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.

 

How can we truely crush terrorism when our governments are involved with the killers?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I am a firm believer that the terrorists that have attacked New York and London should be brought to justice, and tried in court for their crimes against innocents. Yet, time and time again we hear of stories of how our governments were 'involved' with these terrorists in the past and provided support from funding, training and tactical information. Now, it has emerged that Aswat, the mastermind of the London bombing was an MI6 asset (British intelligence) and they had used him in the past. I think the intelligence agencies should come clean, provide a list of terrorists they have trained with their personal information including photos, so that the terrorists can be hunted down. Check this link out:

Infowars




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
That's exactly the problem. Or maybe part of it. Maybe most of the problem is that we just might have a "leader" who wants to be more than just a Supreme Court appointed leader. Perhaps he wants more. The easiest way for governments to empower themselves, while taking away the rights, freedoms and privacy of their citizens, is through fear.

That's right. If enough fear is instilled in the citizens, real (from outside causes) or fake (from inside jobs), most of the public will turn to their governments in grief, hysteria, anger, fear, and plead with them to "do something!" So, they do something. They enact laws that one by one take away the rights and freedoms of the citizens all the while giving more power to themselves.

Just a theory......


Oh, and "wars on terror" and "wars on drugs" go hand in hand, and both are good for tyrants.


[edit on 8/9/2005 by CyberKat]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I do agree with you, the reasons why we are seeing terror attacks are multifactorial. Adding fuel to the fire by supporting terrorists (that's what intelligence organisations like MI6, CIA and MOSSAD do) is not going to help the situation. The Americans/Brits/Israelis have used Arabs and muslims to do their dirty work in the past and provided training, funding and weapons. Now when these same people turn against them, they act all shocked. I say that these countries are partly to blame for fuelling terrorism and unless they change their policies, will always have problems with terrorists.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
terrorists are defined by thier actions and behaviors. They are the manifestation of what dominant perceptions exist within thier minds.

Terrorists terrorize with the overt "reactions" of fear and hate, which create more fear and hate.

How can you hate someone without first fearing that they can or will take something/someone you love away from you, or hurt that which you love?

So, can we continue to combat fear and hate with tactics that continue to create fear and hate?


EDITED BY E.T. to include:

How can we truely crush terrorism ...... ?

We simply won't, not with humanities current collective state of mind.

People have a higher reverence for revenge, than for life.

[edit on 08/12/71 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Does not "Shock and Awe" fall under some category of terror?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
It's not just the government thats collaborating, look how many average joe blow people are supporting terrorists over their own country. It's really sickening to see americans care more for those terrorists in gitmo than our own soldiers in iraq who are fighting and dying. Most of the soldiers families are being evicted from their homes! Unable to make a decent wage for one of the most dangerous jobs there is.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
It's not just the government thats collaborating, look how many average joe blow people are supporting terrorists over their own country. It's really sickening to see americans care more for those terrorists in gitmo than our own soldiers in iraq who are fighting and dying. Most of the soldiers families are being evicted from their homes! Unable to make a decent wage for one of the most dangerous jobs there is.




Most of the soldiers families are being evicted from their homes!


Most of those at gitmo have stable housing these days, and their families have not had, ever.

Revenge vs. reverence for life.

7,000 years devoid of 7 consecutive days without war, killing, and distruction. The above statement runs parallel with the state of mind that continues us on this path.

Sometimes Patriotism is supporting a system of control that is held in higher regard than respecting life enough to permit life.

We're in a tag team match, waiting for ........

AND In This Corner .....

Fear & Hate

AND In This Corner ......

Whatever we haven't tried, yet.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
'Patriotism' is just some rubbish fed to the public. That's how they justify the invasion of Iraq and a whole load of other atrocities. To the people that really run the country (big business and politicians), it's money, oil and power.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Sorry for a long post, but the following form www.juancole.com is worth reading, especially in this thread:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once upon a time, a dangerous radical gained control of the US Republican Party.

Reagan increased the budget for support of the radical Muslim Mujahidin conducting terrorism against the Afghanistan government to half a billion dollars a year.

One fifth of the money, which the CIA mostly turned over to Pakistani military intelligence to distribute, went to Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, a violent extremist who as a youth used to throw acid on the faces of unveiled girls in Afghanistan.

Not content with creating a vast terrorist network to harass the Soviets, Reagan then pressured the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to match US contributions. He had earlier imposed on Fahd to give money to the Contras in Nicaragua, some of which was used to create rightwing death squads. (Reagan liked to sidestep Congress in creating private terrorist organizations for his foreign policy purposes, which he branded "freedom fighters," giving terrorists the idea that it was all right to inflict vast damage on civilians in order to achieve their goals).

Fahd was a timid man and resisted Reagan's instructions briefly, but finally gave in to enormous US pressure.

Fahd not only put Saudi government money into the Afghan Mujahideen networks, which trained them in bomb making and guerrilla tactics, but he also instructed the Minister of Intelligence, Turki al-Faisal, to try to raise money from private sources.

Turki al-Faisal checked around and discovered that a young member of the fabulously wealthy Bin Laden construction dynasty, Usama, was committed to Islamic causes. Turki thus gave Usama the task of raising money from Gulf millionaires for the Afghan struggle. This whole effort was undertaken, remember, on Reagan Administration instructions.

Bin Laden not only raised millions for the effort, but helped encourage Arab volunteers to go fight for Reagan against the Soviets and the Afghan communists. The Arab volunteers included people like Ayman al-Zawahiri, a young physician who had been jailed for having been involved in the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar El-Sadat. Bin Laden kept a database of these volunteers. In Arabic the word for base is al-Qaeda.

In the US, the Christian Right adopted the Mujahideen as their favorite project. They even sent around a "biblical checklist" for grading US congressman as to how close they were to the "Christian" political line. If a congressman didn't support the radical Muslim Muj, he or she was downgraded by the evangelicals and fundamentalists.

Reagan wanted to give more and more sophisticated weapons to the Mujahideen ("freedom fighters"). The Pakistani generals were forming an alliance with the fundamentalist Jamaat-i Islam and begining to support madrasahs or hardline seminaries that would teach Islamic extremism. But even they balked at giving the ragtag Muj really advanced weaponry. Pakistan had a close alliance with China, and took advice from Beijing.

In 1985 Reagan sent Senator Orrin Hatch, Undersecretary of Defense Fred Iklé and others to Beijing to ask China to put pressure on Pakistan to allow the US to give the Muslim radicals, such as Hikmatyar, more sophisticated weapons. Hatch succeeded in this mission.

By giving the Muj weaponry like the stinger shoulderheld missile, which could destroy advanced Soviet arms like their helicopter gunships, Reagan demonstrated to the radical Muslims that they could defeat a super power.

Reagan also decided to build up Saddam Hussein in Iraq as a counterweight to Khomeinist Iran, authorizing US and Western companies to send him precursors for chemical and biological weaponry. At one point Donald Rumsfeld was sent to Iraq to assure Saddam that it was all right if he used chemical weapons against the Iranians. Reagan had no taste in friends.

On becoming president, George H. W. Bush made a deal with the Soviets that he would cut the Mujahideen off if the Soviets would leave Afghanistan. The last Soviet troops departed in early 1989. The US then turned its back on Afghanistan and allowed it to fall into civil war, as the radical Muslim factions fostered by Washington and Riyadh turned against one another and used their extensive weaponry on each other and on civilians.

In the meantime, Saddam, whom the US had built up as a major military power, invaded Kuwait. The Bush senior administration now had to take on its former protege, and put hundreds of thousands of US troops into the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. The radical Muslim extremists with whom Reagan and Bush had allied in Afghanistan now turned on the US, objecting strenuously to a permanent US military presence in the Muslim holy land.

From 1994 Afghanistan was increasingly dominated by a faction of Mujahideen known as Taliban or seminary students (who were backed by Pakistani military intelligence, which learned the trick from Reagan and which were flush from all those billions the Reagan administration had funneled into the region). In 1996 Bin Laden came back and reestablished himself there, becoming the leader of 5,000 radical Arab volunteers that Reagan had urged Fahd to help come to Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

In the meantime, the US had steadfastly supported Israeli encroachments on the Palestinian Occupied Territories and the gradual complete annexation of Jerusalem, the third holiest city to Muslims.

Since the outbreak of the first intifada, Israeli troops had riposted with brutality. Even after the Oslo accords were signed, the size of Israeli colonies in the Palestinian West Bank and around Jerusalem doubled.

A steady drumbeat of violence against Palestinians by Israelis, who were stealing their land and clearly intended to monopolize their sacred space, enraged the Muslim radicals that had been built up and coddled by Reagan.

In 1998, al-Qaeda and al-Jihad al-Islami, two small terrorist groups established in Afghanistan as a result of the Reagan jihad, declared war on the United States and Israel (the "Zionists and Crusaders"). After attacks by al-Qaeda cells on US embassies in East Africa and on the USS Cole, nineteen of them ultimately used jet planes to attack the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

The Bush administration responded to these attacks by the former proteges of Ronald Reagan by putting the old Mujahideen warlords back in charge of Afghanistan's provinces, allowing Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to escape, declaring that Americans no longer needed a Bill of Rights, and suddenly invading another old Reagan protege, Saddam's Iraq, which had had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the US. The name given this bizarre set of actions by Bush was "the War on Terror."

In Iraq, the US committed many atrocities, including bombing campaigns on civilian quarters of cities it had already occupied, and a ferocious assault on Fallujah, and tortured Iraqi prisoners.

In the meantime, the Bush administration put virtually no money or effort into actually combatting terrorist cells in places like Morocco, as opposed to putting $200 billion into the Iraq war and aftermath. As a result, a string of terrorist attacks were allowed to strike at Madrid, London and elsewhere.

Fred Ikle, who had been part of the Reaganist/Chinese Communist effort to convince Muslim fundamentalist generals in Pakistan--against their better judgment-- to allow the US to give the radical Muslim extremists even more sophisticated weapons, wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal urging the nuking of Mecca.

Then in July, 2005, General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that there was not actually any "War on Terror:" ' General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." ' (Question: Does this mean we can have the Bill of Rights back, now?)

The American Right, having created the Mujahideen and having mightily contributed to the creation of al-Qaeda, abruptly announced that there was something deeply wrong with Islam, that it kept producing terrorists.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
That's certainly a very long post but full of details. Now...only if we can get the neo cons, hardliners and zealots to read this and knock some sense into their heads!




top topics



 
0

log in

join