It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


DHS Pork - Evidence That War On Terrorism is a Sham? (Op/Ed)

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:32 AM
Don't be so quick to downplay Omaha, instead look at what else is located in and around that particular area and how vital it is to our national defense.

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:55 AM
Yet another thoughtful op/ed!

I always look forward to your op/ed's SO! Keep up the great work

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:48 PM
It ain't no News.

It just Business people!

And what could you expect from the Cradle of Capitalism?

Why did War on Terror start?

To eliminate the Threat of International Terrorism?

It looks to me, that this Terrorism is actually INCREASING!

To find the ones responsible for the attacks on 9-11?

It looks to me, that they are all still at large!

To remove opressive and dictatorship regimes from Middle East?

It looks to me, that things are getting even more Bloody after the removal!

To bring Democracy into Afganistan and Iraq?

It looks to me, like those countries are ruled by Law of Militias!

So why did the War on Terrorism Start?

Was it Oil?

Was help to Isreal?

Was it Liberate Iraqis and Afganis?


It was all about PROFIT!

All Wars start for profit in this Era.

Economy of America simply NEEDS Wars to Function.

Lets say that tomorrow Archangel Michael comes from Heavens and says:

"There Shall Be No More War On This World!"

What would happen?

Actually it is the Project for the New American Century evolving in front of our very eyes. The Global Elite are in Control of America and her Immense Economical, Political and Military Power. They decide who, when and where to attack. They pull the strings. The Trilateral Commision. The Bilderberg Group. The Commite of 300. The Royal Institute for International Affairs. The Council for Foreign Relations. United Nations. European Union. Club of Rome.


They want this WAR ON TERROR.


They do not need any PEACE.


PEACE is BAD for Business!

PEACE does simply NOT SELL!

The Profit-Driven War

More than two years later, many people still ask, "Why did the US invade Iraq?" Some people answer, "For oil." Others say, "To remove a dangerous dictator," or, "To liberate Iraqis," or, "To spread democracy." There are other possible answers as well: To project American power in the strategic and volatile Middle East. To spread democracy. To help Israel. The question lingers because the initial reasons that our government gave, that Iraq had WMD and planned to use them against the US, or that Iraq was allied with Al Qaeda, have been disproved.

Here's another answer to the question: We invaded Iraq to invade Iraq.

That's right, it's a circular answer. It might not be the only answer, it might not be provable, but let's consider it: We invaded Iraq to have a war. We had a war because there are powerful interests in our country that are geared toward making money from war. How? Let us count the ways. There are companies that help break things, by making the tools for violence and destruction, such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. There are companies that fix what gets broken, such as Bechtel and Halliburton. There are companies that protect people as they break things and as they fix what's broken, such as Blackwater and Vinnell Corp. There are companies that want our government to smash across borders so they may bring new products and infrastructure, companies that we will see set up shop in that country. There are companies that want our government to smash across other countries' borders so they may suck the resources out from underneath the people there, such as the big oil companies. There are companies that like the US to attack other countries so they may have something entertaining to tell their audiences in the time between commercials: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN.

PS: Great OP/ED!

[edit on 5/6/06 by Souljah]

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:27 AM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

If there was a real and pressing danger of attack from external terrorist groups, funding to protect the citizens from such attacks would be appropriately distributed to the areas containing likely targets. Instead, anti-terrorism funding is being broadly distributed to build the "police state" infrastructure throughout the land. This, more than any other action by the U.S. federal government, is your "smoking gun" that the war on terrorism is nothing but an elaborate ploy.

There you have it.

But where's the outcry?

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:34 AM
Fortress Nebraska...

Now there's a concept... I completely understand the logic of protecting heads of corn over the heads of people... The swine wish to protect their food supply...

[edit on 6-6-2006 by loam]

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 09:10 AM
Chertoff actually defended the protection of corn. he said "the people of new york eat corn and we need to make sure it is safe" or something along those lines

Bloomberg followed with we get our corn from a few states, including our own.

This whole thing screams election influence. How else to explain the cdc deciding that NY's per capita spending on bioterror should be under $3 and Wyoming (or was it wisconsin? doesn't matter, does it?) should be just under $10.

you know, as awful as it sounds, I almost want a terror attack on corn and breweries so we can see if the money movement paid off. of course I will be forced to eat local corn and switch to foreign beer (ick phhfff ugh gross) and I will not look up at the sky every time I hear an airplane.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 07:59 AM

House GOP Blocks Funding for N.Y., D.C.

House Republicans blocked a vote Tuesday on restoring millions of dollars in counterterror funds to big-city targets, refusing to bust budget targets over slashed grants to emergency first responders.

New York City-area Democrats pleaded to add $750 million to spending plans to fund the Homeland Security Department in the 2007 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. But Republicans rejected the measure even as they vowed anew to investigate how Homeland Security could justify cutting funding to New York and Washington -- the two targets of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- by 40 percent.

The House approved the overall $32 billion spending blueprint, 389-9, shortly afterward.


Isn't it interesting that only now they find fiscal responsibility? How convenient....

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in