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.

 

Absolute Truth - debunk the debunkers, out-truth the truthers..

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic LogicWhat next?

Two things: precedent and association.

Although a false flag attack on the scale of 9/11 is without precedent, US involvement in civilian-focussed false flag attacks is well-established. Anyone familiar with Operation Gladio and The Strategy of Tension will know that the CIA was intimately involved with partisan groups across Europe from the early 1950's onwards.

During that time, particularly between 1970 and 1980, terrorist attacks were carried out by CIA and NATO-backed clandestine stay-behind armies against civilian targets. They included the Bologna Massacre and the Piazza Fontana bombing, to give just two examples. The purpose was simply to prevent the Italian Communist Party from making political progress in Italy. Vincenzo Vinciguerra, one of the 1972 Peteano car bombers, said he was required to “attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game [in order to force] the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.

As for prior association, there's Operation Cyclone. This was a plan, basically conceived by Carter's NSA, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to support the mujahideen against the Soviets. As Brzezinski recently admitted, the support started before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and was provided on the basis that it knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet invasion. In other words, the US wanted to engineer a Soviet invasion in order to bog them down and bring about a collapse of the Soviet Union.

During this time, Islamist fundamentalism was promoted and many of them trained in the US, arriving of dubious visas. Recruits, finance and arms assistance flowed from the US through the ISI and bin Laden's organisation, the MAK before reaching the mujahideen. On his alleged visits to the US, bin Laden was codenamed Tim Osman.

There are two little snippets of information to help bring these themes together.

1. The CIA's founding principle included scope to carry out covert operations...



…which are conducted or sponsored by this government against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and conducted that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorised persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them. Covert action shall include any covert activities related to: propaganda; economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition, and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.


2. KSM recently 'confessed' to the Bali bombing of 2002. It came at a time when the Australian Prime Minister's support for Bush's war on terror was waning. The then-Indonesian Prime Minister has since said the bombing was orchestrated by elements within the Indonesian authorities.

So, the CIA is founded to carry our plausibly deniable covert operations; they did so, especially in Italy, in conjunction with NATO, killing many civilians in the process; they backed al Qaeda's predecessor (and almost certainly had a pragmatic relationship with bin Laden) during the Afghan-Soviet War; and finally we find al Qaeda, acting as hired guns in an act that brought Australian support for the war on terror firmly back on track.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inannamute
I made the thread because I was tired of seeing the same off-track discussions in every thread, frequently unsupported - far too many people parroting what they have read elsewhere without trying to think for themselves..




Well you see, just because a person will say his opinion towards a subject of one of the aspects of the 911 incident with out copy pasting a ton of links and photo's, doesn't mean he didn't do the research to form the opinion suggested.

Some times, we don't feel like spoon feeding people. Some times, It's better to put an opinion out there and then let people search for their own conclusions on that opinion and then let them make up their own mind by doing their own research.

I know that i prefer to see a concept, a theory, a philosophy and then look inside my self to connect my self to it and also research all the aspects i find are related to the idea suggested and then make up my own mind about it.

And also one of my rules is, infinite possibilities and a lot of people around here thinks like that too.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
As far as financial gain. Hallyburton is making millions and the VP owns about half the company.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I understand your point selfless, however I think there IS a definite tendency of some people to not do the work themselves, to simply take what they're spoon fed by whichever choice of parent they prefer, which is why I'd rather argue things out with evidence, with a larger group of minds than just my own.

In furtherance to that, I asked a more right-wing friend of mine what negative points he could think of regarding the Bush administration and 9/11 - someone who definitely doesn't believe the government caused 9/11 in any way, but is most likely just covering up ineptitude and stupidity.

The response we talked through was basically he felt Bush at times was forced to enact laws that he didn't want to, simply because he couldn't veto them without appearing not to care about the safety of the country - forced to go back on campaign promises like reducing the red tape in government organizations, instead being left with more bureaucracy than ever.. I conceded the point, but I feel that this is something which affects both sides of the government reasonably equally.. He suggested though, that this is the reason Bush didn't really use his veto power in the first term at all.




top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join