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.

 

All war is based on deception and lies

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   

There is nothing new in a government lying to their people to start a war. Indeed because most people prefer living in peace to bloody and horrific death in war, any government that desires to initiate a war usually lies to their people to create the illusion that support for the war is the only possible choice they can make.

President McKinley told the American people that the USS Maine had been sunk in Havana Harbor by a Spanish mine. The American people, outraged by this apparent unprovoked attack, supported the Spanish American War. The Captain of the USS Maine had insisted the ship was sunk by a coal bin explosion, investigations after the war proved that such had indeed been the case. There had been no mine.


Hitler used this principle of lying to his own people to initiate an invasion. He told the people of Germany that Poland had attacked first and staged fake attacks against German targets. The Germans, convinced they were being threatened, followed Hitler into Poland and into World War 2.


so why is it so hard to believe george bush lies to americans about the wtc bombing, the reason for going to war to iraq? george bush is only human. humans lie sometimes. im sure george bush has had his fair share of lies,

most of them most likely revealed in the true reasons for going to iraq, its all somekind of setup for whats to come next and what it is i dont know yet. but its probably not good.

what do you think about this all war based on deception idea?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Please Review This Link.


[edit on 17/12/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   
you guys, this is all besides the point at the moment. No amount of anti-war threads can turn the ship around now, it's too little too late.

If it were a simple matter of just leaving, Im sure we would. It is no longer that simple. We risk having a worse dictator than saddam hussein in power if we leave now. Not to mention the fact that Israel wont be too happy because Iraq will become the puppet of Iran and that is just one step closer to their doorstep.

The really sad thing is that the war was to ease an economic recession. No one really believed that Iraq was a threat, but most people could see the writing on the wall.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
you guys, this is all besides the point at the moment. No amount of anti-war threads can turn the ship around now, it's too little too late.

If it were a simple matter of just leaving, Im sure we would. It is no longer that simple. We risk having a worse dictator than saddam hussein in power if we leave now. Not to mention the fact that Israel wont be too happy because Iraq will become the puppet of Iran and that is just one step closer to their doorstep.

The really sad thing is that the war was to ease an economic recession. No one really believed that Iraq was a threat, but most people could see the writing on the wall.



what im trying to proove is there is a pretty high chance bush lied about the iraq war motive seeing as how tony blair lied about the wmd's.

you havent even said if you agree or not.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   
That is the reason that "War Crimes" have been invented.
Make some rules what would not be "appropriate" in a warfare and take them before court.
That is to cover up that in fact the "War" in itself is a crime.

It also gets very funny when same one calls the invasion into another Country a "Freedom Agenda".

Just some thoughts



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by frozen_snowman
That is the reason that "War Crimes" have been invented.
Make some rules what would not be "appropriate" in a warfare and take them before court.
That is to cover up that in fact the "War" in itself is a crime.

It also gets very funny when same one calls the invasion into another Country a "Freedom Agenda".

Just some thoughts


interesting. i thought war crimes were for soilders who do stupid crap like rape innocent girls?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Dear conspiracymaster:

Right on! Excellent post!

The only thing I’d like to mention, is that ALL OF US should have recognized that the grounds for going to Iraq were bogus. Even if you believed the entire official story of 9-11, then…
1. Not a single highjacker was Iraqi
2. Osama Bin Laden is, err was, portrayed as a radical fundamentalist, a ‘bearded weirdi’. And Sadam Hussein is a secular wanna-be seventies-style ‘playboy’ who dressed in British military uniforms or western business attire. The two are pretty much polar opposites. They would not have ‘gotten along with each other’ to say the least.
3. All the ‘evidence’ of WMD in Iraq had to be lies. Since Colin Powell steadfastly refused to tip off any of the weapons inspectors of their purported locations. His excuse of not being able to compromise his ‘sources’ made no sense. Except that it proved a) there were no WMD or b) we wanted to go to war no matter what, i.e. we weren’t interested in finding WMD.
4. Colin Powell talked about anthrax as a possible threat from Iraq. Whilst we all knew that the only previously known anthrax attacks were on U.S. soil with anthrax coming from U.S. labs. If that isn’t the kettle calling the pot black!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear conspiracymaster:

Right on! Excellent post!

The only thing I’d like to mention, is that ALL OF US should have recognized that the grounds for going to Iraq were bogus. Even if you believed the entire official story of 9-11, then…
1. Not a single highjacker was Iraqi
2. Osama Bin Laden is, err was, portrayed as a radical fundamentalist, a ‘bearded weirdi’. And Sadam Hussein is a secular wanna-be seventies-style ‘playboy’ who dressed in British military uniforms or western business attire. The two are pretty much polar opposites. They would not have ‘gotten along with each other’ to say the least.
3. All the ‘evidence’ of WMD in Iraq had to be lies. Since Colin Powell steadfastly refused to tip off any of the weapons inspectors of their purported locations. His excuse of not being able to compromise his ‘sources’ made no sense. Except that it proved a) there were no WMD or b) we wanted to go to war no matter what, i.e. we weren’t interested in finding WMD.
4. Colin Powell talked about anthrax as a possible threat from Iraq. Whilst we all knew that the only previously known anthrax attacks were on U.S. soil with anthrax coming from U.S. labs. If that isn’t the kettle calling the pot black!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


i dont know about you but i was dissapointed to find out the truth. but i guess knowing the truth is better then having a false sense of security right?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Dear conspiracymaster:

Actually, that is part of the 9-11 ‘conspiracy’ I understood immediately. On 9-11 itself, Paul Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of defense, was demanding that we attack Iraq. He had gotten a little ahead of himself there. Had to be reigned in by someone. Later during the day (11-Sep-2001) they changed the story to Osama Bin Laden as the suspect. I was upset when congress authorized the war in Iraq. And I was even more flabbergasted when the rest of the world did the same, at the United Nations. None of this was logical at the time.

At least now, I understand the motives – we need the oil really badly, our other sources are starting to run dry. Which is why we’ll never leave. While they’re talking about decreasing our presence there, we’re actually sending more troops over. A classic case of ‘judge me by what I do and not what I say’.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join