revolt against the crumbling Spanish empire. Media baron William Randolph Hearst, the era's Rupert Murdoch, wanted a war to sell papers and promote "jingo" power. He portrayed the Spaniards barbaric rapists and worse. In the name of democracy and freedom, Hearst and pro-war fanatics like Theodore Roosevelt demanded US intervention.

Republican President William McKinley, personal hero of today's White House dirty trickster Karl Rove, dutifully sent the battleship Maine into Havana harbor. Suddenly, it blew up, killing some 250 American sailors.



2. As was US intervention in World War I. In 1915, as part of a blockade against Great Britain, the Germans downed the passenger ship Lusitania, on its way from New York to London. More than a thousand people died, many of them Americans.

But in April 1917, reviving bloody images of the Lusitania, Wilson dragged the US into the slaughter. More than 100,000 Americans died. Under cover of war, federal marshals burned and blew up offices of the Socialist Party and radical unions like the Industrial Workers of the World. Wilson shredded the Bill of Rights and jailed, deported or killed thousands of organizers. Eugene V. Debs, the beloved leader of the American labor movement, was thrown in federal prison. The ideological left was crushed.

And guess what! Deep sea divers recently found the Lusitania, its sunken hull laden with illegal armaments. As the Germans had claimed, the ship was violating international law. Like McKinley, Wilson had duped America into a catastrophic intervention based on a "faulty intelligence."



3. In 1964 North Vietnamese allegedly fired on two US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. While campaigning as a peace candidate, Lyndon Johnson used the incident to win Congressional approval for unlimited intervention. By 1967 he'd sent some 550,000 US troops into Southeast Asia.

A mirror image of the earlier war in the Philippines, Vietnam may rank as the greatest of all modern American catastrophes. It split and alienated a generation, poisoned American politics, spawned a toxic cadre of dirty tricksters and marked the downturn of the American economy. The war destroyed Johnson's Great Society, and has rendered every American tangibly poorer in more ways than can be counted.

And guess what! The Gulf of Tonkin incident probably never happened. According to then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Vietnamese may never actually have fired shots that may or may not have put a few bullet holes in one or two US ships. Even if they did, any such attack had zero military significance.



4. To which we now must add George W. Bush's lies of Iraq. The war was primarily sold as a way to destroy Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction. The world was also told Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks on the US, and was trying to get nuclear bombs.

These were all lies. The British memos proving the Bush and Blair Administrations knew Saddam did not have WMDs, was not involved in 9/11 and had no way to make atomic weapons are now public monuments. Like the Maine, Lusitania and Tonkin, the proofs are tangible and irrefutable.


Source:
The Free Press


How long will this Lying go on?

How many more Wars do they have to start and ignite?

Four More Wars?




posted on May, 9 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Absolutely!!

But look at it this way... you cant go round saying we need war coz wars are good.
The sheeple dont vote for that.

You have to "maufacture consent" as Chomsky put it, sugar coat it, so the pill is easier for mommy to swallow when her jonny is left bleeding on foreign turf.

Sad but true.

Got my way above btw..

[edit on 9/5/2005 by Corinthas]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
Absolutely!!

But look at it this way... you cant go round saying we need war coz wars are good.
The sheeple dont vote for that.

You have to "maufacture consent" as Chomsky put it, sugar coat it, so the pill is easier for mommy to swallow when her jonny is left bleeding on foreign turf.

Sad but true.

Great comment about the "manufactured consent" - professor Chomsky finds the Right words all the time!

Too bad most of the people dont see thru this Lies and Deception of Western PROpaganda machine - all they see is Terrorists killing innocent civlians - but HOW DID COME TO THIS, nobody wants to ask themselves.

Probably nothing New in Human History - I bet leaders all over the World have made up their reasons to start Wars and start Boosting their Economy and Research.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
No comments from the Pro-Bush Pro-War Pro-Republican Supporters on this Forum?

HMmmm, I wonder Why....



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
well actually, remember Franklin D. Roosevelt got us into a war with Germany and Japan intentionally because he didnt want us to be at war with the Axis alone if they started attacking us with Britain out of the picture so he decided to get America into the war by having merchant ships armed and also have ordered frigates and destroyers to attack any possible German U-boat they spotted even if they don't attack them while they protect merchantships heading towards Britain.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
well actually, remember Franklin D. Roosevelt got us into a war with Germany and Japan intentionally because he didnt want us to be at war with the Axis alone if they started attacking us with Britain out of the picture so he decided to get America into the war by having merchant ships armed and also have ordered frigates and destroyers to attack any possible German U-boat they spotted even if they don't attack them while they protect merchantships heading towards Britain.

Well, isnt that kind of diffrent?

To start a War by blowing up your Own People, and then blame the other side?

Thats more a tactic of Nazi Germany, when they torched Reichstag and blamed Jewish Communist Terrorists - but hey, as long as it WORK right?

FACTS are that these people in control need Wars - and wars they will get.

But they are not looking at the situation from a bigger, long term view - how is the current war in Iraq helping to stabilize the Middle Eastern region? And how will that effect this world for another 10 years.

[edit on 9/5/05 by Souljah]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by deltaboy
well actually, remember Franklin D. Roosevelt got us into a war with Germany and Japan intentionally because he didnt want us to be at war with the Axis alone if they started attacking us with Britain out of the picture so he decided to get America into the war by having merchant ships armed and also have ordered frigates and destroyers to attack any possible German U-boat they spotted even if they don't attack them while they protect merchantships heading towards Britain.

Well, isnt that kind of diffrent?

To start a War by blowing up your Own People, and then blame the other side?

Thats more a tactic of Nazi Germany, when they torched Reichstag and blamed Jewish Communist Terrorists - but hey, as long as it WORK right?

FACTS are that these people in control need Wars - and wars they will get.

But they are not looking at the situation from a bigger, long term view - how is the current war in Iraq helping to stabilize the Middle Eastern region? And how will that effect this world for another 10 years.


lets see what happens 10 years from now. in anicase there was no difference in how the war was started either back by Franklin or by Bush they have a purpose. and whats this about blowing up your own people thing?



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Souljah, you know alot about american history, did you learn it yourself or did you learn it in school? either way
I think FDR realized he had little choice but to go to war especially after dec. 7, 1941. Remember FDR was against the war.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trustnone
Souljah, you know alot about american history, did you learn it yourself or did you learn it in school? either way
I think FDR realized he had little choice but to go to war especially after dec. 7, 1941. Remember FDR was against the war.


yep, FDR put sanctions against Imperial Japan for its invasion of China, and supported Britain against Nazi Germany but he believes its not enough.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
lets see what happens 10 years from now. in anicase there was no difference in how the war was started either back by Franklin or by Bush they have a purpose. and whats this about blowing up your own people thing?

Dont you think that times have changed since the WWII?

Isnt the World today a little bit different, that it was in the 40's?

Hasnt Humanity seen 'NUFF of Wars and Killings?

Guess not. As long as there are people like Bush and people that support them, there will always be Wars.


This is about "blowing up your own people thing".

Republican President William McKinley, personal hero of today's White House dirty trickster Karl Rove, dutifully sent the battleship Maine into Havana harbor. Suddenly, it blew up, killing some 250 American sailors.

What do you think it happened? Another accident?


PS: Seriously - what do you guys think about being Lied to? That your president Lied and Faked the evidence - the reasons for War? How does that make you feel, as an American?

[edit on 9/5/05 by Souljah]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by deltaboy
lets see what happens 10 years from now. in anicase there was no difference in how the war was started either back by Franklin or by Bush they have a purpose. and whats this about blowing up your own people thing?

Dont you think that times have changed since the WWII?

Isnt the World today a little bit different, that it was in the 40's?

Hasnt Humanity seen 'NUFF of Wars and Killings?

Guess not. As long as there are people like Bush and people that support them, there will always be Wars.


This is about "blowing up your own people thing".

Republican President William McKinley, personal hero of today's White House dirty trickster Karl Rove, dutifully sent the battleship Maine into Havana harbor. Suddenly, it blew up, killing some 250 American sailors.

What do you think it happened? Another accident?


as long as Osama and Bush and others like him, there will be wars.

and who knows wat happened to U.S.S. Maine. as it says it just blew up. boilers tend to be very tricky to handle with.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Dont you think that times have changed since the WWII?

Isnt the World today a little bit different, that it was in the 40's?

Hasnt Humanity seen 'NUFF of Wars and Killings?


This coming from someone who calls himself a guerrilla fighter, a revolutionary.... Yeah, I know full well people like yourself, such as che guevara, he also called himself a revolutionary, and executed those who opposed him in Cuba...

And what the heck is it with this influx of communists, or how they call themselves...revolutionaries, and insurgents in these boards?......

is this the same thing as the Nazi influx we got a while back?.....



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
as long as Osama and Bush and others like him, there will be wars.

and who knows wat happened to U.S.S. Maine. as it says it just blew up. boilers tend to be very tricky to handle with.

Yes - as long as there are War Mongers, there are wars. So we agree that we can put Bush and Milosevic in the same basket? They are/were both cruel dictators that plunged their nations into terrible wars, that resulted in thousands of dead civilans. For WHAT? Money? Territory? Religion?


PS: Why are you guys talking about FDR and the WWII, when I never even mentioned it in the first place in the four points?



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
This coming from someone who calls himself a guerrilla fighter, a revolutionary.... Yeah, I know full well people like yourself, such as che guevara, he also called himself a revolutionary, and executed those who opposed him in Cuba...

And what the heck is it with this influx of communists, or how they call themselves...revolutionaries, and insurgents in these boards?......

is this the same thing as the Nazi influx we got a while back?.....

What exactly do you know about me, apart from the posts I made?

I can call myself an Astronaut - that still doesnt mean I was in Space.

While your comparison of communists to nazis is also very mind opening.

You still Fear the Great Communist invasion coming from Cuba?

You still fear that Dictator Castro - a dictator that has brought Medical, Social and Educational Reforms to Cuba, so that today EVERYBODY in Cuba has Free Medical Service, Free Public Transport and rate of Literacy Higher then United States?

Wow, what a dictator. Guess CIA should have never missed in shooting this guy - seems like the ultimate evil on Earth huh? That poisoned cigars should have ended up in his Mouth Right?


And Muad'Dib (is that what you call the crater shaped as a mouse on your Second Moon?), you should know better, judging by your signature:

'Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.'

Well guess what - I stand up for an ideal of Freedom and Justice, FOR ALL.

If that means Revolution - then you can label me as revolutionary also.

[edit on 9/5/05 by Souljah]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
because it shows that leaders fight wars for reasons. and FDR made one reason why we got involve in WWII, we fought in Vietnam because of communism, we fought Iraq because overthrow of Saddam and to make a democratic Irag right in the middle of region surrounded by Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, etc. Bush has a reason for invading Iraq and he sees the long term strategic sense, the end of Islamic fundamentalism. u can never defend yourself against terrorism so u go on the offense. like Afghanistan, Phillipines and Indonesia, now we have Iraq to turn as ally for war against Islamic fundamentalism, also it got terrorists terrorizing Muslims
which makes the people of that region realize its backfiring and now we have the governments and the people going for change. terrorism has come back to the Middle East. the Saudis are now cooperating where they didnt before, they are looking at the charities that have ties to terrorists and u have the Saudi people approving the governments method to crackdown against terrorists.

dat is Bush's intention for the Middle East, he doesn't intend to kill all Muslims, just trying to change the way the ME is doing right now.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
because it shows that leaders fight wars for reasons. and FDR made one reason why we got involve in WWII, we fought in Vietnam because of communism, we fought Iraq because overthrow of Saddam and to make a democratic Irag right in the middle of region surrounded by Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, etc. Bush has a reason for invading Iraq and he sees the long term strategic sense, the end of Islamic fundamentalism. u can never defend yourself against terrorism so u go on the offense. like Afghanistan, Phillipines and Indonesia, now we have Iraq to turn as ally for war against Islamic fundamentalism, also it got terrorists terrorizing Muslims
which makes the people of that region realize its backfiring and now we have the governments and the people going for change. terrorism has come back to the Middle East. the Saudis are now cooperating where they didnt before, they are looking at the charities that have ties to terrorists and u have the Saudi people approving the governments method to crackdown against terrorists.

dat is Bush's intention for the Middle East, he doesn't intend to kill all Muslims, just trying to change the way the ME is doing right now.

Do you really think that this Fire should be fought with Fire also?

Like burning oil wells, that are blown up with dynamite to stop the Fires?

I dont think this tactic is very suitable in case of Bush's "war on terrorism". He is hunting and fighting an idea, a philosophy, which does not have a country, it does not have borders and it does not have frontlines. You cannot fight an Idea, thats like Don Quijote attacking the Windmillss - useless and not effective.

But hey - by bombing one of the poorest nations in the World (Afganistan) to stone age, I am sure that this move helped to remove world wide terrorism.

You cannot fight Islamic Fundamentalism by invading another Middle Eastern coutry - You CREATE islamic Fundamentalism by this action. So how is that going to END this?

And Bush's intention in the Middle East has nothing to do with terrorism at all - its a typcal war of resources and war for strategic territoral advantage, to control the area of the Middle East.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
how can we create Islamic Fundamentalism by this action, look what Osama did to destroy the Buddist statues, the statues did not do anithing but the fundamentalists destroy it even thought its just been sitting there for thousands of years, even before Islam was born. Islamic fundamentalism has been born wen prophet Mohammed took over Medina and Mecca. the Arab armies invade other regions because they believe Islam exists only and non-muslims should be wiped out. even if the actions by the U.S. got Muslims involve, they will still be goin out and terrorising other non-muslims because they believe, which is kinda like the Christian crusaders. Osama started it first aniways. because he believes that Islam is better. so Bush decides to respond with Democracy.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
how can we create Islamic Fundamentalism by this action, look what Osama did to destroy the Buddist statues, the statues did not do anithing but the fundamentalists destroy it even thought its just been sitting there for thousands of years, even before Islam was born. Islamic fundamentalism has been born wen prophet Mohammed took over Medina and Mecca. the Arab armies invade other regions because they believe Islam exists only and non-muslims should be wiped out. even if the actions by the U.S. got Muslims involve, they will still be goin out and terrorising other non-muslims because they believe, which is kinda like the Christian crusaders. Osama started it first aniways. because he believes that Islam is better. so Bush decides to respond with Democracy.

Sorry Mate, I dont buy this crappy Osama story - I dotn think that Osama has the power to perform such an attack on United States as it occured on 9-11. I dont think that OSama had the power to "turn-off" entire NORAD, I dont think Osama has such power. Such power comes from People in Charge, from People with Real Power, from People with Power to Cover it up. Islamic Fundamentalism Today? Would it be around without Greedy Corporate Colonialism?

Its a simple matter of Economics - they have the Resources we Need, and we have the Power to take them.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Osama didnt need to "turn off" NORAD since NORAD was design against foreign hostile planes and missiles like the Soviet Union, it was design for the Cold War, nobody expect Osama to use civilian airliners as suicide attacks, some thought maybe for hostage taking but not suicide. Osama has millions of dollars thanks to donations and drugs from Afghan opium. Osama has the power to get people to do things for him, like martydom, or provide money to him. He is in charge. His group looks up to him. He has bodyguards around him.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Osama didnt need to "turn off" NORAD since NORAD was design against foreign hostile planes and missiles like the Soviet Union, it was design for the Cold War, nobody expect Osama to use civilian airliners as suicide attacks, some thought maybe for hostage taking but not suicide. Osama has millions of dollars thanks to donations and drugs from Afghan opium. Osama has the power to get people to do things for him, like martydom, or provide money to him. He is in charge. His group looks up to him. He has bodyguards around him.

PLEASE!

NORAD is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. It is a joint United States and Canadian organization which provides aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America, and was founded on May 12, 1958 under the name North American Air Defense Command. Aerospace warning or integrated tactical warning and attack assessment (ITW/AA) covers the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles. Aerospace control includes providing surveillance and control of Canadian and United States airspace.

NORAD is in COMMAND of the Skies over othe United States, and they have control over each and every aircraft passing thru - especially the ones that the control tower LOST CONTACT WITH.

The United States Air Force (USAF) is the most technologically advanced, and the most dominate military force ever known to man. There were seven Air Stations that were armed and on full alert to protect the continental United States on Tuesday September 11, 2001. The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Panama City, Florida. The Air National Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fully armed fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Tyndall AFB, alert birds also sit armed and ready at; Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB), Homestead, Florida; Langley AFB, Hampton, Virginia; Otis Air National Guard (ANG), Falmouth, Massachusetts; Oregon ANG, Portland, Oregon; March ARB, Riverside, CA; and Ellington ANG, Houston, Texas.

I am sure that they could intercept. There were at least 28 other USAF bases that were in range of the 4 airliners on 911.

New York City and Washington D.C. are far and away the top two cities in the United States that would be targeted by terrorists.

NORAD is a binational United States and Canadian organization charged with warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, utilizing mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes providing surveillance and control of Canadian and United States airspace. The job of NORAD is to know every inch of the skies over North America.

Almost one hundred and thirteen minutes elapsed between the time American Airlines Flight 11 lost contact and was hijacked at 8:13:31 till the time United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:06:05. One hour and fifty-three minutes went by and the USAF did not intercept any one of these four "hijacked" airlines.



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join