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.

 

Report: Taliban Not Allied With Al-Qaida

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
No chance.

My previous reply stands as it is .


Play ball.


I got it.

Wades in with his hip-waders. >.<


Ramzi Yousef



Bojinka plot

The Bojinka plot (Arabic: بجنكة‎; Tagalog: Oplan Bojinka) was a planned large-scale Islamist terrorist attack by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to blow up 12 airliners[1] and their approximately 4,000 passengers as they flew from Asia to the United States. The term can also refer to a combination of plots by Yousef and Mohammed to take place in January 1995, including a plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II. Murad proposed to crash a plane into the CIA headquarters in Fairfax County, Virginia in addition to a plan to bomb multiple airliners, which leads credence that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed evolved this plot into the 9–11 airliner attacks.[2]

Despite careful planning and the skill of Ramzi Yousef, the Bojinka plot was disrupted after a chemical fire drew the Philippine National Police's (PNP) attention on January 6 and January 7, 1995. Yousef set off test bombs in a mall and theater, injuring scores of people, and one person was killed in the course of the plot — a passenger seated near a nitroglycerin bomb on Philippine Airlines Flight 434, which could have caused enough damage to lose the entire plane.

The money was handed down to the plotters originated from Al-Qaeda, the international Islamic jihadi organization then based in Sudan.




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by nenothtu
 

Oh, I'd done my homework. Have you done yours?


Yeah, as a matter of fact I HAVE.



But you might want to see my following post, in reply to Slayer...seeing as the point my post that you replied to clearly went over your head, hence the "duh."


OK, I'll play your silly game. Since I'm so dumb and all what the hell WAS your point?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 


You're too cryptic to be playing ball with.

If you're implying in your cryptic previous post that you :"know things" and so what you said stands as is, fine. If this is the case, I can say to you that no one really "knows" everything. No matter how much you may think you do. The people who play this game account for and anticipate a lot.

If you won't clarify as to why you pulled a snippet of my post on to cryptically comment on, while ignoring the other points made there, fine. Nothing I can do, and nothing to really discuss here then.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




This is entirely true, as our European Masters had long trained and convinced the masses that there were certain noble and gentlemanly qualities that should be espoused in the pursuit of warfare.


Well said my friend.

Many nowadays don't understand why that "noble" thinking goes out the window, when your kids are hungry and staring at you.

It's all in our DNA.


When it comes to freedom and the fight for freedom, one of the greatest warriors to effect the status quo was not a warrior at all, nor noble, but a not so humble musician.

A musician that not only created flowing works of music so powerful in their chord progressions that hardened noble warlords would weep like babies in their parlors listening to him, but who understood his power to uniquely create far surpassed their all to common penchant to murder and destroy.

When Ludwig Von Beethoven scoffed at and refused the patronage of one of Europe’s most influential and militarily powerful princes on political grounds, Europe and the Nobles of Europe held their breath waiting to see if the prince would demand justice for the affront which was his right under the system of Nobility.

A commoner had no standing to rebuke, rebuff or refuse a noble.

In that one act of defiance, Beethoven did more to change the Status Quo that had existed for centuries than legions of Soldiers could have.

Through his power to actually create, he had become so beloved by the nobles, that while none of them would deny the prince his birthright, they also made it clear though their typical gossip that murdering or imprisoning their most beloved composer could severely impact their own interpersonal relationships with the Count moving forward.

For the first time in hundreds of years a person of common birth and transcended from his station, and as Beethoven so eloquently declared in his rebuke of the prince “The world is full of counts and countesses, princes and princesses, kings and queens, they are a dime a dozen, but there is only one Ludwig Von Beethoven and I say no to thee”.

This one act by a musician did more to change the status quo, primarily because those who create, as opposed to those who destroy do in fact have a talent of far more real value, and much more respect than even the most accomplished warrior which the Prince in question was most definitely considered to be.

History by the way doesn’t often recall the name of the prince, but it has never forgotten the name of Beethoven.

There continues to be nothing noble about war, murder, theft, dominance by brute force, or any of the other things the overly challenged macho crowd sees as virtuous to mask their inability to create.

For such people it’s not enough to diminish themselves, they absolutely have to diminish everyone else by attempting to make noble the least productive and intelligent thing a person could do, resort to violence as a ends to a means.
In fact my own experience in many encounters I entered into that were violent or potential to be violent that reason and dialogue, compromise and friendship and comity were the better way to go, once someone determinedly approached the situation along those lines and dared the others to do the same.

We have a culture of war that has ruled this planet in bloodshed for millennia in large part because of the people who wish to glorify it, but it’s the people of ideas, with the ability to create and think independently that slowly nudge it forward.

In part it’s so slow because of the Neanderthals that want to over rely on brute force and destruction to gain or cling to power, and yes they love to talk about how macho, and noble it is, how potent and noble and virtuous it makes them, because that’s the only way to mask the insanity and stupidity of their violent and counter productive destructive ways.

Some people like creating excuses, some people like creating things, soldiers like to create pretexts to justify and glorify violence, destruction and misery, that all stops when the ability to create is considered to be greater than the ability to destroy.

What have we created in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 5th and 7th worst states to live in the world, while taking our own down a few notches in the process, so yeah about the only way you can sell failure like that is pretend it has something to do with virtue.

Amazing huh?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Go read?

That might be a start. Seems you got hung up on telling me that I assigned some sort of value to "mercenaries" and then made a strange statement about al Qaeda blowing themselves up, which I asked you to clarify. You could or would not.

You then, based on virtually nothing, accused me of not doing "homework." Now, I'm not in the habit of inventing things about a topic and typing for the sake of typing (maybe you are or maybe you aren't, but I won't assume either way) and so answered your comment about this.

And now again, or finally, you ask me what my point was. If any of my points were not clear to you, or if you have any specific questions to my points that you can find a way to articulate, I'll be more than happy to attempt to clarify for you.

Otherwise, we're done here.
edit on 2/7/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by tristar
 


You're too cryptic to be playing ball with.

If you're implying in your cryptic previous post that you :"know things" and so what you said stands as is, fine. If this is the case, I can say to you that no one really "knows" everything. No matter how much you may think you do. The people who play this game account for and anticipate a lot.

If you won't clarify as to why you pulled a snippet of my post on to cryptically comment on, while ignoring the other points made there, fine. Nothing I can do, and nothing to really discuss here then.


No games , my reply within page 3 stands and is obvious enough, if you require further clarification, then perhaps you should apply to something else other that what you are doing as an occupation.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Read my signature , wisdom from 1940 that the sheeple have ignored .
im anti war only the rich profit from it .



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler


A commoner had no standing to rebuke, rebuff or refuse a noble.




My humble friend,

He had and will always have a choice.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 



Originally posted by tristar

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

my point goes to the fact that to prove al Qaeda "blows themselves up


I could..but i would be in breach of NDA...so chill out..

Sorry for the slang..but if you think otherwise, then i suggest a breath of O2
edit on 7-2-2011 by tristar because: be


This reply?

What concern is my profession of yours? And what does this or your suggestion that I breath O2 have to do with anything here?

Let your "reply" stand.
The reality is that your little NDA covers only you speaking about the fraction of what you were told and privy to. And if you believe otherwise or believe that you know more or less than exactly what some wanted you to know, then maybe you need to heed the advice you so lovingly gave me..
edit on 2/7/2011 by ~Lucidity because: fixed end quote formatting problem



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by tristar
 




Originally posted by tristar

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

my point goes to the fact that to prove al Qaeda "blows themselves up


I could..but i would be in breach of NDA...so chill out..

Sorry for the slang..but if you think otherwise, then i suggest a breath of O2
edit on 7-2-2011 by tristar because: be
p/quote]

This reply?

What concern is my profession of yours? And what does this or your suggestion that I breath O2 have to do with anything here?

Let your "reply" stand.
The reality is that your little NDA covers only you speaking about the fraction of what you were told and privy to. And if you believe otherwise or believe that you know more or less than exactly what some wanted you to know, then maybe you need to heed the advice you so lovingly gave me..


No need for me to heed anything, my reply stands on page 3. I have and do not fear anything. What one seeks within, is evident enough. We are and will do as intended regardless of what one perseveres as ideology.

For those who assume that anything that represents interaction within a social interaction or as a democratic ideology and see that as a demonic or what ever is obviously way against what i myself live and breathe.

We are a mere, 2 billion plus, so assuming that a insignificant amount of humans may sawy or assume they have the authority to impose an ideology is at best, stupid.

One must and i stress, must.....interact, we are all from one common rock, called earth and nothing separates us, that is, unless, one assumes he is not from here.
edit on 7-2-2011 by tristar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
With all due respects to the OP, while the delivery system for the way this information has been given out this time is new, the information itself is not infact..new. For people who have researched the 2 groups, ideologies, mindsets, what have you, this is something that has been known for a long time.

Now with that said, I find no fault in those who have not researched it and here is why. In the media in general, both the words Taliban and Al Qaeda are often, seemingly, spoken one right after the other. So people connect the 2, they become interchangable in the minds of the masses. Up until now, there has been little attempt by the media to disconnect this way of thinking as it served their purpose of "They are ALL the same...they are ALL the boogie men and we need to get 'em" mentality keeping it in the forefront of everyone's minds so it is easier to whip the masses into a froth if need be. Now, in light of that line of thought this is what I am asking... why are they now trying to distance the 2 groups in everyone's minds when they could have easily done so from the start of all this?
edit on 7-2-2011 by MyMindIsMyOwn because: A Duh moment



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Read my signature , wisdom from 1940 that the sheeple have ignored .
im anti war only the rich profit from it .


OK. I read your signature, several times, and couldn't find anything in it refuting my contention that none of my liberties have been "taken away" due to this war on terror, or it's fallout. I'll quote it here, and perhaps you can point out where it says they have:



signature:
Soldiers - dont give yourselves to brutes men who despise you and enslave you - who regiment your lives tell you what to do what to think and what to feel who drill you diet you treat you as cattle as cannon fodder.Dont give yourselves to these unnatural men machine men with machine minds and machine hearts. You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You dont hate - only the unloved hate



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Aligned, not aligned, tomato, tomahto, who the Hell really cares anymore?

Sorry, I was over "Al Qaida" and the "Taliban", as soon as I figured out it was a con.

The entire "War on Terror" is a fabrication of political weaving of lies to seek funding.

Yes, there are idiots, hiding in the hills of Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, trying to hurt America.

Yes, there are iditios, hiding in plain sight, in Washington D.C., the White House, and Pentagon.

Trying to make money, trying to harm our country, and trying to commit treason.

And or trying to manufacture events, or spin events, or even influence events towards releasing funds.

All in the name of fraud against a populace too damn stupid to pay attention due to a short attention span.

I will give you some book titles which will open your eyes towards the stupidity being pulled off.

But just prior to doing this I'm going to show the definition of "terrorism".


Quote from : Wikipedia : Terrorism

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists.

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war.

The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.

Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.

The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives.

It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.

An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.


Yes, it is Wikipedia, everyone can just get over that, it plays into my further post later.

Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001




Amazon Review :

Steve Coll's Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 offers revealing details of the CIA's involvement in the evolution of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the years before the September 11 attacks.

From the beginning, Coll shows how the CIA's on-again, off-again engagement with Afghanistan after the end of the Soviet war left officials at Langley with inadequate resources and intelligence to appreciate the emerging power of the Taliban.

He also demonstrates how Afghanistan became a deadly playing field for international politics where Soviet, Pakistani, and U.S. agents armed and trained a succession of warring factions.

At the same time, the book, though opinionated, is not solely a critique of the agency.

Coll balances accounts of CIA failures with the success stories, like the capture of Mir Amal Kasi.

Coll, managing editor for the Washington Post, covered Afghanistan from 1989 to 1992.

He demonstrates unprecedented access to records of White House meetings and to formerly classified material, and his command of Saudi, Pakistani, and Afghani politics is impressive.

He also provides a seeming insider's perspective on personalities like George Tenet, William Casey, and anti-terrorism czar, Richard Clarke ("who seemed to wield enormous power precisely because hardly anyone knew who he was or what exactly he did for a living").

Coll manages to weave his research into a narrative that sometimes has the feel of a Tom Clancy novel yet never crosses into excess.

While comprehensive, Coll's book may be hard going for those looking for a direct account of the events leading to the 9-11 attacks.

The CIA's 1998 engagement with bin Laden as a target for capture begins a full two-thirds of the way into Ghost Wars, only after a lengthy march through developments during the Carter, Reagan, and early Clinton Presidencies.

But this is not a critique of Coll's efforts; just a warning that some stamina is required to keep up.

Ghost Wars is a complex study of intelligence operations and an invaluable resource for those seeking a nuanced understanding of how a small band of extremists rose to inflict incalculable damage on American soil.

--Patrick O'Kelley


...and...

The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century




Publishers Weekly : Amazon Review :

The bin Ladens are famous for spawning the world's foremost terrorist and building one of the Middle East's foremost corporate dynasties.

Pulitzer Prize–winner Coll (Ghost Wars) delivers a sprawling history of the multifaceted clan, paying special attention to its two most emblematic members.

Patriarch Mohamed's eldest son, Salem, was a caricature of the self-indulgent plutocrat: a flamboyant jet-setter dependent on the Saudi monarchy, obsessed with all things motorized (he died crashing his plane after a day's joy-riding atop motorcycle and dune-buggy) and forever tormenting his entourage with off-key karaoke.

Coll presents quite a contrast with an unusually nuanced profile of Salem's half-brother Osama, a shy, austere, devout man who nonetheless shares Salem's egomania.

Other bin Ladens crowd Coll's narrative with the eye-glazing details of their murky business deals, messy divorces and ill-advised perfume lines and pop CDs.

Beneath the clutter one discerns an engrossing portrait of a family torn between tradition and modernity, conformism and self-actualization, and desperately in search of its soul.

(April 1) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.

All rights reserved.


...and...

Blank Check: The Pentagon's Black Budget




Library Journal : Amazon Review :

In this book based on his Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles for the Philadelphia Inquirer, journalist Weiner probes the way the Pentagon has used secret budgets to fund huge military programs.

This has grown to the point that there are now more than 100 multimillion- and multibillion-dollar weapons systems, many of them nuclear weapons designed to fight and win World Wars III and IV, built without the awareness of the public or even the Congress.

Weiner takes a close look at programs such as the Stealth bomber and provides fascinating detail from Congressional testimony.

The thesis of the book--that secrecy in government military programs is antithetical to democracy--is well documented and hugely important.

As the Cold War draws to a close and military budgets come under attack, the public and Congress may tend to forget the defense establishment's inclination toward secrecy and self-perpetuation.

Weiner's book serves as a timely reminder that this would be unwise.

Highly recommended. - Jennifer Scarlott, World Policy Inst., New York Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.


...and...

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade




Publishers Weekly : Amazon Review :

Nearly 20 years ago, McCoy wrote The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia , which stirred up considerable controversy, alleging that the CIA was intimately involved in the Vietnamese opium trade.

In the current volume, a substantially updated and longer work, he argues that pk the situation basically hasn't changed over the past two decades; however the numbers have gotten bigger.

McCoy writes, "Although the drug pandemic of the 1980s had complex causes, the growth in global heroin supply could be traced in large part to two key aspects of U.S. policy: the failure of the DEA's interdiction efforts and the CIA's covert operations."

He readily admits that the CIA's role in the heroin trade was an "inadvertent" byproduct of "its cold war tactics," but he limns convincingly the path by which the agency and its forebears helped Corsican and Sicilian mobsters reestablish the heroin trade after WW II and, most recently, "transformed southern Asia from a self-contained opium zone into a major supplier of heroin."

Scrupulously documented, almost numbingly so at times, this is a valuable corrective to the misinformation being peddled by anti-drug zealots on both sides of the aisle.

First serial to the Progressive.

Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.


...and...

House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties




Amazon Review :

The perilous ramifications of the September 11 attacks on the United States are only now beginning to unfold.

They will undoubtedly be felt for generations to come.

This is one of many sad conclusions readers will draw from Craig Unger's exceptional book House of Bush House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties.

As Unger claims in this incisive study, the seeds for the "Age of Terrorism" and September 11 were planted nearly 30 years ago in what, at the time, appeared to be savvy business transactions that subsequently translated into political currency and the union between the Saudi royal family and the extended political family of George H. W. Bush.

On the surface, the claim may appear to be politically driven, but as Unger (a respected investigative journalist and editor) probes--with scores of documents and sources--the political tenor of the U.S. over the last 30 years, the Iran-Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, the birth of Al Qaeda, the dubious connection between members of the Saudi Royal family and the exportation of terror, and the personal fortunes amassed by the Bush family from companies such as Harken Energy and the Carlyle Group, he exposes the "brilliantly hidden agendas and purposefully murky corporate relationships" between these astonishingly powerful families.

His evidence is persuasive and reveals a devastating story of Orwellian proportions, replete with political deception, shifting allegiances, and lethal global consequences.

Unger begins his book with the remarkable story of the repatriation of 140 Saudis directly following the September 11 attacks.

He ends where Richard A. Clarke begins, questioning the efficacy of the war in Iraq in the battle against terrorism.

We are unquestionably facing a global security crisis unlike any before.

President Bush insists that we will prevail, yet as Unger so effectively concludes, "Never before has an American president been so closely tied to a foreign power that harbors and supports our country's mortal enemies."

--Silvana Tropea


...and...

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives




Kirkus Reviews : Amazon Review :

The former national security advisor is still a believer in geopolitics after all these years.

Like most foreign-policy aficionados weaned on the Cold War, Brzezinski (Out of Control, 1993) has been forced by the disintegration of the Soviet Union to broaden his perspective--but not very far.

He sees the US as the only global superpower, but inability to maintain its hegemony indefinitely means that ``geostrategic skill'' is essential.

To what end is not specified beyond the vague shaping of ``a truly cooperative global community'' that is in ``the fundamental interests of humankind,'' but in this genre, goals are commonly assumed rather than examined.

In any case, Brzezinski casts Eurasia as the playing field upon which the world's fate is determined and analyzes the possibilities in Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Balkans (interpreted broadly), and the Far East.

Like a grandmaster in chess, he plots his strategy several moves in advance, envisioning a three-stage development.

Geopolitical pluralism must first be promoted to defuse challenges to America, then compatible international partners must be developed to encourage cooperation under American leadership, and finally the actual sharing of international political responsibility can be considered.

The twin poles of this strategy are a united Europe in the West and China in the East; the central regions are more problematic and, for Brzezinski, not as critical in constructing a stable balance of power.

This updated version of East-West geopolitics is worth taking seriously but it is also an amazing example of how a perspective can be revised without actually being rethought.


...and...

The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power




Amazon Review :

The Bush years have given rise to fears of a resurgent Imperial Presidency.

Those fears are justified, but the problem cannot be solved simply by bringing a new administration to power. In his provocative new book, The Cult of the Presidency, Gene Healy argues that the fault lies not in our leaders but in ourselves.

When our scholars lionize presidents who break free from constitutional restraints, when our columnists and talking heads repeatedly call upon the "commander in chief " to dream great dreams and seek the power to achieve them--when voters look to the president for salvation from all problems great and small--should we really be surprised that the presidency has burst its constitutional bonds and grown powerful enough to threaten American liberty?

The Cult of the Presidency takes a step back from the ongoing red team/blue team combat and shows that, at bottom, conservatives and liberals agree on the boundless nature of presidential responsibility.

For both camps, it is the president's job to grow the economy, teach our children well, provide seamless protection from terrorist threats, and rescue Americans from spiritual malaise.

Very few Americans seem to think it odd, says Healy, "when presidential candidates talk as if they're running for a job that's a combination of guardian angel, shaman, and supreme warlord of the earth."

Healy takes aim at that unconfined conception of presidential responsibility, identifying it as the source of much of our political woe and some of the gravest threats to our liberties.

If the public expects the president to heal everything that ails us, the president is going to demand--or seize--the power necessary to handle that responsibility.

Interweaving historical scholarship, legal analysis, and trenchant cultural commentary, The Cult of the Presidency traces America's decades-long drift from the Framers' vision for the presidency: a constitutionally constrained chief magistrate charged with faithful execution of the laws.

Restoring that vision will require a Congress and a Court willing to check executive power, but Healy emphasizes that there is no simple legislative or judicial "fix" to the problems of the presidency.

Unless Americans change what we ask of the office--no longer demanding what we should not want and cannot have--we'll get what, in a sense, we deserve.


...and...

The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century




Amazon Review :

This bold and important book strives to be a practical "strategy for a Second American Century."

In this brilliantly argued work, Thomas Barnett calls globalization "this country’s gift to history" and explains why its wide dissemination is critical to the security of not only America but the entire world.

As a senior military analyst for the U.S. Naval War College, Barnett is intimately familiar with the culture of the Pentagon and the State Department (both of which he believes are due for significant overhauls).

He explains how the Pentagon, still in shock at the rapid dissolution of the once evil empire, spent the 1990s grasping for a long-term strategy to replace containment.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Barnett argues, revealed the gap between an outdated Cold War-era military and a radically different one needed to deal with emerging threats.

He believes that America is the prime mover in developing a "future worth creating" not because of its unrivaled capacity to wage war, but due to its ability to ensure security around the world.

Further, he believes that the U.S. has a moral responsibility to create a better world and the way he proposes to do that is by bringing all nations into the fold of globalization, or what he calls connectedness.

Eradicating disconnectedness, therefore, is "the defining security task of our age."

His stunning predictions of a U.S. annexation of much of Latin America and Canada within 50 years as well as an end to war in the foreseeable future guarantee that the book will be controversial.

And that's good.

The Pentagon's New Map deserves to be widely discussed.

Ultimately, however, the most impressive aspects of the book is not its revolutionary ideas but its overwhelming optimism.

Barnett wants the U.S. to pursue the dream of global peace with the same zeal that was applied to preventing global nuclear war with the former Soviet Union.

High-level civilian policy makers and top military leaders are already familiar with his vision of the future—this book is a briefing for the rest of us and it cannot be ignored.

--Shawn Carkonen


Before I go into my thoughts I will also recommend this video about the last book.

The Pentagon's New Map : 1 hour and 22 minutes


Now, if anyone knows the definition of the Hegelian Dialectic, you can figure this fraud easily.


Quote from : Wikipedia : Dialectic : Hegelian Dialectic

Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a three-fold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis.

Although this model is often named after Hegel, he himself never used that specific formulation.

Hegel ascribed that terminology to Kant.

Carrying on Kant's work, Fichte greatly elaborated on the synthesis model, and popularized it.

On the other hand, Hegel did use a three-valued logical model that is very similar to the antithesis model, but Hegel's most usual terms were: Abstract-Negative-Concrete.

Sometimes Hegel would use the terms, Immediate-Mediated-Concrete.

Hegel used these terms hundreds of times throughout his works.


Through the meanings of words, abstract words, ideas, and beliefs, like freedom, terrorism, warfare, as well as a host of other abstract ideas, Government, take your pick of which one, manipulates their people into believing nonsense which can be easily sold to those "marks", what con-men call easy targets, by sounding high-minded and benevolent.

It is through this means as well as usage of Secret Societies to cover their tracks that these fraudlent people commit high stakes robbery, and or they are used to frame-up the strategy to commit fraud against many nations people.

Whether it is "Al Qaida", the "Taliban", Charles Manson, TImothy McVeigh, or David Koresh, these organizations utilize these events to spook average citzens into demanding protection from "the wolves" hiding out in the world, meanwhile they are sometimes, albeit not all the time, the very same wolves we are terrified of in the very first place.

But it is through these negative aspects of society whereas these monsters can take advantage of our countries.

Think of it if you will like Wikipedia, many people edit it, so a lot of people will not utilize it as a resource for quotes, the same can be said for the laws surrounding the United Nations, as well as other countries, whereas "terrorism" holds many meanings, this is where these people are taking advantage of people's ignorances, and re-writing the laws as they see fit, to define it how they want through using boogeymen like Al Qaida and the Taliban, in order to manipulate the very fabric of how our society is seen, influenced, and or controlled.

So, when an event happens, it happens, and it is taken advantage of by unscrupulous people.

Personally, I utilize Wikipedia, because I know how to dig deeper.

Just as much as I utilize these changes in the laws to stay ahead of the bastards in power.

Quite frankly though I am getting tired of people who complain, whine, and bitch about this stuff.

Because rhetoric without positive action behind it is nothing more than a hollow gesture.
edit on 2/7/11 by SpartanKingLeonidas because: Adding Depth and Insight Into the Post.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Go read?

That might be a start. Seems you got hung up on telling me that I assigned some sort of value to "mercenaries" and then made a strange statement about al Qaeda blowing themselves up, which I asked you to clarify. You could or would not.


No, you claimed AQ was "mercenaries", and I called you on that. I've seen nothing to the contrary to support your contention yet.



You then, based on virtually nothing, accused me of not doing "homework." Now, I'm not in the habit of inventing things about a topic and typing for the sake of typing (maybe you are or maybe you aren't, but I won't assume either way) and so answered your comment about this.


If it's not "invented", there ought to be evidence for the contention that AQ is composed of mercenaries... which I have yet to see.



And now again, or finally, you ask me what my point was. If any of my points were not clear to you, or if you have any specific questions to my points that you can find a way to articulate, I'll be more than happy to attempt to clarify for you.


As you say, I asked for clarification of what your point is. Is this that clarification? I've already asked, so why offer to clarify instead of just doing it? I'd have to say that none of your points are very clear to me, or I wouldn't have asked if there's one in there somewhere...

You could start by clarifying whether or not you believe AQ to be "mercenaries", and if so, why.


Otherwise, we're done here.


Agreed. I'm tired of going around in circles.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


An excellent and very well presented post my friend, as always.

Yes it is all a con, but since we as a nation are still more or less buying it, it really is something that discussing becomes warranted.

Not everyone has the wisdom or presence of mind of a Spartan King.

Thanks for joining in my friend.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Duh.

Prove to me that al Qaeda "blows themselves up," please.


That’s a very complicated thing to ask! A far better question would be “are those people who claim al-Qaeda affiliation before blowing themselves up, ‘in’ al-Qaeda?” and the answer to that is – maybe, or sort of!

The people who are most easily described as being ‘in’ al-Qaeda don’t tend to blow themselves up, unless perhaps they face a very high and immediate possibility of capture and they are actually able/willing to. They have figure-heads, clerks or terrorism management consultants or whatever you want to call them, public relations guys who may utilise the internet or go out and meet people personally, and people who are somewhat responsible for their protection etcetera but they aren't a concrete organisation in the same way as PIRA et al.

The people who are specifically aiming to blow themselves up as part of an act of terrorism are loosely-connected individuals that aren’t truly a part of al-Qaeda as such, they are better described as being part of their franchise. Some may be inspired entirely from the internet or other media and have no real contacts or some may have met with and have been trained/recruited by “core” individuals personally or by other loosely-connected individuals supplied and organised by "core" al-Qaeda members for the purposes of training/recruiting others.

It's all very messy, what is clear enough is that they are ultimately responsible for people blowing themselves up, or killing by other methods, and those people may or may not be 'in' al-Qaeda.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Soshh
 


Exactly! As I've said before, AQ is more of a "dis-organization" than it is an organization, and folks have yet to come to terms with that concept. IT is, however, a terribly difficult sort of entity to combat, precisely because of the way it's "dis"-organized, and precisely BECAUSE most folks can't grasp the concept.

Like holding smoke in your hand.

If they don't understand it, how can they argue either for or against it?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Great post mate ...apparently here some soldiers still believe in war of terror and great empire America



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Anybody read the article?


U.S. scholars believe Afghanistan's Taliban has been wrongly perceived as ideological allies of al-Qaida, The New York Times reported late Sunday.

Citing a report to be published Monday by New York University, the newspaper said authors of the study think the guerrilla group could be persuaded to renounce al-Qaida.


So they are not allied with Al Qaeda, yet the authors BELIEVED that they can be persuaded to renounce Al Qaeda. Does anybody see something wrong in this?

The Taliban will never break away with Al Qaeda because they need them. They protected Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden helped kill the Taliban's most powerful enemy a few days prior to 9/11 which is no coincidence. Mullah Omar who is the head of the Taliban had married one of Osama Bin Laden's daughters. So whatever the authors says, is BS. They could try to put a pragmatic picture where we can try to negotiate and get the Taliban to break away from Al Qaeda because the Taliban are mostly local instead of Arabs, but I doubt it will happen.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
The so called "scholars" are missing a crucial point. Al-Qaeda is an invention of the US government.

The establishment grows more pathetic by the day.

Al-CIAeda, Taliban, Jihadists, Muhajadeen, insurgents, call them whatever you want. Even a child understands the reality of the situation. The people fighting the American occupation of Afghanistan have one common ideology: FREEDOM.

They want the American invaders and occupiers out of their country.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join