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.

 

War on terror is over, LONG LIVE the New Cold War

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   


The War on Terror is comming to its natural laughable end, the Powers that be realise that the Public are finding it increasingly implausible so they are switching their plans to an Old Enemy Russia




posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Lieberman is one of the few mainstream reporters who manages to surprise me. Besides Lou Dobs mention of the NAU, Leiberman touches on some interesting subjects.

The fact that he acknowledges the Georgia conflict for the reality that it was is a shock to me, seriously. Even more so is the fact the he used the dreaded word in mainstream news... "neo-con".



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Keith Olbermann (not Lieberman dude
) is one of the last honest voices in the American media - I'm surprised he's been able to keep his job, then again I guess he gets pretty good ratings.

He's spot on the money too - this whole thing has been set up to scare the American taxpayer into forking more dough over to the military industrial complex parasites.

Russia isn't trying to take over the world, we are.

When was the last time you heard the Russians talking about "global full-spectrum dominance" or similar nonsense?

BTW Techsnow, I like your sig.
I spent the Georgian War watching combat video on LiveLeak whilst cranking "Vicarious" over & over - the lyrics were eerily perfect...



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Wow!


It seems like even mainstream media is catching on! I almost half expected him to imply that 911 was an inside job, when he spoke of the war on terror as a means of keeping people fearful.
I know that Olberman is probably more of an exception than a rule, but I still think this is a clear sign that more and more people are catching on.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Good post S&F - I agree the entire "WAR ON TERROR" was utter bullsh** and they need a new scare tactic to keep people afraid and patriotically ignorant. Hell they haven't mentioned Osama in years (cause he's dead) and remember that good ol' TERROR ALERT SYSTEM they had all over the TV's for a few months? Laff... I hope in 10 years people will be able to look back and see everything for what it was, but I have a feeling the neo-cons aren't going to go down so easy



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Thanks for the comments guys, it makes it seem all the more worth it when people comment on my stuff.

One Question, as I am new here, what is the best forum to post to? I get a bit confused when there is so much choice lol



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Oh right Olberman... well that's who I was thinking of and thats what matters.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow
Oh right Olberman... well that's who I was thinking of and thats what matters.


Did jew have something on your mind? lol

Sorry that was very bad taste



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jomie-ky
Good post S&F - I agree the entire "WAR ON TERROR" was utter bullsh** and they need a new scare tactic to keep people afraid and patriotically ignorant. Hell they haven't mentioned Osama in years (cause he's dead) and remember that good ol' TERROR ALERT SYSTEM they had all over the TV's for a few months? Laff... I hope in 10 years people will be able to look back and see everything for what it was, but I have a feeling the neo-cons aren't going to go down so easy


OK you are wrong, Osama HAS been mentioned! Watch this video for proof!





posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Ok look at this one



And then take a look at this one



Then ask yourself WHY, WHY did the BBC feel the need to censor this news?



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by setfree
 


That's very interesting. I realize the edited version is less quality because it was taken off of TV? I only hope it wasn't edited by some nut. If it was edited by the BBC then where did the original come from?



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Techsnow
 


The Original clip was from Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera actually uses Youtube as its Video Archive. The BBC clip I took from their own Website. After a Mass emailing campaign they reinstated the original clip.

I got an email from the BBC that said the folowing

The BBC has an agreement with al-Jazeera which enables both broadcasters to share certain news material including pictures and interviews. It was on this basis that we offered an extract of Sir David Frost’s interview with Benazir Bhutto to users of the BBC News website.

"During the interview Ms Bhutto made an allegation that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by Omar Sheikh. A claim which was unchallenged and so unexpected that it seemed most likely that she had mis-spoken.

Under time pressure the item producer responsible for publishing the video edited out the comment with the intention of avoiding confusion. On reflection this was clearly a mistake and should not have happened. There was no intention on our part to distort the meaning of the interview, and we will endeavour to replace the edited version currently available via the BBC News website with the original interview as broadcast by Al-Jazeera.

I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for what was an error of judgement and the confusion that this has caused.

Adam Batstone

Editor BBC News Website Audio Video"


Problem was that they also set up a board on the BBC BUT the comments page was VERY tempermental

It is here

www.bbc.co.uk...

Something is being hid, the notion that she mispoke and meant to say "Daniel Pearl" does NOT cut it, as "Daniel Pearl" and "Osama Bin Laden" are VERY different names.

Also since when does a News Agency take it upon themselves to consider wether someone mispoke or not? Surely they would report it AS a slip of the tongue, but toi HIDE it shows collusion



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by setfree
 


yeah i have noticed the same thing....


LOL


i'm so far out of the governments reality


i live in NESARA reality



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by setfree
Ok look at this one

snip

And then take a look at this one

snip

Then ask yourself WHY, WHY did the BBC feel the need to censor this news?


Wow. Talk about a bombshell!

NO reaction...whatsoever?
Then they clearly try to sweep it under the rug and then when they're caught, they have the gall to put words into her mouth after she's been killed?

Adam Batstone...way to go tool.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by setfree
 


This guy gets on my nerves.. just the way he puts things. I think it is apparent that the Cold War has began once more, though I see no evidence of this being what he quoted as a "neocon" agenda. Both candidates spoke out against Russia, and continue to do so ..

Burying REAL problems amongst a blatant agenda honestly condemns the issues to never being resolved.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Originally posted by MrVertigo

It seems like even mainstream media is catching on!


No they are catching up with the public. They tried to do another “Iraq” on us over Georgia but failed solely because people finally caught onto the fact that Georgia attacked first. This fact certainly wasn’t reported by them well initially, if in fact it has been.
And they still continue to fail to debate basic things like Congo Lisa Lice condemning Russia recognising the independence of the Ossetian and Abkhazian people.

You need to look at the ownership of a company like News Corporation…
en.wikipedia.org...

To realise one thing…
The political system doesn’t set the agenda of the media; the media owners set the agenda of the political system!

Going back to the new cold war.
It’s actually kind of a improvement; since hopefully less people will get killed.
At least excessive arms stockpiled in warehouses are only a waist of taxpayers money, rather than also a waist of taxpayers lives (i.e. soldiers) and foreigners.
That’s why it should be more politically successful. Go for it!

Or maybe just legalise bribery so we can pay the arms manufactures directly? Obviously it could never appear to be a bribe; instead it has to be something creative like a “development subsidy” (available only to those whose wealth exceeds 1 billon dollars and above, of course).



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by setfree
 


It's only a Cold War if no one fights.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join