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.

 

Russian General: International ''terrorism'' doesnt exist

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
Look at the stuff they sell on that website. What kind of people would buy that crap? The rense.com audience, that’s who! That website and most everything that comes from it is complete bull plop.

EDIT: Not to mention all the racist propaganda on that site. It might as well be stormfront.com.



[edit on 24-1-2006 by Dronetek]



it is [hate-site-nolink] just to correct you. i'm sure many of people have said this but it gets annoying that people have to immediately say "oh well that source isn't credible". every major news outlet reported the deaths of those coal miners in west virginia a few weeks ago based on what one person thought they overheard someone else say. if we are waiting for cnn, foxnews, msnbc, reuters, skynews, etc to report on the stuff talked about on this board we are in for a long wait. it is the alternative media that brings much of these interesting stories to light.




posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
If some of you don't like infowars.com or rense.com, you can also find the article on Google News.

news.google.com...


I'm also inclined to believe that international terrorism as an organized entity or organization, like say al Qaeda, does not exist.
Of course there are standalone extremist groups in several countries, some are state sponsored, be it by the Iranian government, Saudi government or the U.S. government, and then there are of course some totally 'independent' groups, but in the end I do not think all these various groups are connected to a network of terrorist organizations and answer to some 'higher echelon' group, like the "al Qaeda."



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LetKnowledgeDrop
He has come out now saying that the ''war on terrorism'' is a hoax, and is being used to create a world government body.
I personally believe that this is the case, I have been saying that ever since it happened.


First off your belief has many flaws one of which a world governing body is an over hyped theory that cannot politcally, nor financially, come into play anytime soon, secondly Ivashov's interpretation of world peace is fantasy land, quote: "instead of faking a "world war on terror", the best way to reduce that kind of attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens,"

This statement totally lacks understanding of Islamic and democratic ideal, which doesn't surprise me coming from a communist. Another quote:
"It is precisely this elite that constitutes the key element of world terrorism, its ideologist and its "godfather"."

Thats communist rhetoric.

I do agree with Ivashov on certain important points:

"In this context, if we analyze what happened on September 11, 2001, in the United States, we can arrive at the following conclusions: 1. The organizers of those attacks were the political and business circles interested in destabilizing the world order and who had the means necessary to finance the operation. The political conception of this action matured there where tensions emerged in the administration of financial and other types of resources."

Here Ivashov refers to the guilt of his own conscience (911) and that of his motherland as he is fully aware of who enacted the muslim cells of 911, his government lolls in it's revenge. If the US does now seek world dominance, General Ivashov can thank his government for helping to create such.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
So vincere, you claim that Russia was behind 911?

wow; honestly thats quite outragous, id love 2 see your proof

got any evidence to back up those claims?

your tossing might HUGE accusations there buddy...

care 2 back any of it up?

cmon seriously; is there even one shred of evidence that can tie the KGB or any Russian group w/ 911?

if you said the chinese were behind it, it might start making a little bit of sense , but Russia? bizzare indeed

im very curious too see whatever evidence you provide; and if its sufficient; i may begin to give your theory some credit



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
that's an assumption on your part and no thanks I enjoy living

[edit on 25-1-2006 by vincere7]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Yea, thats a pretty dumb statement to make without a single quote or explaination to back it up. I personally think it was the eskimos, but I didnt post it cause I have no proof.

See how silly that sounds?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
ooppps

[edit on 25-1-2006 by thermopolis]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I find the Generals comments strange considering Russia wants us to view Chechyan terrorists as part of a larger international movement to justify its actions in the country and gain support that way.I would be interested in knowing what President Putins reaction would be to this,...ah for the days of sending someone to Siberia to count trees....



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SwearBear
If some of you don't like infowars.com or rense.com, you can also find the article on Google News.

news.google.com...



that isnt google news. Its just a search done from google.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek

Originally posted by SwearBear
If some of you don't like infowars.com or rense.com, you can also find the article on Google News.

news.google.com...



that isnt google news. Its just a search done from google.

Yes it is. Google doesn't report it's own news, dumbass.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SwearBear
If some of you don't like infowars.com or rense.com, you can also find the article on Google News.
news.google.com...

Thats a link to searches for news article mentioning his name. There are no reputable news sources reporting this. That is probably because the article is a fraud and he didn't write it.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by SwearBear
If some of you don't like infowars.com or rense.com, you can also find the article on Google News.
news.google.com...

Thats a link to searches for news article mentioning his name. There are no reputable news sources reporting this. That is probably because the article is a fraud and he didn't write it.

What is a "reputable" source? Have you got any proof that it's not General Ivashov? and why would someone fake an article by him, why not fake someone more influential?
I'm sure General Ivashov will release a statement soon if the article is false.

Here's what Ivashov answered to a question on an interview regarding international terrorism, back in December of 2001.

I think after recent developments and further analysis of GWOT, he came to the conclusions as mentioned in the supposedly "fake" article ...



Center for Defense Information (interview)
Question: How broadly shall we interpret the Brussels accord on Russian-NATO close cooperation in the war on international terrorism?

Leonid Ivashov: I dislike the term, you know. As I see it, combating international terrorism in Afghanistan is only a secondary mission as far as the Americans are concerned. Demonstration of its military might is what the United States is really after. I even think that there is more to objectives of the operation that the war on terrorism as such. In other words, the counter-terrorism operation in Afghanistan may be viewed as a means of crushing the Taliban and, more importantly, establishing American hegemony in this part of the world. The Americans themselves do not deny it, by the way, referring to their strategy of national security ...


Here's another article written by General Ivashov:
Who's Noticing the NATO danger?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
After looking for the source of these statements, I beleive I was able to find it:
www.voltairenet.org...


swearbear
What is a "reputable" source?

A source that at verifies its articles and information. Rense.com doesn't do
that, their journalistic policy is actually the same as the National Enquirer. The staff at Nat'l Enq. doesn't just make stuff up, they accept news articles from anyone and then publish it without verification. Thats why the stories are so incredibly bizzare, and thats also why Rense.com is not reputable. they do not verify anything, they do not proof anything, they accept submissions, and they put it on their website.

info wars does the same sort of thing.

As far as aljazeera, which is one of the other hits in that google search, there are two al-jazeera websites, one is from the news network, another is infact quite mysterious. Regardless, the al-jazeera article directly and solely sites Rense.com as their source for the information.

Not to belabour a point too much, but this is important. Rense does not verify their information, they could've easily provided the link to the Axis of Peace site. Indeed, they should've, since they cut and pasted the entire text of the AxP site.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SwearBear

Originally posted by Dronetek

Originally posted by SwearBear
If some of you don't like infowars.com or rense.com, you can also find the article on Google News.

news.google.com...



that isnt google news. Its just a search done from google.

Yes it is. Google doesn't report it's own news, dumbass.


They do post AP articles as google news though. Whatever that was you linked has nothing to do with google. One of the links is from Al Jazera!


I dislike the term, you know. As I see it, combating international terrorism in Afghanistan is only a secondary mission as far as the Americans are concerned. Demonstration of its military might is what the United States is really after. I even think that there is more to objectives of the operation that the war on terrorism as such. In other words, the counter-terrorism operation in Afghanistan may be viewed as a means of crushing the Taliban and, more importantly, establishing American hegemony in this part of the world. The Americans themselves do not deny it, by the way, referring to their strategy of national security ...


Here, he says he "dislikes" the term. He never said there wasnt international terrorists. Unless you can point out to me where he does say that, ill have to call this another spin operation by the usual suspects. The fact that this general probobly has to deal with international terrorists on a daily basis dosnt help the "no terrorists" argument either.


[edit on 25-1-2006 by Dronetek]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
A source that at verifies its articles and information. Rense.com doesn't do
that
...
info wars does the same sort of thing.

Fair enough.



As far as aljazeera, which is one of the other hits in that google search, there are two al-jazeera websites, one is from the news network, another is infact quite mysterious.

aljazeera.com, or aljazeerapublishing.com is the website of the al Jazeera magazine.
aljazeera.net is the website of the Al Jazeera TV channel, the place where all those fake bin Laden tapes are submitted.



Originally posted by Dronetek
Here, he says he "dislikes" the term. He never said there wasnt international terrorists. Unless you can point out to me where he does say that, ill have to call this another spin operation by the usual suspects. The fact that this general probobly has to deal with international terrorists on a daily basis dosnt help the "no terrorists" argument either.

He was being moderate. Besides, that interview was 4 years ago, opinions change as events unfold and as more information is acquired. It's called learning, ever tried it?
The guy might be old, but I don't think he's lost all of his braincells yet.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
The quote shows that he never said what the OP claimed he did and all you can say is "He was being moderate"? How about, you were wrong and now you are trying to back peddel and save any face you might have?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
You people just dont get it. This conspiracy is global. All governments are in on it. They only go on TV and tell us what they want us to believe! ''War on Terror'', ''We are the good guys.''

So when the Russian government says they are fighting Chechnyan terrorists, know that its the opposite.

In fact, Putin was actually caught planting bombs in government buildings, to be blamed on terrorists. But when they caught his men, he said ''Oh, we were doing drills.'' They reported on that in the Associated Press.

But there are good people in governments who know what is going on, and are blowing the whistle....people like Russian General Ivashov.

People like former FBI agent David Schippers, the man who impeached Bill Clinton, the man who brought the mob down in Chicago, 2 months before 9/11, he went to Attorney General John Ashcrofts house, pounded on his door, and begged them to stop the terrorists!

He had 3 boxes, full of files, that prove the government was behind the terrorists, and knew the attack was coming. He begged John Ashcroft, whom he knows personally, to listen to himand stop the terrorists. John wouldnt so much as meet with him.

In fact, 2 months before 9/11, George Bush signed a presidential order, W199I, that ordered FBI officials and defense intel to ''back off Bin Laden'' and to not investigate the Al Queda terror cells in Florida, New Yoirk, and New Jersey. Here is a copy of it.

www.libertythink.com...

www.jesus-is-savior.com...

People like John O'neil, former FBI director, who blew the whistle on the government terrorists also. He was killed on 9/11.

You people need to wake up.



[edit on 25-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
LKD: WHat you dont seem to get, is that we dont blindly believe things because some internet site makes claims. People need evidence that can be backed up and checked out. You NEVER provide us with anything resembling that. Which is painfully obvious with your jesusissavior link.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
And like you ever do, moron. You give NO proof at all. YOU just blindly believe your controlled media. Sheep.....

[edit on 25-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by LetKnowledgeDrop
And like you ever do, moron. You give NO proof at all. YOU just blindly believe your controlled media. Sheep.....

[edit on 25-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]


I think everyone here (but you) would agree that I provide decent links to back up my arguments. It's quite common for me to use CNN, ABC, BBC and sometimes ill use foxnews. I usually dont though because I know people will question the source.


Recent threads where I use credible sources:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are more, but you get the point. There is no need for name calling either. I havent called you anything.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Dronetek]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join