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.

 

OP/ED: Half Truths And Revolutions: What Our Governments Dont Want Us To Know

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Look at how the World is today. Our politicians tell us we have a clear threat to our way of life in the shape of Al-Qaeda. They are formulating laws as we speak that they say are designed to protect us from this threat. Well, thats one way of looking at it, but try looking at it this way instead.
 


Our politicians are telling the truth when they say there is a clear threat to our way of life. This threat is not Al-Qaeda, or terrorists, its our dependance on oil. When the price of oil becomes too great our way of life literally falls apart. Example, the price of a two litre bottle of milk in Australia will rise 8% (38c) due to the recent events of Katrina and its effects on World oil supplies. link

Oil and its price is inextricably linked to our food supply and its price. Food prices and a population's access to it is THE PARAMOUNT cause of revolution in the last 300 years. Both the Russian and French revolutions arose because the people were starving and only the rich ruling elite could afford food.

So what happens if our governments find themselves in a position where we are all starving because oil is too expensive? History clearly shows there would be a revolution.

What does this have to with today? Its simple really, our governments have long recognized the threat posed by our dependance on oil. The American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were based on American access to oil.

International terrorism has been manipulated or completely designed by our governments with oil and the threat of revolution solely in mind.

With a Western dominance on the World's oil supply our governments will delay the onset of revolution at home. The same terrorism used to justify the Western domination of "terrorist supporting nations" which coincidently gets us complete access to their oil supply, has spawned Patriot Acts and Control Orders across the Western World. They are ostensibly designed to prevent terrorist attacks occuring within our borders.

But, like the clear threat to our way of life, our politicians are telling us half truths. These laws are solely designed to prevent revolution when we inevitably start starving due to high fuel costs. They will be able to legally stymie acts of revolution BEFORE THEY OCCUR as there is no difference between the legal definition of terrorism and an act of revolt. They both involve acting against the state.

There must be a race on behind the scenes in the West now to come up with an oil alternative. Our governments have bought our scientists a few decades more time with their invasions and they've secured their own asses from sporadic acts of revolt that would precede a full blown revolution.

They are buying time before the eventual crush. They too read the history books and know full well how things will pan out. They need to lie to us to save their skins and their wallets. There is no such threat of international terrorism outside what Western governments are doing to their own people.

Wake up and take note of history!

p.s. If some people bother to read this far, realise this is an Opinion/Editorial. This is my opinion, it doesnt have to be related to a current news item and it damn well is allowed to be biased. No wonder the general population can be walked on so easily


[edit on 2/10/05 by subz]




posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
My questions is were is the author from?



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Isn't this suppost to be for news?



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I don't think that this is suppose to be a news article, maybe a mod should move it.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
This is an OP/ED, an opinion/editorial news piece. It's right where it needs to be and it gets my thumbs up.
You have presented an agreeable perspective concerning the oil/food relationship and how this is politically regarded. An ages old problem born again, surely.

Zip



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Yeah its on Op/Ed which is meant to be someones opinion. Op/Ed's by their nature are biased. I think some people would be doing the rest of us a favour by reading:

How to vote on ATSNN Submissions, and when to vote NO for bias

[edit on 2/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Larry: My questions is were is the author from?
Curly: Isn't this suppost to be for news?
Moe: I don't think that this is suppose to be a news article, maybe a mod should move it.


C'mon guys, get with the program.


Anyway, on to the topic of this ATSNN Opinion piece...

I've always had the sneaking suspicion that those behind this whole Afghanistan/Iraq invasion circus know a lot more about how close we are to the 'peak' of Peak Oil than is publicly made known. The author may well be correct in her/his assumption that these wars, although detrimental in some ways such as international respect, are indeed protecting the national interests of those involved by averting disaster at home; disaster as a result of an energy/economic crisis when the oil starts to dry up, and the last few USD400/barrel drops are being squeezed out of the bedrock. Who knows, the members of the Coalition of the Willing may have even been guaranteed a certain supply for a certain number of years in return for their names on the list and their troops on the boats.

As an aside, there is an excellent debate in the ATS debate forum regarding the truth of Peak Oil here. Knowing the global catastrophe that Peak Oil would mean for us, it suddenly seems less crazy to think that governments would attack their own people to spur them to support wars to control the oil fields. Cattle cannot be reasoned and coaxed into the stalls with words of wisdom, they must be jabbed with electric prods.

As for scarcity of oil producing revolution, I'm not so sure. I guess it depends who the masses see as being to blame for the crisis. I can definitely see it causing massive social and governmental collapse, maybe a natural revolution, or social "evolution" if you will, but as far as historical revolutions go, there is much evidence to point to their having been supported and instigated from behind the scenes by big money in other countries. And when I say big money, I don't mean the Carlyle Group, I mean BIG money as in the elite of the elite...you know the names...

[edit on 2005-10-2 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Subz, I lifted these two lines from your original posting to call your attention to them:


What does this have to with today? Its simple really, our governments have long recognized the threat posed by our dependance on oil. The American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were based on American access to oil.

International terrorism has been manipulated or completely designed by our governments with oil and the threat of revolution solely in mind.


Surely you don't seriously expect us to believe the above. The governments of our respective countries are true reflections of who we are, or at least who we were. Tony Blair & George Bush are not two lackeys for elite interests that want to keep the great mass of our countries surpressed. Both of them honestly believe they are doing what is best for us and for our future--they could both be mistaken, but fear of domestic revolution was certainly not their motivator. You demean two well intentioned leaders to state otherwise.

Did you know it has been something like 27 years since the last refinery was built in America? Our refineries today are only geared to accept light, sweet crude (market terminology) because of environmental rules & regulations. An easier way to prevent a fantasized revolution would have been to built a couple of new refineries that can handle heavy crude oil. This would alleviate the shortages we sometimes experience in gasoline, diesel, and heating oil and help keep prices for those products down. Of course doing so would piss off the various environmental groups because there is as yet no way to make their operations environmentally friendly. However, stirring up the environmentalists would have been far preferable to starting wars.



[edit on 2-10-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

The American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were based on American access to oil.


Afghanistan has no oil
zip nadda:shk:



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I said "access" to oil Shots. Look up pipelines running through Afghanistan courtesy of Unocal and its ex-employee President Karzai. Gees why the resistance to my opinion? Have I touched a nerve or something? They're all out in force today boy howdy!

From today until people cannot vote No:Bias on Op/Ed pieces im voting No:Bias on every submission I read. Seems about fair to me.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
you got subz...wars, not control oil, but to control oil pipe ways.....www.abovetopsecret.com... here's some more info on that. how can amerika not do something to control its only source of energy. with all the technology available today..there is NO meanigfull work on alternative sources of energy. why? because large corporations run amerika and will do nothing, i repeat nothing to endanger one penny of their profits. just my opinion.......................



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
for those of us that do write our senators and members of congress, how many have gotten a personalized response back instead of some canned template created and printed out ?

President Bush has made it clearly obvious that his interests are for corporations and how rich his family can be after he leaves office.
He does not care about the young men dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even attempt to fake respect for their families that speak out against him.

both of these reasons lead me to believe we are being taxed without representation, and history has a way of repeating itself



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
maybe the admin could have no:bias removed from the list of options for op/eds?
op/ed is by nature biased, no?
i voted yes for this submission, even though i don't agree fully with it. it is well thought out along a valid line of reasoning.
'they' are stirring the pot so all they undesirable stuff will float to the surface where it can be removed.
i personally think peak oil is a scam(for now). i do agree that al ciaduh and the secret policemen's ball are the actual terrorists, and the chain of command leads right to the star chamber. i do agree that 'they' want revolutions in ALL countries as an excuse to kill dissenters and useless eaters. They will then reorganise the constitution(s) into something more fascist like a global dictatorship(it's notta toooma!).
i do agree that control of the oil is a big part of the plan, but not because they're running out, just because it is the lifeblood of commerce and power, and a stranglehold on the oil is a stranglehold on the entire planet.




posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Shots, how do you explain Angot then?



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

I said "access" to oil Shots. Look up pipelines running through Afghanistan courtesy of Unocal and its ex-employee President Karzai. Gees why the resistance to my opinion? Have I touched a nerve or something? They're all out in force today boy howdy!

From today until people cannot vote No:Bias on Op/Ed pieces im voting No:Bias on every submission I read. Seems about fair to me.


Not sure just where you are coming from since I voted yes on this submission.

You on the other hand; now for some reason claim you will vote no biased on all submissions:shk:

Also the pipeline deal was a BP Brida not unocal they withdrew



"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online.

The US company formally withdrew from the consortium in 1998.

news.bbc.co.uk...




[edit on 10/2/2005 by shots]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Voted NO because of bias.
The wording (we, they, our, their) is an opinion.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
garyo1954, this is an Op/Ed.

It is meant to be an opinion...



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Hehe... Damn, you can lead a horse to water...

Zip



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
IMHO though, and opinion is still and opinion. It may be a great opinion, but it is still an opinion.

I enjoyed it thoroughly as well.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

IMHO though, and opinion is still and opinion. It may be a great opinion, but it is still an opinion.

I enjoyed it thoroughly as well.


You're either incredibly dense, or you honestly don't understand what an Op/Ed is.

Opinion/Education .. op/ed.. get it?

It's meant to be biased.. it's an editorial opinion piece..

Wow.. some people.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join