Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jeem

Terrorism behind the scenario.

132 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

First US business or geopolitical interest is threatened by the government of a country and often this government is popular and democratically elected(example Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran). Now US interest has to be maintained so CIA comes in the stage.First they identified the correct opposition (which will maintain US interest). Then they made a deal we will put you in power in return you will ensure US interest.Then CIA works with them to overthrow the existing government.They use assassination, training and arming extortion, , false stories about opponents in the local media,propaganda and make the country unstable.The government becomes weak and finally it falls.Now different situation can happen the new government(usually dictator or extremist group) becomes a puppet of US or sometimes they go against the US and so they become terrorist.Sometimes the unstable situation of the country give birth to many armed faction and most of those faction later classified as terrorist by US.Sometimes US sponsored already existing terrorist group to bring down the government.

This is how US is giving birth to terrorism.The terror of US is bigger than any terror in the world.

Edited by jeem
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The buffet is now open.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorism goes back a lot further than that.

The history of terrorism is a history of well-known and historically significant individuals, entities, and incidents associated, whether rightly or wrongly, with terrorism. Scholars agree that terrorism is a disputed term, and very few of those labelled terrorists describe themselves as such. It is common for opponents in a violent conflict to describe the other side as terrorists or as practicing terrorism.[1]

Depending on how broadly the term is defined, the roots and practice of terrorism can be traced at least to the 1st-century AD Sicarii Zealots, though some dispute whether the group, which assassinated collaborators with Roman rule in the province of Judea, was in fact terrorist. The first use in English of the term 'terrorism' occurred during the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, when the Jacobins, who ruled the revolutionary state, employed violence, including mass executions by guillotine, to compel obedience to the state and intimidate regime enemies[citation needed]. The association of the term only with state violence and intimidation lasted until the mid-19th century, when it began to be associated with non-governmental groups. Anarchism, often in league with rising nationalism and anti-monarchism, was the most prominent ideology linked with terrorism. Near the end of the 19th century, anarchist groups or individuals committed assassinations of a Russian Tsar and a U.S. President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism

The islamist terrorists are not a new group either and had nothing to do with America:

a radical sect from the first century of Islam based in southern Iraq and Iran, who adopted an extreme interpretation of the Koran, ruthless tactics and opposed hereditary political leadership. After causing centuries of problems to the caliphate, they survive in a quietist form in East Africa and Oman.

http://www.historytoday.com/clive-foss/islam%E2%80%99s-first-terrorists

you are making it sound as if the USA instigated terrorism and started it all....they DID NOT.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the other nations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

jeem is correct, we're not talking about terrorism in the 1500 years ago we're talking about modern times. I also feel that much (not all) terrorism done against the USA and it's allies is a result on some level of actions taken by the USA and it's allies. Jeem correctly points out the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1951 (?) by the CIA and MI6 on behalf of BP's oil profits. That was one of the first examples of our greed based evil foreign policy resulting in an enemy.

Foreign policy should be viewed as a garbage in garbage out system. It's only by dealing with the world openly, fairly and with love that the world will change.

As long as ever increasing profits is the driving force behind everything we do things will get worse.

Edited by OverSword
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First US business or geopolitical interest is threatened by the government of a country and often this government is popular and democratically elected(example Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran). Now US interest has to be maintained so CIA comes in the stage.First they identified the correct opposition (which will maintain US interest). Then they made a deal we will put you in power in return you will ensure US interest.Then CIA works with them to overthrow the existing government.They use assassination, training and arming extortion, , false stories about opponents in the local media,propaganda and make the country unstable.The government becomes weak and finally it falls.Now different situation can happen the new government(usually dictator or extremist group) becomes a puppet of US or sometimes they go against the US and so they become terrorist.Sometimes the unstable situation of the country give birth to many armed faction and most of those faction later classified as terrorist by US.Sometimes US sponsored already existing terrorist group to bring down the government.

This is how US is giving birth to terrorism.The terror of US is bigger than any terror in the world.

The biggest terrorists in the Middle East where the Soviet Onion, NOT America.

And funnily enough, using many of the techniques you just outlined, but taking it further and supplying destabalising quantities of weapons and .. <ahem>... "technical support".

Read about the Russian support during Yom Kippur (1973) Jeem, then get back to me.

Nice try , but no banana.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA was founded on bloodshed two centuries after Columbus "discovered" it. It's a legacy that's being continued, invade and control. By the descendants of the bloodlines of the 12 israeli tribes. Tribe of Dan = Denmark, Dane, Daniel, Danny boy, dandy day... :rolleyes: they did the same thing to the native tribes in England and scandinavia, then came crusades, then the America's occupation which continues to this day in USA. I believe our bloodline does not dictate our fate, though it'd be ignorant to say it didn't have an effect. Places and times change, so do methods, but mentality is the same.

Opportunity makes a thief.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a rumour that the French caused the 1951 revolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

USA was founded on bloodshed two centuries after Columbus "discovered" it. It's a legacy that's being continued, invade and control. By the descendants of the bloodlines of the 12 israeli tribes. Tribe of Dan = Denmark, Dane, Daniel, Danny boy, dandy day... :rolleyes: they did the same thing to the native tribes in England and scandinavia, then came crusades, then the America's occupation which continues to this day in USA. I believe our bloodline does not dictate our fate, though it'd be ignorant to say it didn't have an effect. Places and times change, so do methods, but mentality is the same.

Opportunity makes a thief.

Thanks for that post, Mikko-kun.

220px-EnigmaMachineLabeled.jpg

Now, WHICH rotors where you using again ?

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

We're subsidizing warlords all over Afghanistan. They're getting the guns where they need to go in Toyota pickups and they're unstoppable. We'll leave, they don't have anywhere else to go. We're sponsors of the weakening of Syria right now, helping the rebels just enough to achieve an indefinite stalemate. We were bombing for Al Qaeda and Islamists in Libya but the embassy bombing becomes the conspiracy theory.

After sanctioning Iran for 35 years, after providing political cover for the settlement of Palestine for longer than that, after another bs invasion of Iraq, but suddenly religion is the problem. Like swampland in Florida. Adherents to the War of on Terror are so confused they're delusional. People run around lost in conspiracy theories not knowing who attacked us or why.

Yeah, some people get their Holy Book out and find some incentive to fight back with it. Here's some diapers.

Edited by Yamato
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

We're subsidizing warlords all over Afghanistan. They're getting the guns where they need to go in Toyota pickups and they're unstoppable. We'll leave, they don't have anywhere else to go. ....

Do you remember WHY we sponsored the warlords ?

Do you remember the Taliban ?

You of ALL people on this forum - you who champion Human Rights - DO YOU REMEMBER THE TALIBAN ? Or has your cultural-marxist mindset airbrushed that out ?

I'm amazed you aren't SUPPORTING the new government in Afghanistan, and the American-led invasion that brought them into power.

Because no matter how many mistakes this new government makes, it won't be as bad - from the perspective of observing human rights - as the Taliban.

Edited by RoofGardener
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you remember WHY we sponsored the warlords ?

Do you remember the Taliban ?

You of ALL people on this forum - you who champion Human Rights - DO YOU REMEMBER THE TALIBAN ? Or has your cultural-marxist mindset airbrushed that out ?

I'm amazed you aren't SUPPORTING the new government in Afghanistan, and the American-led invasion that brought them into power.

Because no matter how many mistakes this new government makes, it won't be as bad - from the perspective of observing human rights - as the Taliban.

So if I pay attention to Afghanistan and ignore all the other rights violations around the world, I'm redeemed and consistent. Since that's what you think, why aren't you belaboring your own govt for leaving?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I pay attention to Afghanistan and ignore all the other rights violations around the world, I'm redeemed and consistent. Since that's what you think, why aren't you belaboring your own govt for leaving?

Perhaps because in the end it IS THEIR country? A decade of help, blood and treasure is more than anyone else ever did to help them and frankly they seem to not give **** one. If they want to live under a 7th century boot - let them. But if camps start popping up to train new versions of the nut jobs who attacked us then a few MOABs in the right neighborhoods will be in order.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorism goes back a lot further than that.

The history of terrorism is a history of well-known and historically significant individuals, entities, and incidents associated, whether rightly or wrongly, with terrorism. Scholars agree that terrorism is a disputed term, and very few of those labelled terrorists describe themselves as such. It is common for opponents in a violent conflict to describe the other side as terrorists or as practicing terrorism.[1]

Depending on how broadly the term is defined, the roots and practice of terrorism can be traced at least to the 1st-century AD Sicarii Zealots, though some dispute whether the group, which assassinated collaborators with Roman rule in the province of Judea, was in fact terrorist. The first use in English of the term 'terrorism' occurred during the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, when the Jacobins, who ruled the revolutionary state, employed violence, including mass executions by guillotine, to compel obedience to the state and intimidate regime enemies[citation needed]. The association of the term only with state violence and intimidation lasted until the mid-19th century, when it began to be associated with non-governmental groups. Anarchism, often in league with rising nationalism and anti-monarchism, was the most prominent ideology linked with terrorism. Near the end of the 19th century, anarchist groups or individuals committed assassinations of a Russian Tsar and a U.S. President.

http://en.wikipedia....ry_of_terrorism

Yes I agree with you but as oversword said we are talking about modern terrorism

The islamist terrorists are not a new group either and had nothing to do with America:

a radical sect from the first century of Islam based in southern Iraq and Iran, who adopted an extreme interpretation of the Koran, ruthless tactics and opposed hereditary political leadership. After causing centuries of problems to the caliphate, they survive in a quietist form in East Africa and Oman.

http://www.historyto...irst-terrorists

you are making it sound as if the USA instigated terrorism and started it all....they DID NOT.

You are talking about the assassin .The movement of Nizari Ismailis.Hmm............... I know that history and they have nothing to do with modern islamist terrorists

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The biggest terrorists in the Middle East where the Soviet Onion, NOT America.

And funnily enough, using many of the techniques you just outlined, but taking it further and supplying destabalising quantities of weapons and .. <ahem>... "technical support".

Read about the Russian support during Yom Kippur (1973) Jeem, then get back to me.

Nice try , but no banana.

Sorry I do not buy that story of your.

On October 9, the Soviet cultural center in Damascus was damaged during an Israeli airstrike, and two days later, the Soviet merchant ship Ilya Mechnikov was sunk by the Israeli Navy during a battle off Syria.

Only then USSR took action

The techniques I have mentioned is proven.Iraq,Libya,Cuba all holds those proof

Edited by jeem
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you remember WHY we sponsored the warlords ?

Hmm..... to increase the opium production may be to keep the country unstable.After the withdrawal of Russian forces the warlords backed up by US tore the country apart.The civil war killed almost 400,000 people.The US backed warlord boosted the opium production to a level of 2000 to 3400 tons a year.After the 2001 invasion those warlord produced 5300 tons of opium in 2004.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a small point to make here. Mossadegh was not elected by the people. He was elected from within parliament via the backroom deal and then presented to the Shah who then accepted him as PM. The PM is an at-will position serving at the pleasure of the Shah. Mossadegh was popular with many Iranians and had come close to usurping power from the rightful ruler. If the power of the Shah was not stabilized, the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence would have grown. And later, if Carter had supported the Shah, we wouldn’t be having the issue with Iran that we are today. It was that weakness that encouraged the terrorism we see today.

Also, strong arm tactics didn’t start with the US and it isn’t the source for terrorism. When this nation first started out, we were weak. Weakness is what breeds terrorism. When the Treaty of Paris was signed, didn’t end British occupation. They had to be kicked out of Georgia and also the Old Northwest had to be secured from the British and Indians. New Orleans and Mobile were threatened by the French and Spanish. Then abroad we where dicked with by Islam. We learned the lesson well from the masters that it is better to be the one making the calls and making the other guy react to you. Never again would we give up the initiative. We didn’t learn after WWI. And now in this Administration it is as if not being a matter of not learning but encouraging the inevitable doom of Ignorance and Apathy. When will people learn? How many times do we have to start over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I pay attention to Afghanistan and ignore all the other rights violations around the world, I'm redeemed and consistent. Since that's what you think, why aren't you belaboring your own govt for leaving?

I belabour my government three times before breakfast. But not about Afghanistan. "And Then" sums up much of my thinking when he said....

Perhaps because in the end it IS THEIR country? A decade of help, blood and treasure is more than anyone else ever did to help them and frankly they seem to not give **** one. If they want to live under a 7th century boot - let them. But if camps start popping up to train new versions of the nut jobs who attacked us then a few MOABs in the right neighborhoods will be in order.

I can't address the issue from a Human Rights perspective, because that concept doesn't exist in Afghanistan. From a legalistic perspective, it was wrong. The Taliban where happy to surrender Osama bin Laden (or at least to facilitate his capture). All they required in return was some evidence that he was responsible for 9/11. That is hardly an unreasonable request: The UK - and any European nation - would make the same condition if the USA wanted to extradite somebody from OUR nations. The USA refused to provide any such evidence (why not ?? ), and just invaded arbitrarily.

From a practical perspective, it was good training for the troops, raised our profile internationally, and allowed us to test our combat tactics and equipment, both of which have been upgraded as a consequence.

Sorry I do not buy that story of your.

On October 9, the Soviet cultural center in Damascus was damaged during an Israeli airstrike, and two days later, the Soviet merchant ship Ilya Mechnikov was sunk by the Israeli Navy during a battle off Syria.

Only then USSR took action

The techniques I have mentioned is proven.Iraq,Libya,Cuba all holds those proof

Ummm... check your timelines Jeem ? The Soviets had been providing thousands of tanks to Syria prior to those events ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are talking about the assassin .The movement of Nizari Ismailis.Hmm............... I know that history and they have nothing to do with modern islamist terrorists

This is the point I have been trying to make for years, they have everything to do with modern day islamists. They follow the same beliefs and the same agenda of killing, eg: travellers and government bodies. The only difference today is the weapons they use are much more advanced. But their beliefs do not differ from when they first started. They still believe in the old man in the mountain, where they will go to and meet their 72 virgins. The sect divided into 2, today we have the islamists who want rid of the governments (which today include the west) and all which is not islam, no different from back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm..... to increase the opium production may be to keep the country unstable.After the withdrawal of Russian forces the warlords backed up by US tore the country apart.The civil war killed almost 400,000 people.The US backed warlord boosted the opium production to a level of 2000 to 3400 tons a year.After the 2001 invasion those warlord produced 5300 tons of opium in 2004.

Britain was once the biggest exporters of opium from Afghanistan, remember the opium war and Hong Kong. This was well before the Russians.

Personally I think the people behind all this today are the pharmaceutical companies, who have a massive reason to keep their foot in these countries producing opium.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the pharmacy companies want an unregulated, uncontrolled supply of opium entering the country ? How does that possibly benefit them ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opium, opiate... to boost sales of rehab meds for the narcs. It's nice profit. Healthiness doesn't give them nearly as much profit as sickness does, they're not fitness clubs nor healthy foods companies.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the pharmacy companies want an unregulated, uncontrolled supply of opium entering the country ? How does that possibly benefit them ?

Opium is not illegal, it is regulated. Legitimate pharmaceutical companies (and others) with a need for opium can buy it legally. Where do you think they get morphine from?

In 2010 groups in Afghanistan produced 90 percent of the world's illicit opium, using clandestine labs well hidden in the country's topography.

http://www.deamuseum.org/ccp/opium/production-distribution.html

If the pharmaceutical companies can get their hands on this they would, and this indicates they could be doing that: The officials are selling it to someone.

Many who grow the crop are aware that mullahs denounce production of the drug and the government bans it. But they say officials also grow the drug and religious leaders are always eager to claim a share of harvest income.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/13/afghanistan-record-opium-crop-poppies-un

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps because in the end it IS THEIR country? A decade of help, blood and treasure is more than anyone else ever did to help them and frankly they seem to not give **** one. If they want to live under a 7th century boot - let them. But if camps start popping up to train new versions of the nut jobs who attacked us then a few MOABs in the right neighborhoods will be in order.

We could have skipped the undefined ground war and went straight to that but we didn't. There's no gratitude for the "good" we do in the world for the 211th time. Why changing a policy is like pulling teeth with a monkey wrench is the problem.

Why would the pharmacy companies want an unregulated, uncontrolled supply of opium entering the country ? How does that possibly benefit them ?

It makes their legal garbage look good by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a small point to make here. Mossadegh was not elected by the people. He was elected from within parliament via the backroom deal and then presented to the Shah who then accepted him as PM. The PM is an at-will position serving at the pleasure of the Shah. Mossadegh was popular with many Iranians and had come close to usurping power from the rightful ruler.

You miss the fact here.He wasn't trying to sit in power.He wishes to nationalize British oil which would benefit the Iranian people.So CIA removed him

If the power of the Shah was not stabilized, the Soviet Union's sphere of influence would have grown. And later, if Carter had supported the Shah, we wouldn't be having the issue with Iran that we are today. It was that weakness that encouraged the terrorism we see today.

You are trying to say that US should help the Iranian Shah(in fact US did its best to keep the Shah in power) who was in fact a dictator and whose secret police SAVAK was just as brutal as GESTAPO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.