Who is Bombing European Civilians?

[Phaeton80]

.. 'leftist' or 'communist' groups were blamed. Eventually the truth came out that those groups were deliberately framed and the real perpetrators were 'commando' type groups working directly under the imperial aegis of NATO, which is to say, the USA, its agents and ideological sympathizers in Europe.

The point of this wave of bombings and shootings was to divide, manipulate, and control public opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateurs, and false flag terrorist acts to achieve the strategic aims of Western governments, in particular the US government. These strategic aims were embedded in the 'Cold War' ideology of preventing left wing, socialist or communist parties from reaching executive power in Europe, reducing US influence and thereby increasing that of the former Soviet Union.

Last year the Chairman of the U.S. Join Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, stated that the US government and military was 'dusting off its Cold War playbook' in order to deal with Russia and the threat of it gaining influence over European countries. The Pentagon recently designated Russia as the number one threat facing the US today. One has to wonder then how closely the Pentagon's Cold War strategy is being followed today, and if it involves similar false-flag terror attacks against the civilian population of Europe in order to create a climate of insecurity under which more authoritarian policies can be imposed on the public. One also has to wonder about the strange coincidence of Turkish PM Erdogan warning just a few days ago that, "there is no reason why the bomb that exploded in Ankara [on March 12th] could not explode in Brussels."

But where does Islamic terrorism fit into this template?

You may have noticed that whenever an attack of this kind occurs, it is automatically inserted into the well-established 'rolling narrative' of 'Islamic terrorism'. There is no need, therefore, to provide any real evidence to back up the claim by Western authorities that a 'Muslim suicide bomber' was to blame because 14 years of vicious and deliberate anti-Muslim propaganda means everyone 'just knows' that it was 'the Mooslims'. But for the sake of argument, let's roll with the suicide bomber idea for a moment.

[..]

[Continue reading]

Found this to be a very interesting, objectively written article.. Its also interesting to note that people who simply entertain such 'conspiratorial' scenario's today are generally still publically ostracised, framed as a 'CTer', 'nutter' while there is ample concrete (relatively recent) evidence of exactly those methods being planned and/or carried out by our resp. governments. In this context (flase flag ops) the most obvious instances in reality are operations Gladio, Northwoods. Even the most skeptical, mainstream minded individual cant ignore the veracity of the facts surrounding such devious ops, yet anyone moving into that territory regarding events today is still ridiculed.

Opinions, ofcourse, are very welcome.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Phaeton80

[SHaYap]

The very same suspicions were mentioned many a times here on the forums in fact ~

[FLOMBIE]

This campaign of 'Islamic terrorism' in Europe seems, therefore, to be massively counter-productive to any agenda of liberation of the Middle East from NATO aggression. In fact, it directly facilitates further Western military meddling in the Middle East on the basis of 'dealing with the terror threat' and, as noted, justifies the implementation of police state measures in European society and 'lock downs' on the movement of ordinary people.

The author is wrong with the very basis of his statement. ISIS terrorists did not commit the attacks in Brussels because the want to liberate the Middle East from "NATO aggression". They want to devide Muslim and Non-Muslim civilians in Europe and further NATO involvement throughout the Middle East. They want to fight us. They state that all the time.

[aztek]

lol, isis wants worldwide caliphate, not just middle east and devide Muslims and none Muslims.

ISIS makes no secret of its ultimate ambition: A global caliphate secured through a global war. To that end it speaks of "remaining and expanding" its existing hold over much of Iraq and Syria. It aims to replace existing, man-made borders, to overcome what it sees as the Shiite "crescent" that has emerged across the Middle East, to take its war -- Islam's war -- to Europe and America, and ultimately to lead Muslims toward an apocalyptic battle against the "disbelievers."

http://www.cnn.com/2...iraq-caliphate/

usa does not need to bomb nato countries for more support on war on terror, if that is what op is implying, those countries already fight it.

Edited March 28, 2016 by aztek

[Phaeton80]

The author is wrong with the very basis of his statement. ISIS terrorists did not commit the attacks in Brussels because the want to liberate the Middle East from "NATO aggression". They want to devide Muslim and Non-Muslim civilians in Europe and further NATO involvement throughout the Middle East. They want to fight us. They state that all the time.

The Brussels attack was claimed as being a response to hostilities by the US led anti ISIS campaigns.

The ISIS statement cites Belgium's involvement in a US-led anti-ISIS coalition. It threatens "dark days" in response to the West's "aggression against" the Islamic State, which holds territory in the Middle East.

http://uk.businessin...016-3?r=US&IR=T

But I agree, the first sentence you quoted here raised some questionmarks with me as well. Ultimately though, their goal is the liberation of 'all Muslims', beginning in the Levant. And the way ISIS is operating (killing Muslims left and right) - in either Europe or ME - does seem to have a suboptimal result, from the official standpoint.

If ISIS wants to divide Muslims and non Muslims, to subsequently make Muslims join its ranks, its doing something wrong. The dividing is pretty effective, the joining part however, not so much (~5000 out of 40 million European Muslims; 0,000125%). Its actions only appeal to the criminally inclined or the shallow minded, the rest of the Islamic community is just as appalled as regular joe. The most who are killed by ISIS are Islamic, and the only boots on the ground actually fighting these criminals are Islamic. For all intents and purposes, this is as of yet mostly an internal 'Islamic' war, with some Western collateral damage here and there. Collateral damage with possible far reaching consequences (ie. the second sentence of your quote), but it does seem these consequences are more favourable to some than others. In that sense, I agree with the author.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Phaeton80

[Farmer77]

Found this to be a very interesting, objectively written article.. Its also interesting to note that people who simply entertain such 'conspiratorial' scenario's today are generally still publically ostracised, framed as a 'CTer', 'nutter' while there is ample concrete (relatively recent) evidence of exactly those methods being planned and/or carried out by our resp. governments. In this context (flase flag ops) the most obvious instances in reality are operations Gladio, Northwoods. Even the most skeptical, mainstream minded individual cant ignore the veracity of the facts surrounding such devious ops, yet anyone moving into that territory regarding events today is still ridiculed.

Opinions, ofcourse, are very welcome.

Great article thanks for posting it. I feel like in todays world the islamic panic has become so strong there aren't many out there willing to discuss the very real possibility that ISIS is simply an American proxy in a moneymaking/power grabbing scheme.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Farmer77

[Astra.]

Found this to be a very interesting, objectively written article..It's also interesting to note that people who simply entertain such 'conspiratorial' scenario's today are generally still publically ostracised, framed as a CTer', 'nutter' while there is ample concrete (relatively recent) evidence of exactly those methods being planned and/or carried out by our resp. governments. In this context (flase flag ops) the most obvious instances in reality are operations Gladio, Northwoods. Even the most skeptical, mainstream minded individual cant ignore the veracity of the facts surrounding such devious ops, yet anyone moving into that territory regarding events today is still ridiculed.

Opinions, ofcourse, are very welcome.

As in the 'bold' print - CTer' and nutter certainly jumps to mind for the author of the article. In fact - maybe this thread may have been more suited to the.....(Conspiracies & Secret Societies / Conspiracies, Black Projects, and Government coverups section.)

I think sometimes we need to remind ourselves just how deeply the 'extreme hatred' goes with Radical Islam towards the West - and has always been there for a very long time.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Astra.

[aztek]

. Its also interesting to note that people who simply entertain such 'conspiratorial' scenario's today are generally still publically ostracised, framed as a 'CTer', 'nutter' .................

that pretty much is a way to cover up the truth, while doing it out in the open, just call those who tell the truth CT nuts, and put them in the same bucket as real ct nuts, (create some crazy ct theories and fake ct nuts, just to get people to have bad taste about anything they call, ct) so and very few of average joes will take their "ct bullsht" seriously. you do not have to actually hide it, just make people not see what is right in front of them, it is actually more effective that hiding.

Edited March 29, 2016 by aztek

[+OverSword]

So many Americans believe our government wears a white cowboy hat and shoots silver bullets.

[Astra.]

Great article thanks for posting it. I feel like in todays world the islamic panic has become so strong there aren't many out there willing to discuss the very real possibility that ISIS is simply an American proxy in a moneymaking/power grabbing scheme.

I realize that the US and other Western countries should have kept their noses out of the ME for many reasons.

But are you suggesting that America is possibly using ISIS as an instrument on purpose - so as to rain terror on other Western countries and also parts of the ME - because they (America) want power / control and riches ? ?

Edited March 29, 2016 by Astra.

[Thanato]

ISIS/radical extremist Muslims wants to sow discourse in western society. They want to drive a wedge between Muslims and none muslims so that the some, if not many, Muslims feel ostracized from thier adopted cultures and become radicalized. Then those new radicals will either A) join their ranks in the fight in the Mid East or wherever or domestic terrorist activities or c) create more extremists by sharing their views with thier friends who feel similarly ostracized to do either a-c.

The problem is that we are playing into thier hand by painting the entire group of Muslims with one brush.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Thanato

[Phaeton80]

As in the 'bold' print - CTer' and nutter certainly jumps to mind for the author of the article. In fact - maybe this thread may have been more suited to the.....(Conspiracies & Secret Societies / Conspiracies, Black Projects, and Government coverups section.)

I think sometimes we need to remind ourselves just how deeply the 'extreme hatred' goes with Radical Islam towards the West - and has always been there for a very long time.

It is not a recent beast (extremist school of thought), no. What is relatively recent is its capacity to set up an extremely effective, well equipped military organisation.. a highly advanced PR machine, advanced military planning.. able to execute complex multi site operations etc etc. Nobody is claiming the extremist school of thought was created by Western political entities; what is being proposed is that it is being utilized, harnessed - through the creation / cultivation of the organisation known as ISIS - to achieve certain political goals.

Thanks for the vid, Ill check it out.. Although in my experience, whenever Walid Shoebat is involved, subjectivity is often hard to find.. well see though. If you'd like some more details on the rise of Islamic extremism in Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia, the following documentary is very informative (BBC, Adam Curtis).

Politicians used to have the confidence to tell us stories that made sense of the chaos of world events. But now there are no big stories and politicians react randomly to every new crisis - leaving us bewildered and disorientated.

Bitter Lake is a new, adventurous and epic film by Adam Curtis that explains why the big stories that politicians tell us have become so simplified that we can’t really see the world any longer.

The narrative goes all over the world, America, Britain, Russia and Saudi Arabia - but the country at the heart of it is Afghanistan. Because Afghanistan is the place that has confronted our politicians with the terrible truth - that they cannot understand what is going on any longer. The film reveals the forces that over the past thirty years rose up and undermined the confidence of politics to understand the world. And it shows the strange, dark role that Saudi Arabia has played in this. But Bitter Lake is also experimental. Curtis has taken the unedited rushes of everything that the BBC has ever shot in Afghanistan - and used them in new and radical ways. He has tried to build a different and more emotional way of depicting what really happened in Afghanistan. A counterpoint to the thin, narrow and increasingly destructive stories told by those in power today.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Phaeton80

[Dark_Grey]

Either it will lead to more peaceful Muslims radicalizing, or (hopefully,) major reforms in Islam as they attempt to bridge the gap between groups. Or perhaps both.

[aztek]

radicalizing, most likely, changes in islam, not a chance. they are convinced it is us who need to change to accommodate Islam, and the saddest thing we do it, just look at what happens in uk, and france.

[Astra.]

It is not a recent beast (extremist school of thought), no. What is relatively recent is its capacity to set up an extremely effective, well equipped military organisation.. a highly advanced PR machine, advanced military planning.. able to execute complex multi site operations etc etc. Nobody is claiming the extremist school of thought was created by Western political entities; what is being proposed is that it is being utilized, harnessed - through the creation / cultivation of the organisation known as ISIS - to achieve certain political goals.

Thanks for the vid, Ill check it out.. Although in my experience, whenever Walid Shoebat is involved, subjectivity is often hard to find.. well see though. If you'd like some more details on the rise of Islamic extremism in Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia, the following documentary is very informative (BBC, Adam Curtis).

Thanks - I'll look at the doco - when I get the time.

[Grey Area]

radicalizing, most likely, changes in islam, not a chance. they are convinced it is us who need to change to accommodate Islam, and the saddest thing we do it, just look at what happens in uk, and france.

What happens in the UK?

[Farmer77]

I realize that the US and other Western countries should have kept their noses out of the ME for many reasons.

But are you suggesting that America is possibly using ISIS as an instrument on purpose - so as to rain terror on other Western countries and also parts of the ME - because they (America) want power / control and riches ? ?

Absolutely. Wikileaks has shown that America WANTED an ISIS type entity to form. Thats not debatable. SO at BEST we watched while ISIS formed and rooted them on. It really isnt much of a leap to see those in power giving a lending hand to them now is it? Think about how many "moderate" muslims we've armed who are now either with ISIS or at a minimum fighting along side of them - just a mistake?. Think about how p***ED John Mccain was when Russia showed up and started ACTUALLY bombing ISIS, he was watching his hard work get blown the hell up.

Oh yeah and we have photographic evidence of Mccain meeting with the head of ISIS : http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-john-mccain-meet-with-abu-bakral-baghdadi-the-alleged-head-of-the-islamic-state-isis-isil-daesh/5498177

Edited March 30, 2016 by Farmer77

[Astra.]

Thanks - I'll look at the doco - when I get the time

Anyway - following up... I found the documentary interesting and thought provoking...it seemed a little disjointed in parts..and a bit long - but I understood the effects and the story that Adam Curtis wanted to present.

I feel that Afghanistan was a typical example of a small state caught in the middle of a power struggle between major powers.

Wahhabism is the root cause of modern jihadist movements (as with ISIS) and I feel that they are here to stay for a long time... and it will be very difficult to eradicate them.

Even if we could 'kill off' this particular group - another vile pack would no doubt rear it's ugly head - as their tenet way of thinking is so ingrained into their Islamic doctrine. This backward ideology from these radicals wants power and control over all of Islam - and of course the world.

Basically - (and especially after seeing what happened in Afghanistan) I feel we just need to stop going there and imposing our idealism and ideology onto them. It's a total waste of time with some of these ME countries. If they don't want to change - then leave them alone.

My main concern at this time - is that many upon many have now infiltrated through many parts of the Western world. I understand that many of these people are probably genuine and peaceful...and do need our support and help.

But my disquiet is...... can they all be trusted.

[SHaYap]

The very same questions are being asked of the overwhelming power meddling of the west ... cant they all be trusted ?

[Astra.]

The very same questions are being asked of the overwhelming power meddling of the west ... cant they all be trusted ?

Of course we can't be trusted - it all boils down to politics where greed - control - corruption and power is concerned...not to mention the hypocrisy.

Everyone is looking for 'pay off' of some kind....including the Muslims / Arabs (they are certainly no angels either) many a quite handshake has gone on under the table with leaders on both sides of the pond. (It's the innocent people in between that suffer the most) IMHO.

It's also obvious that you can't enmesh two opposite religious ideologies together - sure...we may tolerate each other if we have to. But I don't think we really 'like' each other. When it comes to the East and West - it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

These crazy Islamic radicals look for any excuse to hate and kill. Hell - it's not just the West they hate - they kill their own people as well at the drop of a hat.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Astra.

[SHaYap]

Of course we can't be trusted - it all boils down to politics where greed - control - corruption and power is concerned...not to mention the hypocrisy.

Everyone is looking for 'pay off' of some kind....including the Muslims / Arabs (they are certainly no angels either) many a quite handshake has gone on under the table with leaders on both sides of the pond. (It's the innocent people in between that suffer the most) IMHO.

It's also obvious that you can't enmesh two opposite religious ideologies together - sure...we may tolerate each other if we have to. But I don't think we really 'like' each other. When it comes to the East and West - it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

These crazy Islamic radicals look for any excuse to hate and kill. Hell - it's not just the West they hate - they kill their own people as well.

That is ignoring that the worse of the lot seems to have grown up and was brought up in and came over from the West ...

~

[Phaeton80]

Of course we can't be trusted - it all boils down to politics where greed - control - corruption and power is concerned...not to mention the hypocrisy.

Everyone is looking for 'pay off' of some kind....including the Muslims / Arabs (they are certainly no angels either) many a quite handshake has gone on under the table with leaders on both sides of the pond. (It's the innocent people in between that suffer the most) IMHO.

It's also obvious that you can't enmesh two opposite religious ideologies together - sure...we may tolerate each other if we have to. But I don't think we really 'like' each other. When it comes to the East and West - it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

These crazy Islamic radicals look for any excuse to hate and kill. Hell - it's not just the West they hate - they kill their own people as well at the drop of a hat.

I dont think its about conflicting ideologies, more about conflicting cultures. Islamic theology fits perfectly in the Abrahamic picture imo. Concerning 'not liking eachother'; I personally have had very positive experiences in dealing with non- Western people (Arabs, Pakistani, Turkish, Moroccan etc). In fact, I often appreciate their specific attributes more than what I am used to dealing with fellow Westerners.

Edit: come to think about it, the only non Western country I more or less as a rule do not have good experiences with is Indian (arrogant, selfish ;-).

Edited March 30, 2016 by Phaeton80

[Astra.]

Absolutely. Wikileaks has shown that America WANTED an ISIS type entity to form. Thats not debatable. SO at BEST we watched while ISIS formed and rooted them on. It really isnt much of a leap to see those in power giving a lending hand to them now is it? Think about how many "moderate" muslims we've armed who are now either with ISIS or at a minimum fighting along side of them - just a mistake?. Think about how p***ED John Mccain was when Russia showed up and started ACTUALLY bombing ISIS, he was watching his hard work get blown the hell up.

Oh yeah and we have photographic evidence of Mccain meeting with the head of ISIS : http://www.globalres...l-daesh/5498177

Well admittedly all that is rather disturbing - why would America want ISIS to form... whilst rooting / cheering them on?

I think most of the world was glad when Putin finally took the initiative and bombed ISIS. Obama appeared slow and non-strategic.

I dont think its about conflicting ideologies, more about conflicting cultures.

I meant their cultures as well.. (that goes without saying)

Islamic theology fits perfectly in the Abrahamic picture imo. Concerning 'not liking eachother'; I personally have had very positive experiences in dealing with non- Western people (Arabs, Pakistani, Turkish, Moroccan etc). In fact, I often appreciate their specific attributes more than what I am used to dealing with fellow Westerners.

I was speaking in general as far as having to tolerate and 'like' (especially in light of the many heinous crimes that the world has witnessed in regards to radical Islam) Lets face it - you can hardly blame Westerners for feeling a little hesitant / distrustful and a tad cautious in these dark and unpredictable days) Btw...I also know some wonderful non-western folk whom I trust and regard as friends.

Edit: come to think about it, the only non Western country I more or less as a rule do not have good experiences with is Indian (arrogant, selfish ;-).

Well some dear people that I happen to know well - are in fact from India - and they cook the most fabulous Indian curries

Edited March 30, 2016 by Astra.

[Astra.]

That is ignoring that the worse of the lot seems to have grown up and was brought up in and came over from the West ...

~

Sorry - worst of the lot ? not sure what you mean.

[SHaYap]

Sorry - worst of the lot ? not sure what you mean.

Never mind ... it is a hopeless cause to elaborate any further ~

`