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.

 

Now that they got Osama, will they go after the remaining 911 perps?

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Your total post is nothing but a bunch of made up crap.

The seal team went in with the support of the Pakistan military.

You might want to consider re-connecting to reality.




posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   


Now that they got Osama, will they go after the remaining 911 perps?
reply to post by poet1b
 

Why would the Bush administration go after its self?



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TVeducated
 


When a part of their organization becomes a threat, that is when.

With Petraeus being appointed head of the CIA, Osama became too much of a security threat to allow him to continue to hang around.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Your total post is nothing but a bunch of made up crap.

The seal team went in with the support of the Pakistan military.


You just lost all credibility, dude.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I'm glad we are on the same page



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b


Got any proof of this claim. Sounds like another of your fabrications.


I could list a series of books if you like. Serious academic works, not stuff of the internet by conspiracists. But really, what's the point? A brief look at what actually happened should tell you enough: The US didn't go to war with Germany for another eight years. If everyone in America was so worried about him then why didn't they even bother to get involved when Britain declared war in September 1939?

It took more than two years for the US to enter the war. And if everybody except Prescott Bush and some other "industrialists" were wise to the Nazis' methods and ideology, then Americans must be a craven bunch.




Both articles list their sources. You can look this stuff up yourself, but you would rather bury your head on the sand.

These business connections are well recorded.

I can take you to the water, but I can't make you drink.



I've demonstrated where both articles reach conclusions that they do not support. You can choose to believe this stuff because it makes things easier for you - after all, if a nasty club of bad men rule the world it should be easy to get rid of them, right? - but it's ahistorical nonsense.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


And yet you can not even name one book or link that supports your position.

Try reading "Defying Hitler", it is the best work on the subject that you will find.

As far as mainstream academia goes, they mainly put out a whole lot of pure sheit, and everyone knows it.

You have demonstrate nothing, but that you know nothing, including the history of the run up to WW II and U.S. involvement. You and goodOldave have come off as completely programmed mediocrities.

U.S. public opinion against getting involved in European affairs goes all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine, and considering modern events, Monroe knew what he was doing. Monroe is the greatest under rated President and founding father in U.S. history if you ask me.

People in the U.S. felt like they got hoodwinked in WW I, and for good reason, and what was done to Germany after WW I was a travesty. Not surprisingly, you find the same cast of characters manipulating things behind the scenes at that time as well.

You can choose to be ignorant, or you can take the time to learn the truth. It is your choice. By your inability to articulate an reasonable debate, it is clear you have chosen to remain ignorant.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


As far as mainstream academia goes, they mainly put out a whole lot of pure sheit, and everyone knows it.


"Everyone knows" that mainstream academia put out "a whole lot of pure sheit"? What utter nonsense. The "mainstream" arguments regarding the run-up to WW2 are well-rehearsed and persuasive. "Alternative" viewpoints like yours require the ability to swallow documents like the one you post above - full of illogical leaps and a lack of evidence.


You have demonstrate nothing, but that you know nothing, including the history of the run up to WW II and U.S. involvement. You and goodOldave have come off as completely programmed mediocrities.


You have already backpedalled from the position that without Prescott Bush the Nazis would not have come to power. You should examine the notion that Hitler only came to office through the backing of foreign industrialists as a whole, and also the fine detail of the situation in 1942 regarding Bush.

You will be unable to do this if you come at it from a biased position that aches to affirm the truths you hold self-evident. Naturally you need to be ready to label anything that disagrees with you as "mainstream" or "sheit" because without this conceit you would be unable to proceed with your outlandish views.


U.S. public opinion against getting involved in European affairs goes all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine, and considering modern events, Monroe knew what he was doing. Monroe is the greatest under rated President and founding father in U.S. history if you ask me.

People in the U.S. felt like they got hoodwinked in WW I, and for good reason, and what was done to Germany after WW I was a travesty.


If the US had persisted with isolationism then Bush would have continued to trade with Germany with impunity. This is the problem with critiquing this issue from a position of isolationism, which is oddly what CTers almost always seem to do. It's impossible to point at people like Bush and be disgusted by their evil involvement with Nazis and at the same time suggest that the US ought to have stayed neutral in WW2.

From a purely logical point of view it also seems unlikely that Bush wanted America to enter a war that resulted in his near-prosecution. So your position is, ironically, probably closer to Prescott Bush's than you might find comfortable. Becaiuse your US, the one that didn't get involved, would by definition have been on much better terms with the Nazis than the one that entered the war.




Not surprisingly, you find the same cast of characters manipulating things behind the scenes at that time as well.


Only if you choose to connect them via spurious means.

This is a conspiracy narrative I can never understand either. WW2 - indeed most serious upheaval - is a disaster for a lot of economic activities. Why do conspiracists assume that "TPTB" always want unrest and war? It seems to me that the opposite would be the case.


You can choose to be ignorant, or you can take the time to learn the truth. It is your choice. By your inability to articulate an reasonable debate, it is clear you have chosen to remain ignorant.



I have pointed out what I believe to be serious flaws in the actual document you posted. You've been unable to similarly criticise anything I've written, except by protesting that it isn't true. Your disbelief is noted, but not persuasive.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Actually, nothing I have said contradicts much of the mainstream viewpoint of the events that lead up to WW II, I just fill in the details.


You have already backpedalled from the position that without Prescott Bush the Nazis would not have come to power.


Not at all, like the rest of your claims, you make up nothing but ignorant nonsense, with nothing to back up said ignorant nonsense. If I have back peddled on Prescott Bushes role, please quote where this was done.


You should examine the notion that Hitler only came to office through the backing of foreign industrialists as a whole


Where did this notion you are talking about come from, it isn't any claim I have made, just another one of many strawman arguments you have created.

Who is suggesting that the U.S. ought to have remained neutral in WW II? You are obviously very confused.


becaiuse your US, the one that didn't get involved, would by definition have been on much better terms with the Nazis than the one that entered the war.


Are you actually suggesting that we shouldn't have gotten involved in WW II opposing Hitler and the Japanese?


Revealing personal motives are we?

My statement on the Monroe document is that we got hoodwinked into WW I, and the cold war after WW II. Few disagree that it was a bad idea to join the war against Hitler. Hitler was a madman, and most people who had a clue about what was going on knew this before Hitler came to power. There were those who supported the madman, including Prescott Bush and associates, but the majority recognized Hitler for just exactly what he was, a mad man, and a potential monster.

Maybe I am just talking over your head, these are common debates about US foreign policy going back to before WW I, carried out by mainstream academics, and quite a few highly regarded minds of the era, from both then and now.

The links I have provided give historical facts that clearly show very powerful direct connections between Prescott and company, and Hitler, and many other historical atrocities.

The only reason you continue to deny this, and can only offer extremely weak arguments, is because you are ignorant of history, as you have continued to demonstrate.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b


You have already backpedalled from the position that without Prescott Bush the Nazis would not have come to power.


Not at all, like the rest of your claims, you make up nothing but ignorant nonsense, with nothing to back up said ignorant nonsense. If I have back peddled on Prescott Bushes role, please quote where this was done.


You first wrote of Bush and Harriman that

"If they hadn't financed Hitler, most likely there never would have been a WW II."

Subsequently you decided that Bush was only a "major player", one of (presumably) a group of "industrialist" [sic]:

"Without the financing of industrialist, in which Prescott was a major player, Hitler would not have came to power. this is a historical reality."

That's a backpedal. You're still wrong, but at least you're sounding more nuanced.



You should examine the notion that Hitler only came to office through the backing of foreign industrialists as a whole


Where did this notion you are talking about come from, it isn't any claim I have made, just another one of many strawman arguments you have created.


You didn't claim that Hitler only came to power through the backing of foreign industrialists?

Then what does

"Without the financing of industrialist, in which Prescott was a major player, Hitler would not have came to power"

mean? You could claim, I suppose, that you didn't mean solely "foreign", but then why did you claim that

"If they [Bush and Harriman] hadn't financed Hitler, most likely there never would have been a WW II"?





My statement on the Monroe document is that we got hoodwinked into WW I, and the cold war after WW II. Few disagree that it was a bad idea to join the war against Hitler. Hitler was a madman, and most people who had a clue about what was going on knew this before Hitler came to power. There were those who supported the madman, including Prescott Bush and associates, but the majority recognized Hitler for just exactly what he was, a mad man, and a potential monster.


That's fine. I took your enthusiasm for Monroe as an endorsement of isolationism.

But you're wrong that "the majority" recognised Hitler for what he was in 1933. If they did, then why did the US take so long to go to war?

Furthermore, why do you ascribe such omnipotence to Prescott Bush? You seem to claim that the same clandestine group are "behind the scenes" pulling the strings all the time. They're not very good at it are they? First his country ends up in a war he presumably didn't want, and then he gets in trouble for aiding and abetting the enemy. If that's "The Powers that Be" then I'm not particularly scared of them.




Maybe I am just talking over your head, these are common debates about US foreign policy going back to before WW I, carried out by mainstream academics, and quite a few highly regarded minds of the era, from both then and now.


Yes. From the tenor of this convesation it's clear that you're talking "over my head".



The links I have provided give historical facts that clearly show very powerful direct connections between Prescott and company, and Hitler, and many other historical atrocities.


They provide a series of innuendos and no facts. I've pointed out several exact instances of this, to which you have so far not been able to respond specifically.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Sorry, but I knew exactly what you were going to say.

The support of the industrialist wasn't the only thing Hitler needed to come to power. There were many other factors. Take away one of the critical factors, and Hitler would not have came to power. The support of the industrialists was probably the most important factor. It wasn't the support of the industrialists that was the only factor, which is why I did not make that claim. The other factors were also important, which mainly is what they did to Germany in WW I, and after WW I.

Again, you are demonstrating that you do not know the history.

Seriously, educate yourself my fellow concerned poster.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You're diluting your stance still further. Backpedalling. Earlier you implied that Prescott Bush's involvement was what brought Hitler to power. Now, of course he's just one of a group of "industrialist". And they're only one of the "critical factors". Although how you know that their support was critical you don't show. How can you be certain that the other "factors" wouldn't have been sufficient? Indeed it looks to me that the investors were merely backing a horse that had pretty much already won.

This is quite a distance from the argument advanced in your source, which suggests that Bush and co tried to engineer the key events of the 20th century for their gain.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Prescott Bush was a major player among the industrialist who were a critical factor in financing Hitler, early on in his rise to power, without which backing Hitler would probably never came to power. This is the point I have consistently made, and by the way, numerous other historians have pointed out that without the early financial backing, Hitler probably would never have succeeded.

I have provided the historical evidence that backs this, while you can't even provide a quote which proves your claims about what I have posted here on the thread.

Yeah, I understand, it is probably pretty mind blowing to face such realities of twentieth century history. Hopefully you will succeed in making the journey.

Back to the thread, the same group and family descendent are tied to 9-11, clearly this is not a coincidence. Time to pull together and rid ourselves of these people who have twisted the purpose of government to their own ends.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

Again, you are demonstrating that you do not know the history.

Seriously, educate yourself my fellow concerned poster.





Get on with the topic of the thread already.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Which one of those in the picture is you?

Certainly not the kid.

The next year will be interesting, that is for sure.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Prescott Bush was a major player among the industrialist who were a critical factor in financing Hitler, early on in his rise to power, without which backing Hitler would probably never came to power. This is the point I have consistently made, and by the way, numerous other historians have pointed out that without the early financial backing, Hitler probably would never have succeeded.


Oh, it's probable now?

You seemed so certain earlier.

Never mind.You've been oddly silent on my point about Prescott Bush and his co-conspirators' abilities. If they're directing the course of history to their own ends, then why are they so demonstrably crap at it?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Heisenberg, Heisenberg, it always about probability, unless you think like a Sith.

Yeah, they screw everything up, but as long as they get their money they don't care, and keep fools voting for people like GW and Cheney and Gingrich who wrecked our country, they laugh all the way to the bank.

People like you who refuse to open your eyes and wake up to how everything has gotten screwed up in this country, enable this evil to go down.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Heisenberg, Heisenberg, it always about probability, unless you think like a Sith.

Yeah, they screw everything up, but as long as they get their money they don't care, and keep fools voting for people like GW and Cheney and Gingrich who wrecked our country, they laugh all the way to the bank.

People like you who refuse to open your eyes and wake up to how everything has gotten screwed up in this country, enable this evil to go down.


So Prescott Bush ensured his continued wealth by... getting into a situation where he had his assets potentially seized? Not much of a criminal mastermind.

By the way I don't live in the US, but I do think it's quite screwed up. But not by a secret cabal of businessmen.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I sat next to a Bush on a plane once. He seemed like an evil man. To hear that not only did the Bush family finance the Bin Ladin family but also Hitler, this is just flabergasting. Why do we vote for these people?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Which one of those in the picture is you?

Certainly not the kid.

The next year will be interesting, that is for sure.




In this context, I'm the one taking the picture.

Tell me something, what the heck does all this Hitler stuff have anything even remotely to do with the 9/11 attack? If you don't believe anything else I say, then at least believe this- Hitler didn't destroy the World Trade Center.
edit on 11-5-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join