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.

 

Provocateur State: Who's Really Behind the Insurgency?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I just read an interesting piece from Global Research. It addresses who is most likely behind the Iraqi insurgency. I concur with the author in his assessment that it is most likely Rumsfeld and his Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG).

That's not to say there isn't a true insurgency. There is. They are composed of Iraqis (from every region) who are fighting like hell to run out the occupiers out. What this article addresses, though, is an element (that we are supposed to believe is composed mainly of "foreign fighters" and terrorists. That element and the violence they have wrought makes absolutely NO sense to anyone. With one exception. Those who understand the true aim: to sow Civil War. That has Rumsfeld's and his (P2OG) name all over it. It is they (and his cronies in the military industrial complex) who stand to gain from this madness. No one else does.

It makes the most sense in light of the Cold War ending. No Cold War. No external threat. No massive military/intel budgets. The war mongers have through their sheer demonic actions and criminal wars have created and continue to create enemies from Iraq to Aghanistan to Pakistan to Venezuela.

People of the United States have got to wake up and look truth in the face: Rumsfeld and his whole cabal are not only truly an enemy of the USA, but enemies of the whole human race.



The Provocateur State:
Is the CIA Behind the Iraqi "Insurgents"--and Global Terrorism?
by Frank Morales

The requirement of an ever-escalating level of social violence to meet the political and economic needs of the insatiable "anti-terrorist complex" is the essence of the new US militarism.

What is now openly billed as "permanent war" ultimately serves the geo-political ends of social control in the interests of US corporate domination, much as the anti-communist crusade of the now-exhausted Cold War did.

Back in 2002, following the trauma of 9-11, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld predicted there would be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. How could he be so sure of that? Perhaps because these attacks would be instigated on the order of the Honorable Mr. Rumsfeld. According to Los Angeles Times military analyst William Arkin, writing Oct. 27, 2002, Rumsfeld set out to create a secret army, "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" network that would "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception," to stir the pot of spiraling global violence.
globalresearch.ca...



dh

posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Completely right
We know that Al-Qaeda indicates the CIA or associated intelligence departments in all its expositions

That whatever 'sides' are involved will be funded and supported from a single central source that will front diverse manifestations
That many ignorant and stupid people will be swept along and persuaded into doing things that ape this propaganda
That the many poisonings, psychotronic manoeuvrings, mind control and brainwashing festerings will feed into the Ordo ab Chao intent of what's going on
33 degree masonic strategy, the agenda exteriorised and put in front of the dazed public, the bastards have their heads stuck well above the parapet, and it doesn't take much to take them down



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Yes, dh, correct. I think the reason so many people have such a hard time getting their minds around this very simple concept is because to have to admit that life isn't just cowboys & indians, (us bein the good guy); and it would shatter the illusions they've been spoon-fed all their lives.

In response to those people, I will echo Col. Jessup from A Few Good Men, "YOU/they CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Nice find there ECK

I am actually attempting to put together another thread of a similar nature going on a conspiracy therory that I cam e across the other day as to what the actual reason behind the iraq war and the next steps beyond.
Wold you mind if I reference your thread and source in my thread when I am finally able to post it?



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Thanks, and by all means reference it.


Good luck. This information should be spread as far and wide as possible.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
All that stuff just might be true.....I dont know...none of us knows for sure.
I really dont like Rumsfeld.....I just found this kinda funny....."How could he be sure of that?" seems like like a sorry way to suggest the rummy is guilty. Considering that most people thought and predicted the same after 9/11 and even more after we went into Afhanistan.



Rumsfeld predicted there would be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. How could he be so sure of that?


Hmm, because the US pissed people off and he knew we would retaliate against 9/11 (no im not saying we needed to retaliate) and that retaliation would piss more people off and they would target the US more.






[edit on 25/5/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
You have got to be kidding....



Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I think the reason so many people have such a hard time getting their minds around this very simple concept is because to have to admit that life isn't just cowboys & indians, (us bein the good guy); and it would shatter the illusions they've been spoon-fed all their lives.

In response to those people, I will echo Col. Jessup from A Few Good Men, "YOU/they CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

No, people have a hard time getting their minds around this concept because it's completely and horribly false.
You haven't got one shred of evidence to support this ridiculous claim (or do we have to ask nicely for the evidence? - see any SS thread). That article provides no proof whatsoever that the CIA or anyone other than terrorists - and insurgents - are behind the insurgency.

By "life" do you mean "world affairs" isn't always Cowboys and Indians? Well....what do you call the others? There are usually bad guys and good guys...what do you call the "neithers"? And just because the US isn't always the "good guys" doesn't mean the US is always the "bad guys". Something you fail to realize (as evidenced by the vast majority of your posts).

You quote " You can't handle the truth"
I fear the same can be said for you. Something in your psyche tells you that everything bad that happens has to be some conspiricy involving the US. I fear what you will do when most of your claims are proven wrong.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   


You haven't got one shred of evidence to support this ridiculous claim


True...the article is just of some guy and what he thinks and claims that he has proof.....CIA documents or whatever.....where are they at?

Im am not saying it is not true!!! It is far fetched and I would really like to see some evidence if there is such a thing. Evidence on the Iraq/insurgent crap he was mumbling about.

People use people as thier sources and them people used people who said this and that and claim to be able to back it up with documents and all this other stuff.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Couple more things:

*You state Rummy and pals have the most to gain from this insurgency? What?
What do they gain? How do they benefit?
(please provide credible evidence)


*Worse case scenario:
3 years from now, Rummy and pals are all out of office, but....
the insurgency is still going on (again, worse case scenario). Who do you blame then?



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The CIA is a dying duck. Rumsfeld is moving more and more over to the Pentagon and under his control.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I hate to break it to you, but the source, that link is excellent. Too bad what it deals with goes right over your head.

Quit being so naive.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Couple more things:

*You state Rummy and pals have the most to gain from this insurgency? What?
What do they gain? How do they benefit?
(please provide credible evidence)


*Worse case scenario:
3 years from now, Rummy and pals are all out of office, but....
the insurgency is still going on (again, worse case scenario). Who do you blame then?


I'd say Civil War in Iraq is about as good a justification for a permanent US/UK military presence to "keep the peace and protect the Iraqi's oil".



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
it wasnt me it was the C-I-.....ungh


or....perhaps its the saudis, good frients of GW?



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
I'd say Civil War in Iraq is about as good a justification for a permanent US/UK military presence to "keep the peace and protect the Iraqi's oil".


EXACTLY! I can't understand why its so hard for people to understand this. In everything, we must ask - who benefits? Bottom line.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
You still haven't addressed any of my questions....










(sorry for the one liner mods)



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I hate to break it to you, but the source, that link is excellent


"Quit being so Naive"....I think you should tell yourself that.
Im not the one believing people that cant even produce any evidence other than what they said they saw or read in a document.

I didnt say it was not true...I have thought about it and it might be true...im undecided as of now. I was just saying that this he said she said BS isnt enough proof for me. Just cause a link or site quotes a guy that has seen classified documents does not make it an excellent source...especially on matters like this. I will continue to do my own research and maybe oneday Ill make up my mind.....that's not being naive.



According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--would actually carry out secret missions designed to provoke terrorist groups into committing violent acts


Like I said...he said, she said BS......

[edit on 25/5/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You still haven't addressed any of my questions....


I've stated my position. Go argue with the wall.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
I will continue to do my own research and maybe oneday Ill make up my mind.....that's not being naive.


I hope you do, Sporty. If you keep looking, and keep an open mind, you will find the truth.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
[
I'd say Civil War in Iraq is about as good a justification for a permanent US/UK military presence to "keep the peace and protect the Iraqi's oil".


Oh , make no mistake, we don't need a civil war or any excuse for that matter to remian in Iraq. Thats what this whole thig is about. A stronghold in the middle east not controlled by the Saudis. Bases are already under construction. There will be a permanant US military presence in Iraq from this point forward.

Now to the question of who is behind the insurgency. Well, who suffers if the US has more control over the oil coming out of the middle east? Thats all one has to ask..and the answer is really simple. Every other middle eastern country who has been lucky enough to fall bass ackwards into huge oil deposits. They know if they lose that control, they're just another third world sandbox.

If the US is successful in installing a "US Friendly" government in the new Iraq (and why would it do otherwise?), then the oil sheiks lose their cash camel.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   


I hope you do, Sporty. If you keep looking, and keep an open mind, you will find the truth


Yes, but I will base my truth on facts and undeniable proof. My evidence will not be some guy that says he saw a document that he is unable to produce but somehow he can quote it pretty dam good and recall long statements word for word...so good he uses " "'s

If you have more proof, please show it..I would like to know.

[edit on 25/5/2005 by SportyMB]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join