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.

 

Zadari: Osama was an “Operator” for the United States

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


I hate to break it to you, but its not quite as easy as you think to find someone using a satellite. Hell, the US Navy used to hide whole battle groups from Soviet reconaissance satellites, that is all a matter of orbital mechanics. We found Saddam by kicking in doors and asking questions of people, NOT by using a satellite. Almost every time we have found someone like Saddam or Zawaqari, it has been because people have talked...not because of high tech surveillance.




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Fair point, what i am trying to get at is there is only a certain amount of places he CAN hide. You can make ANYBODY talk with the right techniques, whether these are morally justifiable is another story.

If they truely wanted to find him they could have. He is part of the system. This war on terrorism was started for a reason. War is an employment machine. WE NEED WAR.

Feel free to argue that last point



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


We didnt "need" a war. Our economy was doing okay and we had low unemployment. As has been pointed out many times over the last 8 years, radical Islam had been at war with us for over 20 years, it wasnt until 9/11 that we understood it is a war.

And no, finding him isnt as easy as you think either.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Look up the numbers of people employed globally by their own army, air force and navy. Then find out how many out of them will need psychologists, therapists etc. People who grow their food, prostetic limbs, socks, ammunition, electrics, camp resources, scientists etc.

You will find that war employs at least 1.5 BILLION people. And you tell me we dont need war haha



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


Learn some history would you please? We did not need a war in 2001 to create employment.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


So in 2001 were people not already employed by the armies? Did we not have reserve footsoldiers etc?

Did armies NOT EXIST in 2001? I think you are wrong. If armies did not exist we would have about 1.5 billion people unemployed. There are alternatives, the PTB can make other industries, but looking how society works at the moment, we need war to keep masses employed.

Can u link info where it states we didnt need war for employment? Id greatly appreciate that



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by JanusFIN
Infowars
May 10, 2009


I am not taking issue with the premise or the article but the source. Prison planet has also done a fine job in the past of claiming that the Osama we see in videos is an imposter. If he works for the U.S. then why do they need imposters to play him in the videos? - Read them, they do not say it is because the real one died, they say it is because we needed an actor to say what we wanted him to say.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
We didnt "need" a war.

We've never 'needed a war', yet we've been screwing around over there, regime changing since Barbary. No, we didn't need a war, we needed "A New Pearl Harbor" as reccomended by PNAC, which of course was later reiterated verbatum by Bush after 9-11. Israel needed the war, and like the Lybia bombings, we were duped into doing their bidding again.
Since your rather keen to debunk the 9-11 threads swampfox, I've got one that you might find of interest... www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


So in 2001 were people not already employed by the armies? Did we not have reserve footsoldiers etc?

Did armies NOT EXIST in 2001? -, we need war to keep masses employed.



Your logic falls in on itself here. Yes armies already existed in 2001 and kept 1.5 billion people employed. What would we need a war for if they were already employed? You are right, we already had an army and that is good for the economy in some ways. This war is not and was certainly not needed to employ more people. Especially according to you.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Im not saying to employ more people. Im saying to keep people employed + many other factors.

War is the fastes method to change the psychology of nations. Think about all new security measures they have brought in to protect our "civil liberties". Im just showing how war is an employment machine. War creates a lot of money as well, new technologies have chance to actually be tested / developed. There are lots of reasons.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv

War is the fastes method to change the psychology of nations. Think about all new security measures they have brought in to protect our "civil liberties".

Im just showing how war is an employment machine.


War creates a lot of money as well, new technologies have chance to actually be tested / developed. There are lots of reasons.


Which is it? An employment mechanism? A psychology changer? A innovator? Keep going and eventually this will all make sense. Toss in political gain, resource control, religious fundamentalism, etc. Eventually you will get it, keep trying. You will know when your sentences do not cancel each other out. Good luck!



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Which is it? An employment mechanism? A psychology changer? A innovator? Keep going and eventually this will all make sense. Toss in political gain, resource control, religious fundamentalism, etc. Eventually you will get it, keep trying. You will know when your sentences do not cancel each other out. Good luck!


Haha, please explain how they cancel eachother out? War is all of these things. A political gain, psychology changer, an employment machine, resource control. (plus other things im sure i havent even realised yet.) Where does religious fundamentalism come into it?

It is people like yourself, who dont know how to use sarcasm properly that reinforce the saying "lowest form of wit"

[edit on 16-5-2009 by Toughiv]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
Where does religious fundamentalism come into it?

Are you kidding? We've been fighting the VERY SAME wars since at least 1096ad, and arguably long before that.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


I feel its just a front. The organised religions are there to control people. They force perspectives onto young impressionable minds and then get them to do their bidding.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
It is people like yourself, who dont know how to use sarcasm properly that reinforce the saying "lowest form of wit"


I am sorry that I refrained from personally attacking you but thank you so much for your attempt at a bite back. You can say that I do not know how to use sarcasm correctly but I think I have a far better case when I say that you have no idea what you are talking about - as evidenced by asking where religious fundamentalism comes into war.

Do you know anything about war in the middle east?



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Really not sure where to start with this one.....

Our "screwing around" over there did start with the Barbary Pirates..that is true. The Pirates had a habit of seizing ships and holding them for "tributes" to be paid to the potentates. Well, then the decided to start seizing US ships and our government said we were not going to pay ransoms, that we were going to assert our rights to sail the world's oceans without paying for it (yes Im simplifying the history, but thats the gist of it)

PNAC, if you bother to read the whole document, was discussing the military and how we were geared for a knock down, drag out fight with the Soviets, but that wasnt a likely scenario anymore. We were (are) more likely to end up fighting counter insurgency type actions and our military at the time wasnt set up along those lines. It also said that the US would not spend the money to change from a Cold War military to a lighter, more mobile, tatical force better able to fight the type of war we were looking at, absent an event like Pearl Harbor. It never once stated, nor did PNAC believe, that we should HAVE a Pearl Harbor type event.

As for Libya, yeah, maybe bombing the snot out of them in 1986 was a bit of overkill in regards to the bombing in Berlin. However, KhadaffyDuck shut his mouth for a long time afterwards and ended a lot of the support he gave to terrorists. Not to mention, in 2002 when we decided we were going to start cleaning out terrorist rat nests and make sure Saddam never again was a WMD threat.......Khadaffy handed over all his WMD stuff without a fuss. So, in the end, 1986 was well worth it.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Im sorry are we talking about the war on terrorism or the Gaza strip? If we are talking about Gaza then yes, religious fundamentalism comes into play. However, I thought we were talking about the war on terrorism, see earlier posts, i do refer to it.

And p.s. I always bite



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Im sorry are we talking about the war on terrorism or the Gaza strip?
I said "WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST." I was not aware that I only had two to choose from. You asked what religious fundamentalism has to do with WAR. Not a specific war, please follow the conversation since you were part of it. Since you went there, if you are only talking about the war on terrorism and you still do not see how religious fundamentalism fits into that 'war." just raise your hand and someone will be by to explain it to you soon.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

A Grand Conspiracy Theory From Pakistan



In less than two years, the United States has successfully managed to drop from news headlines its failure to pacify Afghanistan. The focus of the Anglo-American media – American and British – has been locked on Pakistan. In order to justify this shift, multiple insurgencies and endless supply of money and weapons has trickled from U.S.-occupied Afghanistan into Pakistan to sustain a number of warlords inside Pakistan whom the American media calls ‘Taliban’ but they are actually nothing but hired mercenaries with sophisticated weapons who mostly did not even exist as recently as the year 2005.

thelede.blogs.nytimes.com...



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by JanusFIN
 


Funny...i have no problem finding stories about Afghanistan in the media.....



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join