This isn't a new trick. Hitler started off WWII when he declared the polish communists were the terrorists which he used as a pretext to invade them. It should be a totally logical thing to understand; when a leader needs his country to go to war for any reason he needs the populations support. So how to get a population to go to war for resources (mainly Oil, but also access to the drug trade and other natural resources such as Natrual Gas) when the population woulden't want to go to war for that reason?
The only reason for the current wars in the Middle East by America is to "fight terrorism". How easy would it be either plan, or allow an attack to happen and blame it on an entire group of people? The only way to get the Americans to go to war was to scare them and make them feel a need to invade another country for their own security.
What other excuses could America use to invade an entire reigon and get their population to go war? Nuclear Weaponds? Peak Oil? Well thats a good reason but do you really think the US government would tell their population that?
"It is always simply a matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Herman Goerring,
Goering was Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich.
PeakOil is You
THE "War on Drugs" Thread (merged)
by EnemyCombatant » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 21:48:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nuhax', 'E')nemyCombatant,
I think you have read some Chomsky and consider yourself an expert on international relations and Afghanistan, when in fact, like your mentor, you appear to have little understanding of what you are talking about.
Show me all your evidence that "it is accepted that the CIA formed, trained, and funded Al Qaeda during the Taliban war against Afghanistan".
Before scouring the various conspiracy theory websites you may want to read up on the difference between the Mujahadeen and Al Qaeda.
Also, the US did not *support* the Taliban. They refused to recognize them diplomatically as a legitimate government. They witheld aid and other items from them because of their human rights abuses.. and most likely for geopolitical and economic reasons. But it's quite a stretch to say the US was a supporter of the Taliban.
I think you have read some Chomsky and consider yourself an expert on international relations and Afghanistan, when in fact, like your mentor, you appear to have little understanding of what you are talking about.
Show me all your evidence that "it is accepted that the CIA formed, trained, and funded Al Qaeda during the Taliban war against Afghanistan".
Before scouring the various conspiracy theory websites you may want to read up on the difference between the Mujahadeen and Al Qaeda.
Also, the US did not *support* the Taliban. They refused to recognize them diplomatically as a legitimate government. They witheld aid and other items from them because of their human rights abuses.. and most likely for geopolitical and economic reasons. But it's quite a stretch to say the US was a supporter of the Taliban.
Of course the Clinton adminstration and the beginning of the Bush administration supported and funded the Taliban. Not only against the Soviets but also their poppy seed production. As you know, poppy seed production is as vital as cocain trafficing.
Clinton was admonished by several humanitarian groups for his support of the Taliban.
That's not a conspiracy theory.
Chomsky never delves into conspiracy theory. Every book I have read, all of them, is footnoted with mainstream sources.
I don't know what else you want from the man.
Also, Ruppert painstakenly documents the US support of the Taliban during the 90s and even TODAY, after the war on Afghanistan.
If you don't believe Chomsky, the try Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon. Ruppert repeats a lot of Chomsky but goes into much more detail.
Now why didn't I take the blue pill.
-
EnemyCombatant - Tar Sands
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Wed 16 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
by PenultimateManStanding » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 01:58:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnemyCombatant', '
')Also, Ruppert painstakenly documents the US support of the Taliban during the 90s and even TODAY, after the war on Afghanistan.
Neither this support nor the subsequent policy shifts after 911 reveal as much as some seem to think it does. We back some guys and then things change and we don't back them anymore, so what. whats the point huh? (even TODAY we back them? that's provocative, aren't we fighting those guys in Afganistan?)')Also, Ruppert painstakenly documents the US support of the Taliban during the 90s and even TODAY, after the war on Afghanistan.
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
by EnemyCombatant » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 05:55:31
There are taliban thugs allowed to still manage the poppy seed production and to keep the smack down.
And the point is that this is being done under our flag and with our tax money. We, the people of america, support terrorism. We are fucking terrorists. Sure, you can look the other way and pretend, but that doesn't change things.
So don't bitch and moan when the chickens come home to roost.
And the point is that this is being done under our flag and with our tax money. We, the people of america, support terrorism. We are fucking terrorists. Sure, you can look the other way and pretend, but that doesn't change things.
So don't bitch and moan when the chickens come home to roost.
Now why didn't I take the blue pill.
-
EnemyCombatant - Tar Sands
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Wed 16 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
by CrudeAwakening » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 22:45:39
History has shown that the US (and others) will ally with anyone as long as it's politically expedient to do so. As PMS says, these alliances can shift and sever as the political climate changes. What Chomsky rails at, seems to me to be the hypocrisy of the US in claiming the moral high ground when it fails apply to its (double) standard to itself. The US has engaged in all manner of dirty tricks to maintain its power, and Chomsky simply has the temerity to point this out to people. Where he sometimes goes askew I think is in his interpretation of events (e.g he sees 9-11 as pure 'blowback'), but IMO he provides a valuable counterbalance to the mainstream propaganda. As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in between.
-
CrudeAwakening - Tar Sands
- Posts: 834
- Joined: Tue 28 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
by Carlhole » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 02:00:22
You guys gotta see this!
London Bombings Mastermind is MI6 Asset - FOX News
http://www.infowars.com/articles/London ... _asset.htm
London Bombings Mastermind is MI6 Asset - FOX News
http://www.infowars.com/articles/London ... _asset.htm
- Carlhole
Re: Deep Politics: Drugs, Oil, Covert Operations and Terrori
by aldente » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 02:39:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'T')he truth is that for at least two decades the United States has engaged in energetic covert programs to secure U.S. control over the Persian Gulf, and also to open up Central Asia for development by U.S. oil companies.
Yes- that should be as obvious to every Peak Oiler as the hungry pig is finding its way to the trough. Why Noam Chomsky all from a sudden should be a fiction writer is subject for another thread. On the same note James Kunstler has been called a conservative in a recent review on Energybulletin.
Back to the the topic - if any of us should or would have ended up in high ranking political decision making positions we might very well find ourselfes in conclusions and actions similar to the ones that are displayed by the current US militia. Make no mistake, there is a reason why the front man is a clown, it simply was the best way to cover up a razor sharp agenda .
I am not at all opposing it (since I am not in a position to do so, neither would I bother if that would be the case..) but simply try to understand that agenda in order to benefit from the knowledge contained. Remember Penultimates clown?!!
-
aldente - Permanently Banned
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
by threadbear » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 03:24:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nuhax', 'E')nemyCombatant,
I think you have read some Chomsky and consider yourself an expert on international relations and Afghanistan, when in fact, like your mentor, you appear to have little understanding of what you are talking about.
Show me all your evidence that "it is accepted that the CIA formed, trained, and funded Al Qaeda during the Taliban war against Afghanistan".
Before scouring the various conspiracy theory websites you may want to read up on the difference between the Mujahadeen and Al Qaeda.
Also, the US did not *support* the Taliban. They refused to recognize them diplomatically as a legitimate government. They witheld aid and other items from them because of their human rights abuses.. and most likely for geopolitical and economic reasons. But it's quite a stretch to say the US was a supporter of the Taliban.
.
I think you have read some Chomsky and consider yourself an expert on international relations and Afghanistan, when in fact, like your mentor, you appear to have little understanding of what you are talking about.
Show me all your evidence that "it is accepted that the CIA formed, trained, and funded Al Qaeda during the Taliban war against Afghanistan".
Before scouring the various conspiracy theory websites you may want to read up on the difference between the Mujahadeen and Al Qaeda.
Also, the US did not *support* the Taliban. They refused to recognize them diplomatically as a legitimate government. They witheld aid and other items from them because of their human rights abuses.. and most likely for geopolitical and economic reasons. But it's quite a stretch to say the US was a supporter of the Taliban.
.
Whereas you haven't read Chomsky and precious little else outside of official consensus reality, and consider yourself an expert. You would do well to quit labelling information and analyais that isn't obsequious, and deferential to the power elite as 'conspiracy theory', and start educating yourself in the real sense.
The Taliban was abandoned because once the Eastern block crumbled they weren't considered vital geostrategically. It had nothing to do with their human rights record. The US remained best buddies with Saudi Arabia and they are the biggest human rights abusers out there. The CIA, by their own admission, funded Muslim extemism in Afghanistan, and taught terrorist tactics. Again, with emphasis, "by their own admission".
American govt interest in Afghanistan has been sparked again in the last few years for geostrategic reasons--This time due to oil, particularly Caspian sea reserves, pipelines etc.. Please don't make up collectively throw up by suggesting the neocons do anything for humanitarian reasons. What part of John Bolton being appointed outside of a democratic process don't you understand? THis is a fascist bully govt. Democracy be damned. That they could fool the gullible into thinking they are spreading democracy in the world when they are trashing democracy in their own country is really remarkable
I, personally don't mind sincere posters here, no matter how stupid, illogical, or just plain nuts, but I get really irritated with people who are a disruptive and dishonest presence, and you, pal, fit that description. So if you don't have something sincere to post, take it elsewhere.
-
threadbear - Expert
- Posts: 7577
- Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
