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.

 

Assassinations for U.S. Support?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Just wondering if anyone else found this article a little suspicious. Sorry for the lenghty external quotes, but I feel that much of this information is needed. What I find odd is that 2nd in Command Lt. Gen. Odierno attended the funeral and American troops provided security for it. Also, the fact that no one has claimed responsibility for the attack.

BBC News

Sunni Arab tribesmen have vowed revenge for the killing of a leader who had become a focal point for opposition to al-Qaeda in Iraq...

...Iraq's national security adviser, interior minister and defence minister all attended the funeral in Ramadi, along with the second-in-command of US forces in Iraq, Lt-Gen Raymond Odierno.

The procession was guarded by scores of Iraqi police and US military personnel.

Mourners chanted "We will take our revenge" and "There is no God but Allah and al-Qaeda is the enemy of Allah" as the procession continued to the family cemetery.

No group has said it carried out the attack but most believe it was the work of al-Qaeda.


It would seem that the assassination of such a prominant leader has united many people in opposition of the insurgents, even though no insurgents have claimed responsibility. Maybe they would have had just as many people stand up against the insurgents without the death of this leader, but it definitely wouldn't have sparked such a public upheavel achieved by this assassination.

Maybe I'm way off base here, but it just reminded me of "The Salvador Option" back in 2005, when it was first brought to attention:

The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq

The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing."


Death-Squad Democracy

Among the many tools used to build and defend pro-American democracies, murder is among the trickiest. But murder—yes, let’s insist on that word—is also quite common in the annals of nation-building, at least in my experience, and sometimes it’s been very effective. Now we hear that some of the Bush administration’s strategists are talking about what they call “The Salvador Option”, which seems to imply “death squads” (as the murderers were called in El Salvador and Guatemala) or “hit teams” (as they’ve been called in Israel).


El Mozote massacre

The massacre was both a low point and a turning point in the civil war that ravaged this Central American country between the late 1970s and early 1990s. ...

Upon arrival, the soldiers found not only the residents of the village but also campesinos who had sought refuge from the surrounding area. The soldiers ordered everyone out of their houses and into the square. They made them lie face down, searched them, and questioned them about the guerrillas. They then ordered the villagers to lock themselves in their houses until the next day, warning that anyone coming out would be shot. The soldiers remained in the village during the night.

Early the next morning, the soldiers reassembled the entire village in the square. They separated the men from the women and children and locked them in separate groups in the church, the convent, and various houses.

During the morning, they proceeded to interrogate, torture, and execute the men in several locations.


EDIT: To fix source info link.

[edit on 14-9-2007 by tyranny22]




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Maybe I'm reading into it like a C.S.I. episode, but the fact that U.S. troops and Iraqi troops along with prominent military figures attended the funeral in support of the efforts Abdul Sattar Abu Risha certainly bolsters faith in the troops and undermines the attackers, insurgents or whomever they were.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   
i was watching the news about this yesterday and there was some official dude on cnn who was talking about this stuff.

he said about the sheik "well there are others that can replace him" or something to the effect of that.

wow dosnt that just make you want to support the US? you get assisnated for defending them and all they say of you on the news is "he can be replaced"

i cant believe my taxes go to support this "bullgrass"...



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I guess my question to everyone is:

Do you think our government, with it's Blackwater troops in Iraq, would sponsor assassinations of Iraqi leaders and essentially "frame" al Queda as having prepetrated the crime in an attempt to sway public appinion in favor of occupation forces?

In my opinion, it doesn't seem that far fetched in regards to prior rouge group and coupe support from the CIA and other intelligence/counter-intelligence offices.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
i dont think the public gives two poo's really about what iraqi figures get assisinated.
the people are pretty fed up with this war in my opinion. it strikes me as a strictly a political defeat, not too good for propaganda purposes at least in the US.

In iraq on the other hand if pro-us religious clerics are getting knocked off it will have a negative effect on support for the US. we cant even protect are on puppets.

so in my opinion, this government is capable of any evil honestly, but i dont see how that would benifit them at all.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRepublic
 


I wasn't speaking in terms of the American public. As you can tell from the responses here ... most don't care. I was speaking in terms of gathering support from the Iraqi public. Most people in Iraq are against U.S. occupation, yet they admit that the U.S. cannot leave just yet because of the insurgents. They are leary to step forward and show support by joining the military, police, or government sponsored programs for fear that retaliation will be taken upon them and their families.

By perpetrating crimes such as these, the U.S. can gather support from "Average Joe" in Iraq in a community-wide show of unity. And by providing security and attandence by top-ranked personell show that "America Cares".



... More than 1,500 mourners attended the funeral of Abdul Sattar Abu Risha ...
... Mourners chanted "We will take our revenge" and "There is no God but Allah and al-Qaeda is the enemy of Allah" as the procession continued to the family cemetery.


Sounds to me like it made quite an impact upon the public.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
I guess my question to everyone is:

Do you think our government, with it's Blackwater troops in Iraq, would sponsor assassinations of Iraqi leaders and essentially "frame" al Queda as having prepetrated the crime in an attempt to sway public appinion in favor of occupation forces?

The Blackwater people ARE NOT involved with combat operations, they are there for security purposes to free up the US troops for actual combat. They do things like guard the oil refineries and government buildings.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   


No group has said it carried out the attack but most believe it was the work of al-Qaeda.


i am extremely wary of quotes like these from the bbc.

First of all i have spent more than 6 months in the middle east, and one thing i learned from being over there is the arabs are very much more aware of what is really going on in the world than we are here in the US. as a whole i would say they are less prone to brainwashing as they have delt with one evil government after another and most know when something suspicious is going on.

US over here in the west hear what they want us to hear.
a good example of this is once when i was over in the middle east i got a newsweek in a care package from home. when i went down to the local shop to look around i saw the same weeks newsweek but with a diffrent cover! the one you all got here in the US was some fluff peice about a lesbian photographer...the one we got in the middle east was about how america was losing the war in afghanistan. and this was newsweek...
later i found all of newsweeks international editions carried the afghan story. only the us one carried the lesbian photographer fluff peice. so americans dont get the real picture.

so i highly doubt the iraquis will buy our propaganda. i think they know all to well how devious our country is.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Sorry. I didn't mean Blackwater troops. Bad wording on my part. I meant it in a generic fashion. I meant the people trained by Blackwater-like agencies that are on the ground in Iraq.

Free Agents

There are now nearly as many private contractors in Iraq as there are U.S. soldiers – and a large percentage of them are private security guards equipped with automatic weapons, body armor, helicopters and bullet-proof trucks.

They operate with little or no supervision, accountable only to the firms employing them. And as the country has plummeted toward anarchy and civil war, this private army has been accused of indiscriminately firing at American and Iraqi troops, and of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens who got too close to their heavily armed convoys.

They operate in a decidedly gray legal area. Unlike soldiers, they are not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under a special provision secured by American-occupying forces, they are exempt from prosecution by Iraqis for crimes committed there.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
just in case anyone was curious i looked around and found this link about the newsweek sensoring:

www.truthout.org...


it is truly amazing the extent that they will go to create propaganda and lies. i just hope people wake up and quit buying the lies they try to sell....



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRepublic
 



Great find! I'm posting a bulletin on MySpace about his right now. People are so naive, and apparently me included. I had no idea about this.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
You don't believe Al Qaeda would do such a thing against collaborators of Americans? Whats all the killing of Iraqis for in the first place to deter people from collaborating? O yeah blame it on Blackwater...
Or maybe Mossad, or maybe the CIA.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
maybe. maybe not.

did you have anything to contribute or was this just to get a post on the thread?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
maybe. maybe not.

did you have anything to contribute or was this just to get a post on the thread?


Have you ever seen beheadings by insurgents of Iraqi police and soldiers captured by that works for the U.S. backed Iraqi govt?


I can post something like that if you want to see how they deal with collaborators.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AuLo4.j2zMTk4wZ5HZL.cR69F4l4

Looks like someone claimed. Ironic ain't it?


DUBAI (Reuters) - An Al Qaeda-led group said on Friday it was responsible for the killing of Iraqi tribal leader Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, according to an Internet posting on Friday.

The self-styled Islamic State in Iraq called the killing of Abu Risha a "heroic operation." Its statement could not be authenticated, but it was posted on a main Islamist Web site.

The Sunni leader had worked with American forces to create one of Iraq's few security success stories. He was killed in a bomb attack near his home in Ramadi, capital of Anbar province.

Abu Risha, who met U.S. President George W. Bush less than two weeks ago, had led the Anbar Salvation Council, an alliance of Sunni Arab tribes that worked with U.S. troops to push Sunni Islamist al Qaeda out of much of the vast desert area.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
oh how timely,

"an al queda group" convientently claims responsibility... honestly real insurgents would not claim responsibility for it, it keeps the killing more mysterious, protects the insurgents from being tracked down, and generates more terror in the opposition. by al queda claiming responsibility so convientently right now, it reeks of propaganda....

first of all the media calls every single islamic insergent group "al queda" or "al queda related" regardless of which sect of islam the insergants belong to. sooooo, it could be a group that has nothing to do with al queda or if it is real al queda then it is the work of the CIA who created al queda.

its funny you mention cia, and mossad:
1) al queda, americas created arabic boogeyman
2) hamas, israels created arabic boogeyman

if you want to get rid of this war get rid of the intelligence agencies...



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


I figured it was only a matter of time before someone claimed responsibility. But, still seemed to accomplish an effective resolve of the public:

Yahoo

""The killing of Sheikh Abu Risha will give us more energy ... to continue confronting al Qaeda members and to dispose of them," said Sheikh Rashid Majid, a leader of the al-Bufahad tribe in Ramadi.

"But his murder will make us more cautious, because the reason for the killing of Abu Risha was careless security. We are 90 percent sure that al Qaeda is behind the assassination."

"Revenge should be made quickly," mourners chanted as the coffins of Abu Risha and two bodyguards, draped in Iraqi flags, were carried to the cemetery. "We will chase the killers."


Yes, I've seen a couple beheading videos before. I'm well aware of what happens to collaborators, as in my previous statement of public reluctance to involve themselves with any American affiliation.

I guess I'm confused on your stance on the issue. Are you saying that the U.S. wouldn't deliberately kill a tribal leader and make it look like a suicide bombing in order to draw public support to it's side? Not sure where the collaborating comes into play. Do you mean that they don't have to because al Queda is there and willing?

[edit on 14-9-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
I figured it was only a matter of time before someone claimed responsibility. But, still seemed to accomplish an effective resolve of the public:


Terrorist attacks go both ways, it can anger or put fear on them. Thats the point of terror. Its unpredictable as to what would happen if a terrorist attack is committed. Have you ever seen a terrorist group win? Name me a terrorist group that has been fighting for decades.



Yes, I've seen a couple beheading videos before. I'm well aware of what happens to collaborators, as in my previous statement of public reluctance to involve themselves with any American affiliation.

I guess I'm confused on your stance on the issue. Are you saying that the U.S. wouldn't deliberately kill a tribal leader and make it look like a suicide bombing in order to draw public support to it's side? Not sure where the collaborating comes into play. Do you mean that they don't have to because al Queda is there and willing?


Why would we need him dead, we needed him alive, thats the reason for collaborators. People willing to provide information, support, etc. Al Qaeda pretty much deals with anybody that collaborators with what they called occupation Crusaders. They make it look like they are the good guys who did a good thing.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   


Name me a terrorist group that has been fighting for decades.


the colombian FARQ
the tamil tigers
hezbolla

just to name a few

terrorist groups that win?
viet cong
castros revolutionary party
the taliban when they initially came to power

terrorism is a tactic, not just any group of ethnic arabs holding religious groups that differ from a majority of the west, and terrorism must be a threat cause good ole georgie is draggin us all over the god forsaken deserts in the far corners of the earth because of oil...er i mean terrorism



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic

the colombian FARQ
the tamil tigers
hezbolla

terrorist groups that win?
viet cong
castros revolutionary party
the taliban when they initially came to power

terrorism is a tactic, not just any group of ethnic arabs holding religious groups that differ from a majority of the west, and terrorism must be a threat cause good ole georgie is draggin us all over the god forsaken deserts in the far corners of the earth because of oil...er i mean terrorism


The Vietcong was never designated as a terrorist group by the State Department, it was all guerrilla against American forces with the help of the North Vietnamese Army. Nor were the Castros revolutionary party. And the Taliban was busy fighting the Northern Alliance over the who controls Afghanistan, I guess they are terrorists too eh? The NA was supported by the U.S. during the invasion.

How about ETA? or IRA?




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join