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.

 

USA Secretly Attempts to Undermine Syrian Government

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Intentionally publishing classified information in attempt to undermine a war effort (IMO, arranged coup/regime change is a war effort)? Yeah... if I had it my way, Adam Zagorin would be executed in the street (I'm sure many are glad that I do not get these things my way).


How long until things are run your way?

Invading other countries? Ok if the US does it.
Torture? Ok if the US does it.
Locking people up without charge or trial? Ok if the US does it.
Interfering with other countries' politics? Ok if the US does it.

It's all the same hypocritical BS attitude.

And this whole Ann Coulter treason thing... it's pathetic. The right to remove one's government is the point of the US, or so goes the rhetoric. Oooh, treachery. Those kind of secrets need to be told. People - even the apathetic and ill-informed among US citizens, or perhaps especially those people - should know how their taxes are being used.

Again, people seem to think that the First Amendment is irrelevant. Interesting.



apc

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Does the First Amendment protect aiding the enemy? If I had access to classified information that would help the Soviets, er I mean Russians defeat the US, and I decided to make a phone call to Moscow, would I be within my right? Or would I deserve a bullet in the brain? In my opinion, the latter.

It seems so many don't care what happens to our nation so long as it hurts Bush. Revenge at any and all costs. Pathetic.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I remember reading about a prominant newspaper editor who said that if he would have obtained information on the D-day invasion on June 4, 1944 he would have printed the story in the June 5th edition. I really don't care what the Time article was about, the thing that bothers me is the unauthorized release of classified information.

We now have a situation where the media believes that they are above the law. We had a local television reporter break into the local city bus garage and tape a report on how easy it was and the lack of security. When the bus company pressed charges, a local Judge threw the case out.

So this time, Time used leaked information about the US trying to influence elections in Syria, big deal. The problem is what happens next time if the information Time prints results in getting people in Afghanistan or Iraq killed? Don't think that it hasn't happened before. Ask the family of William Buckley. Buckley was the CIA Station Chief in Beruit in the early 1980's until an article in the New York Times identified him. He was kidnapped by Hezbollah and tortured for 15 months before he died.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
If a German newspaper had printed stories about the invasion of Poland in 1939, or air raids on Britain, before they had happened, would that not meet with your approval? Would you not praise the editor for courage?

The problem is, you don't understand that the US is the aggressor nation and most people in the world are fed up with that.

The US has simply no right to go around interfering in the internal politics of other countries, and when they do, almost always, disaster follows. You'd think they'd have learned by now, but denial is a habit in some people.


apc

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
That - doesn't - matter.

A person's differing opinion on the politics of their home nation does not mean it is OK for them to betray that nation.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Understandable Iori, but how can we tell syria not to involve themselves in another countries politics , but yet we still involve ourselves in theirs?
Pie



I think the answer to your question is quite simple. The U.S. asked syria to stay out of Lebanese affairs and syria refused. Therefore, the U.S. was "forced" to play by the rules syria was playing by to avoid the fait accompli. syria has dictated the rules of this "game", so syria (or it's defenders) cannot complain about the outcome.

Said another way, if you (or the U.S. in this case) try to be the perfect good guy all the time, you'll very likely end up the same way as the last one to try it here on earth - about 2,000 years ago. Just had to add that due to the season.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
If a German newspaper had printed stories about the invasion of Poland in 1939, or air raids on Britain, before they had happened, would that not meet with your approval? Would you not praise the editor for courage?

The problem is, you don't understand that the US is the aggressor nation and most people in the world are fed up with that.

The US has simply no right to go around interfering in the internal politics of other countries, and when they do, almost always, disaster follows. You'd think they'd have learned by now, but denial is a habit in some people.


I'm not, nor was I a citizen of Germany or Poland, if I were my view would still be the same. Notice I used the word "citizen". People are quick to claim the privledges of citizenship but are not so quick to accept the responsibilities that go with it. You don't say what country you are from so you put me at a disadvantage in looking into what your country's actions have been.

When you state that the most of the people in the world are fed up with what you call US aggression, that is an opinion that I choose not to agree with.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'm not, nor was I a citizen of Germany or Poland, if I were my view would still be the same.


Why does it come as no surprise to me that you would have supported the Nazi government of Germany over a newspaper editor who wanted to expose its aggression?

What country I come from doesn't matter. My country does not, itself, have especially clean hands. Does that mean that I am disqualified from having valid opinions about yours?


When you state that the most of the people in the world are fed up with what you call US aggression, that is an opinion that I choose not to agree with.


I think I'm actually losing my sense of constant wonder and amazement at the denial evinced by the US jingoists on this board. I must be getting jaded... If you can name another country on the planet that has invaded or bombed 10 countries (Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq) since the end of World War II, go right ahead. Even the Soviet Union only managed Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, and they were invited into Afghanistan...

Let alone the numerous countries whose democratic regimes the US has subverted, Iran and Iraq being two pertinent cases.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Why does it come as no surprise to me that you would have supported the Nazi government of Germany over a newspaper editor who wanted to expose its aggression?

What country I come from doesn't matter. My country does not, itself, have especially clean hands. Does that mean that I am disqualified from having valid opinions about yours?


No. The country that you come from has no bearing on your opinion. As a matter of fact, your statement about your country's history was unexpected. I'll give you credit for it. At least you are not a hypocrit. I thought that I was in for another one of those "the US is evil, my country is perfect" type deals.

As far as my support of the Nazis is concerned, your comment is way off of the mark. We have the luxury of hindsight as far as the Nazis are concerned. You asked me about the invasion of Poland in 1939. In 1939 the Nazis and Hitler had not yet committed the attrocities that we know them for. In 1939 the Nazi Party had restored the German economy from the shambles left after WWI and had built Germany into a prosperous nation. Looking at your question from the viewpoint of a German citizen in 1939 I gave you your answer. Looking at your question as a citizen of the US in 2006 my answer would be different.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

And BTW...read the report, it says the U.S. is supporting meetings of these people who opose that regime...wow.... The U.S. supports people who are against certain regime and suddenly some want to claim this is bad... I wonder what these same people have to say about such regimes sponsoring people in the U.S. to incite violence and jihad......



I guess we haven't learned our lesson from losers like Chalabi. Generally people that were kicked out of the country are usually kicked out for a good reason.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
If a German newspaper had printed stories about the invasion of Poland in 1939, or air raids on Britain, before they had happened, would that not meet with your approval? Would you not praise the editor for courage?

The problem is, you don't understand that the US is the aggressor nation and most people in the world are fed up with that.

The US has simply no right to go around interfering in the internal politics of other countries, and when they do, almost always, disaster follows. You'd think they'd have learned by now, but denial is a habit in some people.


Quite a bit different rich... first of all, and as the article says all the U.S. is doing is supporting those people in those countries that want to opose that regime in a peaceful manner....While Syria preaches jihad and wants to spread violence to other parts of the world...but then again, i guess for you that's alright...



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

I guess we haven't learned our lesson from losers like Chalabi. Generally people that were kicked out of the country are usually kicked out for a good reason.


and he was not voted in office in 2005 by the Iraqi people...which clearly demonstrate the Iraqi people can vote now, something they were never able to do under Saddam's regime....

BTW...how convinient that once again when talking about what is happening in Syria some people want to derail the topic because they apparently can't deny the facts.

The Syrian regime supports and funds violent jihad abroad yet you don't say anything about that... the U.S. supports the oposition, which the article clearly mentions is not violent, and the U.S. is the bad guy......



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

by PieMan
So people here are just going to condemn the messenger for the message and not the act itself. Strange world.


Strange world indeed. It used to be that 'messengers' who sent messages to the enemy were readily identified and dealt with accordingly.

The only way to get around that is to redefine what a traitor is, through politically correct brainwashing. Such as pitting the 1st Amendment against national security. Where did you get the idea that our constitution is a suicide pact?



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Quite a bit different rich... first of all, and as the article says all the U.S. is doing is supporting those people in those countries that want to opose that regime in a peaceful manner....While Syria preaches jihad and wants to spread violence to other parts of the world...but then again, i guess for you that's alright...


That is simply not true.

From OP's article


The proposal says part of the effort would be run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF). The Front includes the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization that for decades supported the violent overthrow of the Syrian government, but now says it seeks peaceful, democratic reform.


So US is supporting a militant islamic organization with a long history of violence and all of the sudden they are peaceful and democratic. As I understand militant radical Islam and peace, freedom and democracy don't mix.

Or to use more colourful term popular by some of our members "US is sponsoring Islamofascists".

Let's see what is this Muslim Brotherhood.


Muslim Brotherhood
However, the Brotherhood has advocated martyrdom to fight Zionism. For example, the Brotherhood views militant acts by Hamas as a legitimate struggle against Israel, despite targeting both the Israeli military and civilians.
Many of the Brotherhood's writings in the Arab world and in the US have argued that the September 11th attacks were a proper response to US actions in the world. In the US, the European Union, and throughout the Arab world, the Brotherhood is often regarded by experts as the source of all modern jihadi terrorism. In July 2005, Arab columnist and former Kuwaiti official Dr. Ahmad Al-Rabi, wrote that the "beginnings of all of the religious terrorism that we are witnessing today were in the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology."


Nice.

[edit on 22-12-2006 by yanchek]



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
As far as my support of the Nazis is concerned, your comment is way off of the mark. We have the luxury of hindsight as far as the Nazis are concerned. You asked me about the invasion of Poland in 1939. In 1939 the Nazis and Hitler had not yet committed the attrocities that we know them for.


1938 saw the Anschluss (forcible union with Austria) and the annexation of the Sudetenland. Hitler was claiming land given to Poland under the treaty of Versailles. Kristallnacht - the first really large pogrom against the Jews - took place in November 1938.

The signs were certainly there. George Orwell, to name but one, could certainly see the writing on the wall.

?The US has invaded two countries on the flimsiest of pretexts, and has ruined Iraq far more thoroughly than Hitler managed to do to any country he ever occupied. It has institutionalised torture and imprisonment without trial. It has propagandised its population to the point where some of them see this as regrettable but necessary.

Some of us can see the parallels.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Quite a bit different rich... first of all, and as the article says all the U.S. is doing is supporting those people in those countries that want to opose that regime in a peaceful manner....While Syria preaches jihad and wants to spread violence to other parts of the world...but then again, i guess for you that's alright...


I'm glad that rockpuck has saved me the bother of nailing that nonsense about "peaceful opposition". Again with the classic Muaddib disdain for the facts you speak of Jihad... Syria is run by their version of the same secularist party previously running Iraq, the Ba'athists.

I have no particular goodwill towards them. They have their own regional reasons for acting the way they do: the point is that interfering in other countries' politics is wrong and often disastrous, and here we have the US up to its old tricks again. But of course you'll defend their right to mess up any country in the world, I mean Iraq is going so well right now, likewise Afghanistan. Let's see how many other countries can benefit from US interference, sorry, influence.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   
its all just part of the NWO...yeppie! though its not a bad way to win a country..if u cant fight em...just rig the elections to who you want in charge (your pawn)



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   
What's good for the goose...

Wonder how many would like China, Russia and various trans-glomerates to directly influence US elections in order to erode liberties and decrease wages, so the US citizens will all be on a level playing field with the rest of the world.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
What's good for the goose...

Wonder how many would like China, Russia and various trans-glomerates to directly influence US elections in order to erode liberties and decrease wages, so the US citizens will all be on a level playing field with the rest of the world.



They already have. In the 70's and 80's the Soviet KGB provided support to the environmentalist and anti-nuclear movements. Organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierria Club recieved funding and information from the Soviets. The objective of this was to create political dissent and to portray NATO in a bad light.

As for China, the DNC recieved contributions from agents of the Chinese government in both the 1992 and 1996 Presidential elections. When the DNC was called on this, it was swept under the rug by the Clinton Administration.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23If you can name another country on the planet that has invaded or bombed 10 countries (Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq) since the end of World War II, go right ahead.

Korea - UN Action
Vietnam - UN Action / after France brought the conflict up at the UN
Cambodia - Bombing & black ops / spillover from Vietnam war
Laos - Bombing & black ops / spillover from Vietnam war
Panama - Unilateral Action
Grenada - Unilateral Action / was not even a blip on the radar until it was determined that US citizens (medical personnel and students) were very much in danger
Yugoslavia - another UN action
Sudan - UN action?
Iraq - Gulf War 1, UN action
Iraq - Gulf War 2, stupid Unilateral action

Tell me if this list looks correct to you as I don't have time to look anything up...
So when you add up the non-UN invasions that leaves?


Originally posted by rich23Even the Soviet Union only managed Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, and they were invited into Afghanistan...
You may want to add Hungary (1956) and in the post Soviet years, Chechnya.


Originally posted by rich23Let alone the numerous countries whose democratic regimes the US has subverted, Iran and Iraq being two pertinent cases.
Saddam's Iraq? Democratic? Just because elections are "held" does not make it a democracy. That's a stretch for an educated person such as yourself.

I also find it interesting that you do not pull the Soviet Union/Russia comparison into this statement since you felt it necessary to draw a similar comparison when bringing up military invasions.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join