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.
Originally posted by tom.farnhill
I would like to ask for the opinions of our members on here 2 questions.
1/ when we hear reports of insurgents and or rebels in Iraq or Afghanistan
are they refering to resistance groups and freedom fighters ?
2/ During WW2 did the german news papers reporting on the war refer to the French resistance as rebels or insurgents ?.
I know you're in love with these 9/11 conspiracy stories, but to side in with these brutal, intolerant zealots who force everyone back into the stone age at the point of a gun and consider them "freedom fighters" is being uninformed and ignorant, and you're not makign them look good; you're only making yourself look bad. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your point and this is NOT what you meant to say.
Originally posted by downtown436
So we didn't attack Afghanistan because of 9/11? We just went over there to do those poor misguided folks a favor?
I thought it was to exterminate Bin Laden and Al Qaida.
What about Iraq? I know that they had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists, but Bush said they were making some nukes to kill us all, I guess really we just needed to help them out with their womens liberation movement as well.
I am afraid that you may need to get rid of your TV in order to see what is really happening.
Originally posted by tom.farnhill
yes you have totally misunderstood the post .
the point i was trying to put forward was that we are invading counties
and when they resist the invasion we call them rebels or insurgents .
and you are deluding yourself if you think for one minute that we are over there for anything less than controlling the resources .
Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
If someone came "here" and invaded us and imposed their will against us and we resisted:
Here we would be freedom fighters.
There, on their news we would be insurgents.
The dead would be:
Here=dead
There=dead
The profits unaffected.
Originally posted by pieman
there is no such thing as a freedom fighter. you can only secure freedom through non-violence, violence always robs someone of their freedom.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why would you want to control the resources of Afghanistan? It's a dump. And don't bother with that pipeline nonsense, it's total bunk.
Oh, good grief, you conspiracy people really have gone off the deep end with this antiestablishment hangup of yours. Do you even KNOW what the Taliban represents?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by tom.farnhill
I would like to ask for the opinions of our members on here 2 questions.
1/ when we hear reports of insurgents and or rebels in Iraq or Afghanistan
are they refering to resistance groups and freedom fighters ?
2/ During WW2 did the german news papers reporting on the war refer to the French resistance as rebels or insurgents ?.
Oh, good grief, you conspiracy people really have gone off the deep end with this antiestablishment hangup of yours. Do you even KNOW what the Taliban represents?
-((snip))
Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
Poppy Fields and Karzai's brother.
Yet a bigger resource to control is the population and religious fervor itself.
They NEED combatants (tptb) they need division on top of their profits from drug sales to further the religious war, and that's what this is about, fostering division, and it's working very very well.