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.

 

Now Lets Discuss The Why......

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Military wise the United States is caught up fighting two insurgencies in two countries with no victory in sight. Politically Washington has isolated itself through starting two wars. The oil price has shot up adding to further destabilisation of the United States and global economy. This is far from a success. Is this beneficial for the United States of America? No it is not, the United States is not strategically better off post 911.



I'm not sure why you talk about the number of dead. Al-Qaeda is not aiming to kill as many people as possible, it has hit specific targets for reasons which you obviously have failed to understand. Al-Qaeda does not bomb an embassy to kill people, it is a symbolic attack upon the United States. Al-Qaeda did not attack the USS Cole in order to kill as many people as possible, it is a symbolic attack againt the United States military. So I suggest actually that you go beyond counting the number of deaths and actually put some effort in to understand the motives of Al-Qaeda and what they are essentially attempting to do.

I am absolutely aware of this 'bigger picture' you mention, and by the looks of it more so than yourself.




posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I don't want to hear about how "al Qaeda" caused our economy to become unstable. We did that to ourselves. All "al Qaeda" supposedly did was knock down three buildings, knock a hole in another, and crash a plane. The market closed for a couple of days. Airliner stocks went down a little for a while. That's nothing. Our economy is going to 100% bottom out eventually, and when it does, like I said, I do NOT want to hear about al Qaeda or anyone else doing it. You did it to yourselves by participating in/passively allowing completely stupid economic policies geared only at taking your money away and giving it to someone wealthier.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by paulpaulpaul
 

I'm not sure I agree with you.

Pre-9/11 the US economy was in post-dotcom boom dire straits. War, particularly the one we have now, which is global and seemingly perpetual, has been a massive boon to the US economy.

Further, we were about to enter a global crossover event in that the Middle East will be producing more oil than the rest of the world's oil producers combined. This is an event Cheney was talking about when he was CEO of Haliburton before becoming VP. In fact, he argued that up to two thirds of the world oil will come from the Middle East by 2020.

With the US's traditional oil suppliers about to experience peak rates of production, it was strategically vital for the US to gain access to the Middle East.

The rapid industrialisation of China, which is expected to double its rate of oil consumption from ~6 million bpd to ~14 mpbd over the next few years, provided further motivation.

If world rates of oil production remain broadly stagnant, this increase in demand will threaten US access. With oil required as collateral to help maintain the US economy, and with the US demand around 25% of total world production, it's easy to see just how critical this consideration is.

Now all of this is a gross oversimplification I know. And perhaps, before jumping to conclusions about what I know or the extent to which I've looked into the historical backdrop to 9/11, you would be good enough to read 5 fairly lengthy articles I wrote, which were an attempt to set out the 9/11 conspiracy "why?" to someone new to the subject. Thus some of it will be a little well-worn for those who have spent time looking into the alternative theories, but it does bring together a number of historcial and contemporary factors and shows how they are intricately woven together.

Click here for Part One. You can navigate between consecutive articles from there.

Rather than comment on this post directly, maybe you could challenge the material contained in these articles once you've read them.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   
The $2.3 trillion was diverted, not stolen, to fund our enormous black ops programs. That on top of the "known" black budget which is classified and no one ever sees. And that on top of the outrageously inflated cost of anything the Pentagon procures, much of which is laundered into black ops budgets as well. And that on top of the staggering profits made by the drug trade, much of which also finds it way into those programs as well.

Rumsfeld announced this on 9/10 for good reason and the message is crystal clear: it was not an admission but a proclamation and an affirmation. It was an unveiling that was meant to underscore the real intent and message of 9/11 to those in positions of power and influence throughout the world. This administration is ridiculed for never admitting the lest error--the whole lot of them--yet Rumsfeld openly offers this staggering news on 9/10/01? No, this is as great an aberration as snow in Miami in July, and only makes sense in relation to the events of the day after.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by paulpaulpaul
 


if youre interested in an insight into Al Queda, read their manual. its out there online if you look. (i tend not to link to things that way no one can accuse me of posting bogus materials) the manual was found when a cell was raided in london some time ago then translated into english and the only editing im aware of is the removal of a few chapters which detail assassination and torture techniques(the recipie for ricin for example) those chapters you would need access to a secure server and they are just as chilling as the rest of the book.



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join