It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Read This! It Just Might Interest You!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:21 PM
Ok, so I was going through some of the documents on my computer and I found a paper that I wrote in college just two and a half years ago. This is obviously an outdated report, but it has an interesting story behind it. This paper was originally about the 9/11 conspiracy, but my professor told me that I had to change it or she would fail me out of the class. The class I was taking was Global Culture 402 when I was a freshman at a private college in Buffalo, New York.

Please note that a lot of the views and points in this paper are not actually those of my own. I was forced to change certain things, and I bet you will guess what they were. None the less, I re-read this today and still found it to be interesting.

Please tell me your thoughts and opinions

Thank you!

True Intentions

Oil is money, money is power. This notion alone has thrown the United States into a brutal downward spiral. The price of oil per gallon has sky rocketed, forcing gas prices to follow suit and fluctuate radically. The shifty oil market has also put some tension on the U.S. economy, which in turn has affected the global economy. That same notion has been the principal foundation for the Bush Administration’s imperialistic war campaign in the Middle East, which has caused the majority of United States citizens to be more paranoid and xenophobic than ever.

The United States government, in collaboration with the most popular major media outlets, exaggerated the threat of terrorism in order to create a common public enemy. Fear and extreme aversion to Arab culture and followers of the Muslim faith has swept the United States. The U.S. government has recognized that in the instance of a common public enemy, they have the capability to manipulate public opinion. So, by constantly playing the “potential terrorist threat” and, “believed to be linked to Al Qaeda” cards, the U.S. government successfully gained the unofficial public approval to stage a war on terror in the coincidentally oil rich region of the Middle East. Now, five and a half years later, the United States has completely scrapped and shelved the Iraqi government and implemented a rough Democracy in its place.

All of these acts of imperialism have been fueled by one obvious factor: Oil. If the United States did not have such a dangerous addiction to oil, many of these issues would cease to exist. Alternative energy sources such as wind power, hydro power, and geothermal power have all been proposed, by leading scientists in the field of alternative energy studies, as prime candidates to replace oil as the main energy source. However, the United States government has an enormous problem with this concept. If oil is taken out of the equation, the government loses the ability to suppress U.S citizens. In order to keep generating that much wanted capital, it is crucial to put U.S. citizens in a position to continue to buy oil, and oil based products. This is why the U.S. government shoots down the idea of funding alternative energy research.


posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:22 PM
September 11th, 2001 was the day that ushered in the full fear of Arab or Muslim terrorists. The Bush Administration quickly capitalized on the events which took place that day by starting their mass fear campaign. Images of bearded Middle Eastern men flooded every major news channel, magazine, and newspaper. Videos of Middle Eastern terrorists wielding AK-47 fully automatic rifles began to emerge on the internet and news. The men in the videos were usually speaking about upcoming attacks and their reasons for which they wanted to carry out the attacks and others showed men taking credit for, and celebrating certain terrorist attacks while burning the American flag. The most graphic videos showed suicide bombers with high explosive charges strapped to their chests or torsos, running into a public square or market place, and detonating the charge. The average American viewer, who tends to be very patriotic, and vulnerable to influence by the United States government, is led to believe that the entirety of the Middle Eastern culture is ruthless, uncivilized, and anti-American. The fact that there are certain radical factions who completely despise the American government, and American culture is irrefutable, but this is not true of all Middle Easterners despise the American public.

However, the American public will not even believe that statement to be anywhere near the actual truth after watching videos of terrorists burning American flags and killing the innocent. They are quick to stereotype all Middle Eastern men as terrorists or “Jihadists.” The Americans are not fully responsible for this common outlook. Americans get their information from the most common sources, ones that are easy to find and easy to comprehend. So, Americans simply turn their television sets on and flip the channel to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or Headline News (a sister station of CNN). For those who prefer to watch the local news, there is CBS, NBC, and ABC. All of these news outlets have been known to carry propaganda. Many of the news stories these outlets run are biased and make bold attempts to push the opinion of the respective news station onto the viewer. For example, the Fox News programs Hannity and Colmes, and The O’Reily Factor constantly feature guests on their programs that have opinions which are in opposition to the anchors’. The anchors then attack the guests and make him/her look weak or loony. This also occurs on CNN’s Nancy Grace. Grace is notorious for slamming and humiliating her guests, again, if their views are not in line with hers. Her main tactic in a debate is to make every attempt to discredit the guest by looking for minor discrepancies in his or her argument, and making them the focus of her argument. The viewer sees these debates and believes that the anchor has the upper hand and that the guests are weak in political discussion. This then sways the viewer away from the views of the guests. According to a government report, which was declassified several years ago, this type of biased, ambush journalism has been in play for quite some time.


posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:23 PM
Shortly after World War Two, the Central Intelligence Agency launched a covert program known as, “Operation Mockingbird.” The focus of the program was to infiltrate all major news outlets, which were considered to be popular among the American public, and to begin broadcasting government propaganda. The government simply wanted to portray itself and its future agendas in a positive light, in order to avoid public resistance or conflict. They had many targets including: The Washington Post, CBS, Time and Life magazine, N.Y. Times, ABC, NBC, Associated Press, United Press International, and Reuters. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, this operation was considered to be a complete failure, and the program was scrapped. However, given its documented existence, elaborate reports on the programs objectives, and the obvious bias that fills our television sets and newspapers today, it is hard to believe that this program was simply scrapped. Perhaps the codename the program was given was scrapped, but certainly not the concept.

To further manipulate and strike fear into the public, the Bush Administration has created a “terror alert scale.” This terror scale ranges from a “low” threat to a “severe” threat. For many years now, the terror alert has been locked in on “high” mode, and occasionally rises to “severe” on holidays, or when a potential terrorist threat is thought to be at hand. This forces the public to be paranoid and on edge. It also distracts them from the military involvement of the United States in the Middle East. The fact is, the United States is quickly losing justification for the occupation of Iraq. The war on terror is becoming increasingly meaningless. There has not been a “terrorist” attack in the United States since September 11th, 2001. The most recent major attack was in London on July 7th, 2005. The United States however, continues to label car bombings, mortar shelling, and sporadic fire fights against the United States military in Iraq as terrorism. These acts are not terrorism. They are simply regular individuals with political views which differ from the United States, who happen to see a huge problem with the U.S.’s true motive in the Middle East. These “terrorists” are well aware of the U.S.’s desire to control Middle Eastern oil. The Bush Administration has denied these claims in various press conferences and interviews, immediately following the invasion of Iraq.

The story behind the invasion is that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and was considered to be unpredictable. The Bush Administration also emphasized the cruel treatment of the Iraqi citizens by the Hussein Regime. This information was in fact true, but this type of treatment occurs in many countries other than Iraq, such as Yemen, Indonesia, Micronesia, along with various African and Brazilian countries. Why has there been no immediate U.S. intervention in those countries? The weapons of mass destruction accusations were proved to be false, after the U.S. military failed to find any evidence of such armament. The Bush Administration later came forward and retracted the accusation, saying they were given “bad intel” on that matter. The fact is that North Korea has been testing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles for many years. Kim Jung Ill is viewed, by the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as the most “unpredictable” dictator to possess a nuclear armament or a nuclear weapons research program. Again, why has there been no U.S. intervention there? The answer is quite simple. The logic the U.S. government proposed for the invasion of Iraq were simply fronts, and excellent ones at that. The Bush Administration accused Saddam Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction simply because that is the greatest fear, not only to American citizens, but to worldly citizens as well.


posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:24 PM
Once in Iraq, the U.S. secured the major oil extraction and refining facilities, and then made a b-line for Baghdad. From there, the U.S. began to dismantle the dictatorship. Within a few years from that point, Iraq was having its first democratic presidential election, once again, imperialism. The U.S. was well aware of the proposal for the construction of a pipeline that would limit the oil resources for the U.S. and her allies. The U.S. identified this proposal as an extreme threat to the U.S. and the everyday activities that U.S. citizens engage in, which keep the economy and the government afloat. Talks to deter this pipeline proved unsuccessful. So, the only way to ensure that this pipeline would not be built, and the U.S.’s flow of oil would not be disturbed, was to launch a military campaign. By doing so, the effects on our economy were quickly visible. It was as if the United States had taken a step backward.

The proposed pipeline was an agreement between Pakistan, Syria, Iran, and India, which would have allowed direct flow of oil into these countries. This pipeline conflicted with the U.S.’s proposed idea for a pipeline through Iraq. The reality is, the Pakistan, Syria, Iran, and India pipeline would not have limited the U.S.’s oil supply, it would have raised the cost. This is the same effect we saw shortly after the invasion. Gas prices shot up to $2.09 a gallon in 2003, from a mere $.99 a gallon just two years earlier. Gas prices have continued to fluctuate, rising and dropping, then rising even higher. Prices have been recorded at $5.49 per gallon in states such as Alaska.

Many individuals have been forced to sell their vehicles and choose to bike or walk to their destinations. Others have resorted to converting their vehicles to bio-diesel, which then eliminates the need for gasoline. Car manufacturers have begun to release lines of vehicles dedicated to saving the buyer money at the pump. Vehicles such as hybrids, fully electric powered cars, and even fully solar powered cars are becoming available to consumers. These cars help ease the price drivers pay at the pump. The hybrid vehicle combines electricity with gas, so the vehicle uses of 50% gas. Electric powered cars run exclusively on electricity. Solar powered cars are mainly modifications to the car by the owner. The owner attaches solar panels on various parts of the car, which then absorb sunlight and converts the sunlight into usable energy for the vehicle. These are many ways people are trying to free themselves from the tight grip of the oil market on the road. People have continued their fight and have moved onto making their homes less dependent on oil. Solar panels, personal windmills, and water wheels are just a few of many ways people are winning the fight against the price of oil. Organizations have been formed to try to spread the knowledge about these alternative energy methods to the masses. Researchers have informed the government about geothermal, wind, and hydropower.

These proposed energy sources are cleaner and more efficient than oil. These researchers have pointed out that the entire United States can be powered by these energy sources, which eliminates the dependency on oil, and thus the conflict in the Middle East. Yet, the U.S. continues to “stay the course” in Iraq. There is a simple explanation for the U.S.’s continued course of action in the Middle East. The U.S. is raking in massive profits from the oil industry. If the U.S. simply drops arms and converts to these alternative fuel methods, the current flow of capital will rapidly diminish. So, the United States disregards alternative fuel sources. This leaves the average American subject to suppression by the same individuals who claim to protect us.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:51 PM
It seems that stating the obvious was a bad idea in this particular classroom. Was this an English class? English professors (esp. female ones) are notorious for failing freshmen that voice their opinions.

I would have taken a withdrawal passing grade and signed up for a similar class with a male professor. I have never done well in English courses, but even I saw a few errors in your report. Pink Floyd's "The Wall" made some good observations about teachers.

Anyhow, I liked it, for what that's worth.

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 02:32 PM
reply to post by KillenfizzenHumboflorator

Hey, thank you for the post.

I enjoyed your paper and that is crazy that she threatened to fail you for this.

I have never heard of Operation Mockingbird so thanks for shedding light on that.
I just figured the media was controlled by the government and spread propaganda just because it is the largest control mechanism and is an obvious thing to do. I didn't realize that the CIA implemented it! You would think that an intelligence agency would do this secretly and not give it a label.

I really enjoyed the read, thanks.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:38 PM
The problem with your paper is that it is full of grandiose assertions, with very little supporting evidence. Your efforts would have been a lot more convincing if you had stuck with a single point or maybe two and then attempted to present some supporting evidence for your assertion.

For example, suppose you claim that the real reason behind the invasion of Iraq was to secure oil resources. How could you prove this? Oil production in Iraq was virtually cut off as a result of the war. Perhaps you might have found some neocon policy statements with regards to this strategy, or perhaps you might have shown how Iraq eventually was used for this purpose (the latter might be difficult).

It might have been easier to argue that Iraq is a good staging ground for controlling the Persian gulf and putting pressure on Iran. It may be less about securing oil for the West and more about cutting off oil to China and other countries. Who can say precisely the motives, though I agree it was unlikely a pure anti-terrorism play.

An essay of this type has to be more than half baked theories or some vague conspiracy notions supporting your political point of view. There has to be a logical progression of cause and effect, associated with a preponderance of evidence to support your conclusions.

new topics

top topics


log in