9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > General - Free Energy Related > Miscellaneous Discussions (Moderator: Allcanadian) > 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!

2024-05-02, 12:52:12
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 ... 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

« previous next »

Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! (Read 975267 times)

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2300 on: 2017-10-24, 16:51:13 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Balfour merrymaking a potential PR disaster for the British government http://www.redressonline.com/2017/10/balfour-merrymaking-a-potential-pr-disaster-for-the-british-government/ The extraordinary programme of centenary celebrations in the UK to honour Lord Balfour and his lunatic Declaration – and the British government’s continuing part in it – is an affront to citizens here and to countless millions abroad. And many a sharp pin is waiting to burst the pretty Balfour balloon being desperately inflated by Israel-firsters at Westminster. Balfour’s 1917 pledge and its consequences, played out over the last 70 years, ride roughshod over Christian values and humanitarian law. Rothschild replied to Balfour’s letter saying that “the British government has opened up, by their message, a prospect of safety and comfort to large masses of people who are in need of it”. Well, it also opened up the prospect – and the reality – of a lifetime of abject misery for millions of Palestinians who had no need of it and certainly didn’t deserve it. It also helped to plant in the most sacred part of the Middle East an evil regime that shows contempt for human rights and international law and is bent on creating instability all around and confiscating every acre of land and every natural resource to aid its expansion. The daft thing is, Balfour didn’t even write the Declaration. He was simply the upper-class twit who signed it and did so without even bothering to consult the people whose homeland he intended giving away. The carefully worded letter to Rothschild (the so-called Declaration) was the work of Leopold Amery, political secretary to the War Cabinet at the time, who cleverly kept hidden his Jewish ancestry throughout his quite impressive career. He was also largely responsible for forming the Jewish Legion battalions which were the forerunners of the hated Israel Defence Forces, which Israeli Miko Peled describes as “one of the best trained and best equipped and best fed terrorist organisations in the world”. Amery was an eager Zionist and had a supervisory role in the British mandate government in Palestine during the 1920s, actively preparing it for eventual Jewish takeover. He operated within a government the upper echelons of which were stuffed with Zionist sympathisers such as Winston Churchill and Lloyd George. In response to the avalanche of pro-Balfour celebratory tosh, the Palestine Mission to the UK commissioned a “Make It Right” campaign featuring contrasting images of Palestinian life before and after 1948, when Israel declared statehood on land it had overrun and ethnically cleansed. The campaign message, of course, objects to the Balfour Declaration, which promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Posters were supposed to appear on buses and in Underground rail stations, but London’s transport authority, Transport for London (TfL), has banned the advertisements on the grounds that they “did not comply fully with our guidelines”. It seems TfL doesn’t like “images or messages which relate to matters of public controversy or sensitivity” or causes that are “party political”. The Palestinian ambassador, Manuel Hassassian, accused TfL of censorship, saying: Palestinian history is a censored history. There has been a 100-year-long cover-up of the British government’s broken promise, in the Balfour Declaration, to safeguard the rights of the Palestinians when it gave away their country to another people. TfL’s decision is not surprising as it is, at best, susceptible to or, at worst, complicit with, all the institutional forces and active lobby groups which continuously work to silence the Palestinian narrative. There may be free speech in Britain on every issue under the sun but not on Palestine. Prime Minister Theresa May has invited her Israeli counterpart, “Bibi” Netanyahu, to the London celebrations. It is unthinkable in government circles for an honoured guest to be confronted with a London plastered with such inconvenient messages. Nevertheless, they’ll appear on 52 London black cabs, which aren’t under TfL’s control, so our prime minister’s loathsome visitor may not entirely escape embarrassment, assuming he’s capable of feeling it. Conflating justice and tolerance with anti-Semitism Speaking of declarations, I’m reminded of a far more sensible one by Shimon Tzabar, who had been a member of Jewish terrorist organisations in Palestine during the British mandate, including the Stern Gang, Irgun and Haganah. After 1948 and the establishment of the Israeli state, he fought in its 1948-50, 1956 and 1967 wars but spoke out against the annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He even began calling himself a “Hebrew-speaking Palestinian”. Tzabar and others eventually felt moved to publish the following declaration: Occupation entails foreign rule. Foreign rule entails resistance. Resistance entails repression. Repression entails terror and counter-terror. The victims of terror are mostly innocent people. Holding on to the occupied territories will turn us into a nation of murderers and murder victims. Let us get out of the occupied territories immediately. Wouldn’t Mrs May prefer to celebrate Tzabar’s Declaration? He moved to England where he famously published the MUCH BETTER THAN THE OFFICIAL MICHELIN Guide to Israeli prisons, Jails, Concentration Camps and Torture Chambers. The best and safest way to begin a tour of these horrible establishments, it said, was to look like a Palestinian Arab and get yourself arrested .”Once you look like a Palestinian you have a good chance of being arrested. Your chance is actually so good, that you don’t have to do anything in particular.” That other Israeli straight-talker, Miko Peled, mentioned above, put the cat among the pigeons at the Labour Party conference last month when he told activists that Israel is “terrified” of Jeremy Corbyn becoming British prime minister and will do everything it can to stop him. He said: They are going to pull all the stops, they are going to smear, they are going to try anything they can to stop Corbyn from being prime minister. It’s up to Labour, it’s up to you [to ensure] that they don’t have the ability to do that… Jeremy Corbyn is an opportunity for Britain that, if it gets lost, won’t come back for a very long time. The reason anti-Semitism is used is because they [the Israelis] have no argument, there is nothing to say… How can a call for justice and tolerance be conflated with anti-Semitism? I don’t know if they realise this but they are pitting Judaism against everything good and just. Peled is an Israeli Jew, the son of an Israeli general, and a former soldier in the Israeli army. You couldn’t find a more authentic insider source. Here’s a flavour of his message: The name of the game: erasing Palestine, getting rid of the people and de-Arabizing the country… By 1993 the Israelis had achieved their mission to make the conquest of the West Bank irreversible. By 1993 the Israeli government knew for certain that a Palestinian state could not be established in the West Bank – the settlements were there, billions of dollars were invested, the entire Jordan River valley was settled… there was no place any more for a Palestinian state to be established. That is when Israel said, OK, we’ll begin negotiations… When people talk about the possibility of Israel somehow giving up the West Bank for a Palestinian state, if it wasn’t so sad it would be funny. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the objective of Zionism and the Zionist state. Meanwhile, Netanyahu has just announced a temporary easing of the fishing limits imposed on Gaza’s fishermen. For two months, in the southern half of Gaza, they will be able to sail out nine miles after which the limit reverts back to six. iles. Sounds generous? No, it’s ridiculously cruel. And restrictions remain even tighter in the northern half. Under the Oslo agreements (1993) Israel is supposed to allow the Palestinians to fish up to 12 miles out, in line with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea but, as with so many other agreements, the Zionist regime has never honoured its obligation. Furthermore, Israel’s 10-year blockade on Gaza has made it impossible for many fishermen to buy parts to maintain their vessels, so the once flourishing fishing industry has been crippled. And Netanyahu recently locked up the Palestinians for 11 days while Israelis enjoyed festive holidays. Marilyn Garson, writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, reported: “Netanyahu seals the gates of the West Bank and Gaza for 11 days, to enjoy Sukkot. How flagrant, to confine millions of people in the name of a holiday that celebrates the flimsy, temporary nature of our walls. If Jews were herded behind concrete walls and locked away for 11 days, so that someone else might enjoy a Jew-free holiday, would we shrug that off?” Haaretz is a relatively honest source and to print such a thing in Israel is quite daring. On the same subject the Jewish Chronicle had this to say: “Border closures over the High Holidays and other Jewish festivals are routine, but are usually much shorter. The original decision stoked complaints within the Israeli security establishment that it was principally ‘grandstanding’ by ministers eager to burnish their right-wing credentials.” The Jewish Chronicle went on to explain that the 11-day closure had been demanded by Israeli police and the Internal Security minister, and was initially opposed by the Israeli military and senior Defence Ministry officials who said that it would be an unnecessary punishment to tens of thousands of law-abiding Palestinian workers. However, both Israeli papers omitted to say that, thanks to Balfour’s legacy, there has been no freedom of movement for Palestinians since the closure of Gaza and the West Bank by Israel 26 years ago. Closure is the normal state of affairs and not to be confused with foolish ideas that crossings are usually open. Contradictory promises The Balfour Project, which promotes justice, security and peace for both Jews and Arabs, has made available a wealth of information. One of its publications sums up the problem very neatly: The Declaration pledges Britain’s support for a “national home” in Palestine for the Jewish people on the understanding that the rights of “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” would not be prejudiced. The failure to uphold this second clause, for which Britain bears much responsibility, has caused conflict between Palestinians and Israelis ever since. This was just one of Britain’s contradictory promises during the First World War. After the war we secured a mandate from the League of Nations which included a “sacred trust” to prepare the people of Palestine for independence. But in the end Britain walked away. Yes, in 1948 we abandoned the mess we had created. As the last British soldiers marched away, Jewish leaders declared statehood without borders, pushing far beyond the boundaries set out in the UN Partition Plan the year before, their terror militia putting to flight hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, massacring many more and stealing their homes and farms. What Britain caused to happen in the Holy Land was contrary to all decency and justice. History will not judge kindly the British government’s decision to celebrate Balfour “with pride” while refusing to apologise and make amends. There’s a fair chance the whole sorry spectacle will backfire on Theresa May and teach her unpleasant associates a sharp lesson. A colleague wrote only yesterday to one of our government ministers and what she said is worth repeating here: Ministers, from the prime minister down, should reflect with humility that but for that disastrous decision by their predecessors 100 years ago, the Holy Land might still be a land of peace where all the faiths lived in harmony together. --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2301 on: 2017-10-27, 13:54:03 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Philosophy and Christian Theology https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/ First published Mon May 13, 2002; substantive revision Thu Aug 9, 2012 Many of the doctrines central to Christianity have important philosophical implications or presuppositions. In this article, we begin with a brief general discussion of the relationship between philosophy and Christian dogma, and then we turn our attention to three of the most philosophically challenging Christian doctrines: the trinity, the incarnation, and the atonement. We take these three as our focus because, unlike (for example) doctrines about providence or the attributes of God, these are distinctive to Christian theology and, unlike (for example) the doctrine of original sin or the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist, these have been the subject of a great deal of discussion over the past couple of decades. 1. Philosophy and Christian Theology 2. Trinity 2.1 The Social Model 2.2 The Psychological Model 2.3 The Constitution Model 3. Incarnation 3.1. The Kenotic View 3.2 The Two Minds View 4. Atonement 4.1 The Ransom Theory 4.2. The Moral Exemplar Theory 4.3. Satisfaction Theories 4.4. Objections Bibliography General Trinity Incarnation Atonement Academic Tools Other Internet Resources Links on the Trinity Links on the Incarnation Links on Atonement Related Entries 1. Philosophy and Christian Theology In the history of Christian theology, philosophy has sometimes been seen as a natural complement to theological reflection, whereas at other times practitioners of the two disciplines have regarded each other as mortal enemies. Some early Christian thinkers such as Tertullian were of the view that any intrusion of secular philosophical reason into theological reflection was out of order. Thus, even if certain theological claims seemed to fly in the face of the standards of reasoning defended by philosophers, the religious believer should not flinch. Other early Christian thinkers, such as St. Augustine of Hippo, argued that philosophical reflection complemented theology, but only when these philosophical reflections were firmly grounded in a prior intellectual commitment to the underlying truth of the Christian faith. Thus, the legitimacy of philosophy was derived from the legitimacy of the underlying faith commitments. Into the High Middle Ages, Augustine's views were widely defended. It was during this time however that St. Thomas Aquinas offered yet another model for the relationship between philosophy and theology. According to the Thomistic model, philosophy and theology are distinct enterprises, differing primarily in their intellectual starting points. Philosophy takes as its data the deliverances of our natural mental faculties: what we see, hear, taste, touch, and smell. These data can be accepted on the basis of the reliability of our natural faculties with respect to the natural world. Theology, on the other hand takes as its starting point the divine revelations contained in the Bible. These data can be accepted on the basis of divine authority, in a way analogous to the way in which we accept, for example, the claims made by a physics professor about the basic facts of physics. On this way of seeing the two disciplines, if at least one of the premises of an argument is derived from revelation, the argument falls in the domain of theology; otherwise it falls into philosophy's domain. Since this way of thinking about philosophy and theology sharply demarcates the disciplines, it is possible in principle that the conclusions reached by one might be contradicted by the other. According to advocates of this model, however, any such conflict must be merely apparent. Since God both created the world which is accessible to philosophy and revealed the texts accessible to theologians, the claims yielded by one cannot conflict with the claims yielded by another unless the philosopher or theologian has made some prior error. Since the deliverances of the two disciplines must then coincide, philosophy can be put to the service of theology (and perhaps vice-versa). How might philosophy play this complementary role? First, philosophical reasoning might persuade some who do not accept the authority of purported divine revelation of the claims contained in religious texts. Thus, an atheist who is unwilling to accept the authority of religious texts might come to believe that God exists on the basis of purely philosophical arguments. Second, distinctively philosophical techniques might be brought to bear in helping the theologian clear up imprecise or ambiguous theological claims. Thus, for example, theology might provide us with information sufficient to conclude that Jesus Christ was a single person with two natures, one human and one divine, but leave us in the dark about exactly how this relationship between divine and human natures is to be understood. The philosopher can provide some assistance here, since, among other things, he or she can help the theologian discern which models are logically inconsistent and thus not viable candidates for understanding the relationship between the divine and human natures in Christ. For most of the twentieth century, the vast majority of English language philosophy—including philosophy of religion—went on without much interaction with theology at all. While there are a number of complex reasons for this divorce, three are especially important. The first reason is that atheism was the predominant opinion among English language philosophers throughout much of that century. A second, quite related reason is that philosophers in the twentieth century regarded theological language as either meaningless, or, at best, subject to scrutiny only insofar as that language had a bearing on religious practice. The former belief (i.e., that theological language was meaningless) was inspired by a tenet of logical positivism, according to which any statement that lacks empirical content is meaningless. Since much theological language, for example, language describing the doctrine of the Trinity, lacks empirical content, such language must be meaningless. The latter belief, inspired by Wittgenstein, holds that language itself only has meaning in specific practical contexts, and thus that religious language was not aiming to express truths about the world which could be subjected to objective philosophical scrutiny. A third reason is that a great many academic theologians also became skeptical of our ability to think and speak meaningfully about God; but, rather than simply abandon traditional doctrines of Christianity, many of them turned away from more “metaphysical” and quasi-scientific ways of doing theology, embracing instead a variety of alternative construals and developments of these doctrines—including, but not limited to, metaphorical, existentialist, and postmodern construals. This, we might add, seems to be one reason why the methodological rift between so-called “analytic” and “non-analytic” philosophers has to some extent been replicated as a rift between analytic philosophers of religion and their counterparts in theology. In the last forty years, however, philosophers of religion have returned to the business of theorizing about many of the traditional doctrines of Christianity and have begun to apply the tools of contemporary philosophy in ways that are somewhat more eclectic than what was envisioned under the Augustinian or Thomistic models. In keeping with the recent academic trend, contemporary philosophers of religion have been unwilling to maintain hard and fast distinctions between the two disciplines. As a result, it is often difficult in reading recent work to distinguish what the philosophers are doing from what the theologians (and philosophers) of past centuries regarded as strictly within the theological domain. Indeed, philosophers and theologians alike are now coming to use the term “analytic theology” to refer to theological work that aims to explore and unpack theological doctrines in a way that draws on the resources, methods, and relevant literature of contemporary analytic philosophy. The use of this term reflects the heretofore largely unacknowledged reality that the sort of work now being done under the label “philosophical theology” is as much theology as it is philosophical. In what follows, we provide a brief survey of work on the three topics in contemporary philosophical theology that—aside from general issues concerning the nature, attributes, and providence of God—have received the most attention from philosophers of religion over the past quarter century. We thus leave aside such staple topics in philosophy of religion as traditional arguments for the existence of God, the problem of evil, the epistemology of religious belief, the nature and function of religious language. We also leave aside a variety of important but less-discussed topics in philosophical theology, such as the nature of divine revelation and scripture, original sin, the authority of tradition, and the like. (For discussions of work falling under some of these topics, see the Related Entries section below, as well as the works under the “General” heading in the bibliography.) --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2302 on: 2017-10-27, 14:07:46 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Neck ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neck_ring Neck rings, or neck-rings, are any form of stiff jewellery worn as an ornament around the neck of an individual, as opposed to a loose necklace. Many cultures and periods have made neck rings, with both males and females wearing them at various times. Of the two most notable types the first is the torc, an often heavy and valuable ornament normally open at the throat. These were worn by various early cultures but are especially associated with the ancient Celts of the European Iron Age, where they were evidently a key indicator of wealth and status, mostly worn by men. The other type is one or more spiral metal coils of many turns, often worn only by women. In a few African and Asian cultures neck rings are worn usually to create the appearance that the neck has been stretched. Padaung (Kayan Lahwi) women of the Kayan people begin to wear neck coils from as young as age two. The length of the coil is gradually increased to as much as twenty turns. The weight of the coils will eventually place sufficient pressure on the clavicles to cause them to deform and create an impression of a longer neck.[1][2] The custom of wearing neck rings is related to an ideal of beauty: an elongated neck. Neck rings push the clavicle and ribs down.[3] The neck stretching is mostly illusory: the weight of the rings twists the collarbone and eventually the upper ribs at an angle 45 degrees lower than what is natural, causing the illusion of an elongated neck. The vertebrae do not elongate, though the space between them may increase as the intervertebral discs absorb liquid. The South Ndebele peoples of Africa also wear neck rings as part of their traditional dress and as a sign of wealth and status. Only married women are allowed to wear the rings, called dzilla. Metal rings are also worn on different parts of the body, not just the neck.[4] The rings are usually made of copper or brass. Although it can vary from person to person whether the removal of neck rings can cause pain, if they are removed incorrectly this may result in death. The custom requires that the girls who do choose to wear the neck rings start before puberty in order to get the body used to them. These heavy coils can weigh as much as 11 pounds (5 kg) (before puberty, as they will add more rings later down the line.) The neck rings put a huge strain on the body. Once a persons neck has adjusted to the neck rings they have to leave the neck rings on permanently. Because the rings have been on these women for such a long time, this weakens the neck muscles causing the neck to essentially not being able to support itself. The neck muscles will tire quickly and not be able to carry the weight of the head in other words; when the neck is no longer able to fulfill its function it is very likely that it will collapse, thus resulting in suffocation.[citation needed] Although it might look as if the neck is being elongated this is an illusion. The neck is forced upwards and the shoulders, collarbone, and upper ribs, pushed downward. For one, bruising in the neck area often result in tumors which sometimes lead to cancers in people who have been wearing the neck rings for an extended amount of time.[citation needed] Because the shoulders, collarbone, upper ribs etc. are being forced downwards, they have spent a lot of time not attaining to its job, when the artificial support system (being the coils) are removed the neck will have nothing to support it resulting in it to collapse.[citation needed] In order for this not to happen the person previously wearing the neck rings will have to replace the rings with some sort of towel, neck brace or some other type of support. ------------------------ 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! A photo of a Kayan woman that is wearing neck rings.jpg (109.77 kB, 720x1080 - viewed 428 times.) --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2303 on: 2017-10-28, 09:14:07 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	57 Years Ago: U.S. and Britain Approved Use of Islamic Extremists to Topple Syrian Government http://www.makewarshistory.co.uk/?p=1767 Have the U.S. and Its Allies Intentionally Balkanized Syria Into Smaller Regions? BBC reports that – in 1957 – the British and American leaders approved the use of Islamic extremists and false flag attacks to topple the Syrian government: Macmillan backed Syria assassination plot https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/27/uk.syria1?cat=politics&type=article Nearly 50 years before the war in Iraq, Britain and America sought a secretive “regime change” in another Arab country… by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures. Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 [former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom] Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhowerapproved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria’s pro-western neighbours, and then to “eliminate” the most influential triumvirate in Damascus. Although historians know that intelligence services had sought to topple the Syrian regime in the autumn of 1957, this is the first time any document has been found showing that the assassination of three leading figures was at the heart of the scheme. In the document drawn up by a top secret and high-level working group that met in Washington in September 1957, Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus. * Mr Macmillan ordered the plan withheld even from British chiefs of staff, because of their tendency “to chatter”. * Driving the call for action was the CIA’s Middle East chief Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of former president Theodore Roosevelt. Kermit Roosevelt had a proven track record in this sort of thing. According to the New York Times, he was the leader of the CIA’s coup in Iran in 1953, which – as subsequently admitted by the CIA – used false flag terror to topple the democratically elected leader or Iran. BBC continues: More importantly, Syria also had control of one of the main oil arteries of the Middle East, the pipeline which connected pro-western Iraq’s oilfields to Turkey. * The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be “made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments,” the report says. “CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension.” * The plan called for funding of a “Free Syria Committee” [hmmm … sounds vaguely familiar], and the arming of “political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities” within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze [a Shia Muslim sect] in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus. Is it purely coincidence that the U.S. has heavily armed Al Qaeda Muslim extremists in Syria (and see this), and trained the jihadis who later became ISIS? Regime change in Syria was not a once-off plan. Neoconservatives also planned regime change in Syria more than 20 years ago … in 1991. The West Has Been Arbitrarily Breaking Up Middle Eastern Countries for 100 Years The Western powers agreed 100 years ago to arbitrarily divvy up the Middle East, without regard for historical boundries. in the U.S. and Israel have long advocated for the balkanization of Syria into smaller regions based on ethnicity and religion. The goal was to break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Syria as a separate nation. (The same goal has long applied to Iraq and other Arab states as well.) In 1982, a prominent Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry allegedly wrotea book expressly calling for the break up of Syria: All the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units …. Dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run. In any event, it is well-documented that – in 1996 – U.S. and Israeli Neocons advocated: Weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria …. Michel Chossudovsky pointed out last month: Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington’s intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of “regime change” in Damascus. What is contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines. And the following map prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters (retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy) in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006 shows a balkanized Syria and Middle East: In summary, we don’t have conclusive proof that the U.S., Israeli or their allies have intentionally broken up Syria. But in light of such claims – and the 57-year old American-British plan to stir up Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremists in Syria – maps showing the Islamic jihadi group ISIS’ carving up of Syria (and Iraq) into “the Islamic State” are interesting, indeed: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/57-years-ago-u-s-britain-approved-use-islamic-extremists-topple-syrian-government.html ------------------------ 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! The Project for the New Middle East.jpg (81.87 kB, 770x519 - viewed 361 times.) 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! territorial_control_of_the_isis-svg.png (116.64 kB, 640x489 - viewed 349 times.) --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

Centraflow	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2304 on: 2017-10-28, 19:30:15 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2838	Nice post Regards Mike --------------------------- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2305 on: 2017-11-19, 09:54:47 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Police Street Parchar interrupted due to Kirpan! ("You're Not English!") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0K1h45dYgs The old fella was right, Indians are not English. The Indian was wrong, he is not British. The conflation of race and location is plain for all to see, if your honest that is. Note how on the basis of a belief (something that cannot be proved to be true, for obvious reasons) the law has been changed to allow Indians to carry knives that do not conform to the English knife laws! The old fella was wrong that you cannot carry a knife in England, if the blade is under 3 inches and has a non lockable blade you can carry one.. I do. https://www.heinnie.com/spyderco-ukpk-frn-leaf-flat-grind Sikh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh A Sikh (/siːk, sɪk/; Punjabi: ਸਿੱਖ sikkh [sɪkkʰ]) is a person associated with the Sikh nation, sharing a common history, culture, language (Punjabi) and monotheistic religion.[20][21][22] A Sikh, according to Article I of the Sikh Rehat Maryada (the Sikh code of conduct), is "any human being who faithfully believes in One Immortal Being; ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh; Guru Granth Sahib; the teachings of the ten Gurus and the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru".[23] The greater Punjab region is the historic homeland of the Sikhs, although significant communities exist around the world. Many countries, such as the United Kingdom, recognize Sikhs as a separate ethnic race on their census.[24][25] The American non-profit organization United Sikhs has fought to have Sikh included on the U.S. census as well, asserting that Sikhs "self-identify as an 'ethnic group' " and believe "that they are more than just a religion."[26] Male Sikhs have "Singh" (sovereign prince), and female Sikhs have "Kaur" (princess) as their middle or last name. Sikhs who have undergone the khanḍe-kī-pahul (the Sikh initiation ceremony) may also be recognised by the five Ks: Kesh, uncut hair which is kept covered, usually by a turban; kara, an iron or steel bracelet; a kirpan, a sword tucked into a gatra strap or a kamal kasar belt; kachera, a cotton undergarment; and kanga, a small wooden comb. Initiated male and female Sikhs must cover their hair with a turban. ------------------------ 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! World_Sikh_Pop._Map_2004-02.png (186.98 kB, 1070x560 - viewed 336 times.) --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

Centraflow	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2306 on: 2017-11-19, 10:51:52 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2838	https://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/29788/state-prosecutor-maza-dies-in-buenos-aires-hospital One has to go Hmmmmm! Possible double sided sword? he did not like what the government made him do in Catalunya and also put the blame on the ex government for his death maybe. The thing is in this day and age a kidney infection normally is not fatal!! Early to tell what reaction there will be, but I smell a rat. Regards Mike --------------------------- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2307 on: 2017-11-19, 21:38:20 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	The REAL Welsh know who the REAL English are, and vice versa. I'll give you a clue.. it is not this fella: http://theukbulletin.com/2017/06/15/koran-teacher-guilty-of-cardiff-mosque-sex-abuse/ An 81-year-old former Koran teacher has been convicted of a string of child sex offences. Mohammed Haji Sadiq taught for 30 years at the Madina mosque in Cardiff. Sadiq, from Cyncoed, was found guilty of 14 child sex offences but cleared of one count of indecent assault at Cardiff Crown Court. He had denied the charges involving four girls aged between five and 11 and blamed “politics” in the mosque for the accusations. The offences took place between 1996 and 2006 at the Woodville Road mosque. The court heard Sadiq “took advantage of his position” and touched the four girls inappropriately as a form of punishment, abusing the girls if they made a mistake while reciting the Koran. ‘Threatened pupils’ Some of his victims said they were afraid to attend the mosque because of his abuse. Jurors were also told Sadiq would use a stick as a form of punishment in class and hit people over the hand or hard on the back. One victim said he would threaten young pupils. His Honour Judge Stephen Hopkins QC said Sadiq was found guilty “on the most compelling evidence”. He said the case clearly passed the custody threshold and that Sadiq would be monitored electronically. Sadiq, who has had no involvement in the mosque since 2006 when it burnt down, was released on bail and will be sentenced at a later date. ------------------------ 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! Mohammed Haji Sadiq had denied committing 15 child sex offences over a 10 year period.jpg (7.03 kB, 320x180 - viewed 238 times.) --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2308 on: 2017-11-19, 21:52:25 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Meet a real Englishman, Time Teams Phil Harding: Time Team - Season 15, Episode 8 - Saxons on the Edge (Stonton Wyville, Leicestershire) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSztI4qqNes Interesting episode, Phil has his DNA ancestry checked.. skip to 42:00 for the results. Love the bit where he says "The genetic bedrock if you like, of the whole of Britain and Ireland, is Celtic. The Saxons and the Vikings really only contribute 10 - 20%, invaders who did not displace the Celts" Guess it's time to get my dna checked, see if the results match my beliefs.. would be nice to have proof of a strong belief, don't ya think ? ------------------------ 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! Phil Harding.jpg (101.25 kB, 800x600 - viewed 263 times.) --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2309 on: 2017-11-20, 12:21:19 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Did the Romans Invent Christmas? http://www.historytoday.com/matt-salusbury/did-romans-invent-christmas Did the first Christian Roman emperor appropriate the pagan festival of Saturnalia to celebrate the birth of Christ? Matt Salusbury weighs the evidence. It was a public holiday celebrated around December 25th in the family home. A time for feasting, goodwill, generosity to the poor, the exchange of gifts and the decoration of trees. But it wasn’t Christmas. This was Saturnalia, the pagan Roman winter solstice festival. But was Christmas, Western Christianity’s most popular festival, derived from the pagan Saturnalia? The first-century AD poet Gaius Valerius Catullus described Saturnalia as ‘the best of times’: dress codes were relaxed, small gifts such as dolls, candles and caged birds were exchanged. Saturnalia saw the inversion of social roles. The wealthy were expected to pay the month’s rent for those who couldn’t afford it, masters and slaves to swap clothes. Family households threw dice to determine who would become the temporary Saturnalian monarch. The poet Lucian of Samosata (AD 120-180) has the god Cronos (Saturn) say in his poem, Saturnalia: ‘During my week the serious is barred: no business allowed. Drinking and being drunk, noise and games of dice, appointing of kings and feasting of slaves, singing naked, clapping … an occasional ducking of corked faces in icy water – such are the functions over which I preside.’ Saturnalia originated as a farmer’s festival to mark the end of the autumn planting season in honour of Saturn (satus means sowing). Numerous archaeological sites from the Roman coastal province of Constantine, now in Algeria, demonstrate that the cult of Saturn survived there until the early third century AD. Saturnalia grew in duration and moved to progressively later dates under the Roman period. During the reign of the Emperor Augustus (63 BC-AD 14), it was a two-day affair starting on December 17th. By the time Lucian described the festivities, it was a seven-day event. Changes to the Roman calendar moved the climax of Saturnalia to December 25th, around the time of the date of the winter solstice. From as early as 217 BC there were public Saturnalia banquets. The Roman state cancelled executions and refrained from declaring war during the festival. Pagan Roman authorities tried to curtail Saturnalia; Emperor Caligula (AD 12-41) sought to restrict it to five days, with little success. Emperor Domitian (AD 51-96) may have changed Saturnalia’s date to December 25th in an attempt to assert his authority. He curbed Saturnalia’s subversive tendencies by marking it with public events under his control. The poet Statius (AD 45- 95), in his poem Silvae, describes the lavish banquet and entertainments Domitian presided over, including games which opened with sweets, fruit and nuts showered on the crowd and featuring flights of flamingos released over Rome. Shows with fighting dwarves and female gladiators were illuminated, for the first time, into the night. The conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity in AD 312 ended Roman persecution of Christians and began imperial patronage of the Christian churches. But Christianity did not become the Roman Empire’s official religion overnight. Dr David Gwynn, lecturer in ancient and late antique history at Royal Holloway, University of London, says that, alongside Christian and other pagan festivals, ‘the Saturnalia continued to be celebrated in the century afterward’. The poet Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius wrote another Saturnalia, describing a banquet of pagan literary celebrities in Rome during the festival. Classicists date the work to between AD 383 and 430, so it describes a Saturnalia alive and well under Christian emperors. The Christian calendar of Polemius Silvus, written around AD 449, mentions Saturnalia, recording that ‘it used to honour the god Saturn’. This suggests it had by then become just another popular carnival. Christmas apparently started – like Saturnalia – in Rome, and spread to the eastern Mediterranean. The earliest known reference to it commemorating the birth of Christ on December 25th is in the Roman Philocalian calendar of AD 354. Provincial schisms soon resulted in different Christian calendars. The Orthodox Church in the Eastern (Byzantine) half of the Roman Empire fixed the date of Christmas at January 6th, commemorating simultaneously Christ’s birth, baptism and first miracle. Saturnalia has a rival contender as the forerunner of Christmas: the festival of dies natalis solis invicti, ‘birthday of the unconquered sun’. The Philocalian calendar also states that December 25th was a Roman civil holiday honouring the cult of sol invicta. With its origins in Syria and the monotheistic cult of Mithras, sol invicta certainly has similarities to the worship of Jesus. The cult was introduced into the empire in AD 274 by Emperor Aurelian (214-275), who effectively made it a state religion, putting its emblem on Roman coins. Sol invicta succeeded because of its ability to assimilate aspects of Jupiter and other deities into its figure of the Sun King, reflecting the absolute power of ‘divine’emperors. But despite efforts by later pagan emperors to control Saturnalia and absorb the festival into the official cult, the sol invicta ended up looking very much like the old Saturnalia. Constantine, the first Christian emperor, was brought up in the sol invicta cult, in what was by then already a predominantly monotheist empire: ‘It is therefore possible,’ says Dr Gwynn, ‘that Christmas was intended to replace this festival rather than Saturnalia.’ Gwynn concludes: ‘The majority of modern scholars would be reluctant to accept any close connection between the Saturnalia and the emergence of the Christian Christmas.’ Devout Christians will be reassured to learn that the date of Christmas may derive from concepts in Judaism that link the time of the deaths of prophets being linked to their conception or birth. From this, early ecclesiastical number-crunchers extrapolated that the nine months of Mary’s pregnancy following the Annunciation on March 25th would produce a December 25th date for the birth of Christ. --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2310 on: 2017-11-23, 19:57:37 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	George Soros decries Hungary's PM Orban for anti-Semitic attacks 'reminiscent of the 1930s' https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/20/george-soros-decries-hungarys-orban-for-anti-semitic-attacks-reminiscent-of-the-1930s.html Soros says he had been targeted by an administration "stoking anti-Muslim sentiment and employing anti-Semitic tropes reminiscent of the 1930s." In July, Prime Minister Viktor Orban launched a nationwide television and billboard advertising campaign accusing Soros of devising Europe's refugee influx. The Hungarian premier has often vilified Soros, whose ideals are squarely at odds with Orban's view that European culture is under an existential threat from migration and multiculturalism. How about that, Soros and I have the same problem, for opposite reasons.. Le Pen decries 'fatwa' on National Front bank accounts http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42079916 Marine Le Pen has claimed her National Front party is the victim of a "banking fatwa" after banks closed its accounts as well as her own personal account. The leader of the far-right party told a news conference she would be lodging complaints against Société Générale and HSBC. Word at the scuttlebutt is that the BBC has been sniffing around the OU energy research community, conducting informal interviews and buying up claimed 'OU device' plans.. You all know what this means.. a 'conspiracy theory' narrative is being researched. The last time the BBC had a major impact on me was summer 2016, during the Euro football championships, when the English football team were playing in the group stages. I don't follow football much anymore, the conflation of my racial identity makes it difficult to understand what I am cheering for. However, I do sometime's enjoy the chatter of the commentators in the boring bits. One particular occasion, just over 30 minutes into the first half caught my attention.. "We de-decry goals like that".. a stutter ? what the hell ?? An unfamiliar word you see, he stuttered while taking a second to confirm.. the guy wasn't primed and just being fed his lines on a teleprompter, Clooney obviously wasn't enough to normalise. Aww bollocks! The only bit I actually still enjoyed was scripted ? What a crock of shit. Hmm.. was it ITV ? I don't remember.. what's the difference ? On a positive note moving forward, in another decade or so we can look forward to the England vs France games. If we strip the preconditioned labelling from our minds we can be forgiven for mistaking this match for an African nations cup game, perhaps even play a modern version of 'Where's Wally'?.. we can call it 'Spot the White Man!' So I ask you Celts, "What are you cheering for ?" and by extension "What are you fighting for ?" Remember always, Everyman decries immorality. ------------------------ 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! France National Football Team Roster Players 2017 2018.jpg (102.24 kB, 738x481 - viewed 251 times.) --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2311 on: 2017-11-23, 21:01:32 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	No more ‘fighting ISIS?’ US to stay in Syria to prevent ‘win’ for Assad and Iran – report https://www.rt.com/news/410735-american-troops-stay-syria/ Published time: 23 Nov, 2017 11:57 The US plans to keep its troops in Syria long after the defeat of ISIS – the goal used to justify their illegal presence in the first place – because the Syrian government and its ally Iran would “win” if they were withdrawn, the Washington Post reported. The Trump administration is “expanding its goals” in Syria to include a “potentially open-ended commitment” to support the Kurd-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing several anonymous US officials. The change comes as the defeat of the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) terrorist group in Syria seems imminent. Washington has been justifying its deployment of ground troops in Syria, which violates the embattled nation’s sovereignty, by citing the need to fight IS. US Defense Secretary James Mattis last week went so far as to erroneously claim that the US had been given a mandate to be in Syria, stating: “You know, the UN said that … basically we can go after ISIS. And we're there to take them out.” While Washington has a history of skipping UN approval for its military interventions, be it in Syria or in other sovereign states, it appears that the semblance of legitimacy for keeping hundreds of troops in Syria is about to be dispelled. WaPo sources say that Washington actually sees its boots on the ground as a source of leverage in dealing with the government of President Bashar Assad and his allies. “An abrupt US withdrawal could complete Assad’s sweep of Syrian territory and help guarantee his political survival – an outcome that would constitute a win for Iran, his close ally. To avoid that outcome, US officials say they plan to maintain a US troop presence in northern Syria… and establish new local governance, apart from the Assad government, in those areas,” the newspaper said. If true, it means Washington will be actively promoting Kurdish separatism to spite Damascus and Tehran, while paying lip service to preserving Syria’s territorial integrity. “The conditions are there for the counter-ISIS campaign to morph into a counter-Iran campaign,” Nicholas Heras of the Washington-based Center for a New American Security told WaPo. “By placing no timeline on the end of the US mission… the Pentagon is creating a framework for keeping the US engaged in Syria for years to come.” --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2312 on: 2017-11-23, 23:59:41 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Anyone in the UK catch tonights episode of the reality TV show I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_a_Celebrity...Get_Me_Out_of_Here!_(UK_TV_series) Interesting episode! The show has taken on a political theme.. I won't spoil it for you but the interesting part was when the fax machine spewed out a script for the Jungle's Prime Minister to read.. The PM and his deputy had to pick three of the contestants to form a Holy Triumvirate. The emotional manipulation of the minions then proceeded as expected. Enjoy! --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2313 on: 2017-11-25, 15:38:34 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	We were lied to! Secret document FCO 30/1048 kept truth about EU from British for 30 years https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public A SECRET document, which remained locked away for 30 years, advised the British Government to COVER-UP the realities of EU membership so that by the time the public realised what was happening it would be too late. By Lara Deauville PUBLISHED: 16:01, Fri, Nov 24, 2017 Almost all of the shocking predictions – from the loss of British sovereignty, to monetary union and the over-arching powers of European courts – have come true. But damningly for Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath, and all those who kept quiet about the findings in the early 70s, the document, known as FCO30/1048, was locked away under Official Secrets Act rules for almost five decades. The classified paper, dated April 1971, suggested the Government should keep the British public in the dark about what EEC membership means predicting that it would take 30 years for voters to realise what was happening by which time it would be too late to leave. That last detail was the only thing the disgraceful paper – prepared for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) – got wrong. The unknown author – a senior civil servant – correctly predicted the then European Economic Community (the EEC effectively became the EU in 1993) was headed for economic, monetary and fiscal union, with a common foreign and defence policy, which would constitute the greatest surrender of Britain’s national sovereignty since 1066. He went on to say “Community law” would take precedence over our own courts and that ever more power would pass away from Parliament to the bureaucratic system centred in Brussels. The author even accurately asserts that the increased role of Brussels in the lives of the British people would lead to a “popular feeling of alienation from Government”. But shockingly politicians were advised “not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures… to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community”. They were told to preserve the impression that the British Government was still calling the shots rather than an unelected body of foreign politicians – and that the ruse would last “for this century at least” – by which time Britain would be so completely chained to Brussels it would be impossible to leave. Document FCO30/1048, which has now been declassified under the 30-year rule, still shocks and angers Brexiteers. Annabelle Sanderson, a Brexit expert and former advisor to Nigel Farage said: “Despite all the claims from politicians of many parties that the EU was not about becoming a central state this 1971 document shows that is exactly what the plan was. “Arch Remoaners from Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories need to check this out and ask themselves why they are MPs if they don’t actually want Westminster to be in charge of this country. “We voted for Brexit what needs to happen is a proper clean break from Brussels so we can once again become a sovereign nation with money being spent in this country on services we need and have Parliament and courts making and ruling on the laws.” The writer and journalist Christopher Booker, one of the founders of the satirical magazine Private Eye, said: “Here was a civil servant advising that our politicians should connive in concealing what Heath was letting us in for, not least in hiding the extent to which Britain would no longer be a democratic country but one essentially governed by unelected and unaccountable officials. “One way to create an illusion that this system was still democratic, this anonymous mandarin suggested, would be to give people the chance to vote for new representatives at European, regional and local levels. “A few years later, we saw the creation of an elected European Parliament – as we see today a craze for introducing elected mayors, as meaningless local figureheads.” The pro-Europe Sir Edward Heath was leader of the Conservative Party from 1965 to 1975. He died in 2005. In 2015 he was named as part of Wiltshire Police’s Operation Conifer investigation into historical child sex abuse. Detectives said if alive – he would have been 101 – he would have been interviewed under caution over seven claims, including the alleged rape of an 11-year-old, but that no inference of guilt should be drawn from this. Operation Conifer was closed earlier this year after officers found "no corroborating evidence" of any sexual abuse by Sir Edward and no evidence of a conspiracy. Heath, a soft-right politician from a lower middle-class family, was born in Broadstairs, Kent. He served though the Second World War in the Royal Artillery, rising to rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. Although he said he had never killed anyone he was part of the Normandy Landings in 1944 and wrote extensively of the damage his gunners inflicted on the German occupying forces. In September 1945 he also commanded a firing squad that executed a Polish soldier convicted of rape and murder. He was made a Knight of the Garter on 23 April 1992 and became Sir Edward Heath. --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2314 on: 2017-11-28, 20:18:14 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Book excerpt: How I became a Kremlin troll by The Saker http://thesaker.is/book-excerpt-how-i-became-a-kremlin-troll-by-the-saker/ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-27/saker-how-i-became-kremlin-troll Dear friends, Today, with the kind permission of Phil Butler, I am posting the full text of my contribution to his book “Putin’s Praetorians: Confessions of the Top Kremlin Trolls“. There are a couple of reasons for that. The main one is that I strongly believe that this book deserves a much bigger visibility than it has received (this is also why, exceptionally, I am placing this post in the top “analyses” category and not elsewhere). Please read my review here to see why I feel so strongly about this book. Frankly, I am rather shocked by the very little amount of reviews this book as generated. I don’t even know if somebody besides Russia Insider has bothered writing a review of it or not, but even if somebody has, it is still a crying shame that this most interesting volume has been so far ignored by the alternative media including the one friendly to Russia. So by posting my own contribution here I want to bring back this book to the “front page”, so to speak, of our community. Second, I want to ask for your help. Right now the Kindle version of the book has 15 reviews on Amazon and only 1 review for the printed paper version. This is not enough. I am therefore asking you to 1) buy the book (Amazon wants reviews by purchasers) and 2) write a review on Amazon. Guys – that is something most of you can do to help, so please do so! We need to show the world that there is what I call “another West” which, far from being russophobic is, in fact, capable of producing real friends and even defenders of Russia. So, please, do your part, help Phil in his heroic struggle, get the paper version of the book and review it on Amazon! Thanks a lot for your help, hugs and cheers, The Saker ——- How I became a Kremlin troll by The Saker By birth, experience, and training, I truly had everything needed to hate Putin. I was born in a family of “White Russians” whose anti-Communism was total and visceral. My childhood was filled with (mostly true) stories about atrocities and massacres committed by the Bolsheviks during the revolution and subsequent civil war. Since my father had left me, I had an exiled Russian Orthodox Archbishop as a spiritual father, and through him, I learned of all the genocidal persecutions the Bolsheviks unleashed against the Orthodox Church. At the age of 16, I had already read the three volumes of the “Gulag Archipelago” and carefully studied the history of WWII. By 18 I was involved in numerous anti-Soviet activities such as distributing anti-Soviet propaganda in the mailboxes of Soviet diplomats or organizing the illegal importation of banned books into the Soviet Union through the Soviet merchant marine and fishing fleet (mostly at their station in the Canary Islands). I was also working with an undercover group of Orthodox Christians sending help, mainly in the form of money, to the families of jailed dissidents. And since I was fluent in Russian, my military career took me from a basic training in electronic warfare, to a special unit of linguists for the General Staff of the Swiss military, to becoming a military analyst for the strategic intelligence service of Switzerland. The Soviet authorities had long listed me, and my entire family, as dangerous anti-Soviet activists and I, therefore, could not travel to Russia until the fall of Communism in 1991 when I immediately caught the first available flight and got to Moscow while the barricades built against the GKChP coup were still standing. Truly, by this fateful month of August 1991, I was a perfect anti-Soviet activist and an anti-Communist hardliner. I even took a photo of myself standing next to the collapsed statue of Felix Derzhinsky (the founder of the ChK – the first Soviet Secret police) with my boot pressed on his iron throat. That day I felt that my victory was total. It was also short-lived. Instead of bringing the long-suffering Russian people freedom, peace, and prosperity, the end of Communism in Russia only brought chaos, poverty, violence, and abject exploitation by the worst class of scum the defunct Soviet system had produced. I was horrified. Unlike so many other anti-Soviet activists who were also Russophobes, I never conflated my people and the regime which oppressed them. So, while I rejoiced at the end of one horror, I was also appalled to see that another one had taken its place. Even worse, it was undeniable that the West played an active role in every and all forms of anti-Russian activities, from the total protection of Russian mobsters, on to the support of the Wahabi insurgents in Chechnya, and ending with the financing of a propaganda machine which tried to turn the Russian people into mindless consumers to the presence of western “advisors” (yeah, right!) in all the key ministries. The oligarchs were plundering Russia and causing immeasurable suffering, and the entire West, the so-called “free world” not only did nothing to help but helped all the enemies of Russia with every resource it had. Soon the NATO forces attacked Serbia, a historical ally of Russia, in total violation of the most sacred principles of international law. East Germany was not only reunified but instantly incorporated into West Germany and NATO pushed as far East as possible. I could not pretend that all this could be explained by some fear of the Soviet military or by a reaction to the Communist theory of world revolution. In truth, it became clear to me that the western elites did not hate the Soviet system or ideology, but that they hated Russian people themselves and the culture and civilization which they had created. By the time the war against the Serbian nation in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo broke out, I was in a unique situation: all day long I could read classified UNPROFOR and military reports about what was taking place in that region and, after work, I could read the counter-factual anti-Serbian propaganda the western corporate Ziomedia was spewing out every day. I was horrified to see that literally everything the media was saying was a total lie. Then came the false flags, first in Sarajevo, but later also in Kosovo. My illusions about “Free World” and the “West” were crumbling. Fast. Fate brought me to Russia in 1993 when I saw the carnage of meted out by the “democratic” Eltsin regime against thousands of Russians in Moscow (many more than what the official press reported). I also saw the Red Flags and Stalin portraits around the parliament building. My disgust by then was total. And when the Eltsin regime decided to bring Dudaev’s Chechnia to heel triggering yet another needless bloodbath, that disgust turned into despair. Then came the stolen elections of 1996 and the murder of General Lebed. At that point, I remember thinking “Russia is dead.” So, when the entourage of Eltsin suddenly appointed an unknown nobody to acting President of Russia, I was rather dubious, to put it mildly. The new guy was not a drunk or an arrogant oligarch, but he looked rather unimpressive. He was also ex-KGB which was interesting: on one hand, the KGB had been my lifelong enemy but on the other hand, I knew that the part of the KGB which dealt with foreign intelligence was staffed by the brightest of the brightest and that they had nothing to do with political repression, Gulags and all the rest of the ugly stuff another Directorate of the KGB (the 5th) was tasked with (that department had been abolished in 1989). Putin came from the First Main Directorate of the KGB, the “PGU KGB.” Still, my sympathies were more with the (far less political) military intelligence service (GRU) than the very political PGU which, I was quite sure by then, had a thick dossier on my family and me. Then, two crucial things happened in parallel: both the “Free world” and Putin showed their true faces: the “Free world” as an AngloZionist Empire hell-bent on aggression and oppression, and Vladimir Putin as a real patriot of Russia. In fact, Putin slowly began looking like a hero to me: very gradually, in small incremental steps first, Putin began to turn Russia around, especially in two crucial matters: he was trying to “re-sovereignize” the country (making it truly sovereign and independent again), and he dared the unthinkable: he openly told the Empire that it was not only wrong, it was illegitimate (just read the transcript of Putin’s amazing 2007 “Munich Speech”). Putin inspired me to make a dramatic choice: will I stick to my lifelong prejudices or will I let reality prove my lifelong prejudices wrong. The first option was far more comfortable to me, and all my friends would approve. The second one was far trickier, and it would cost me the friendship of many people. But what was the better option for Russia? Could it be that it was the right thing for a “White Russian” to join forces with the ex-KGB officer? I found the answer here in a photo of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Vladimir Putin: If that old-generation anti-Communist hardliner who, unlike me, had spent time in the Gulag, could take Putin’s hand, then so could I! In fact, the answer was obvious all along: while the “White” and the “Red” principles and ideologies were incompatible and mutually exclusive, there is also no doubt that nowadays true patriots of Russia can be found both in the former “Red” and “White” camps. To put it differently, I don’t think that “Whites” and “Reds” will ever agree on the past, but we can, and must, agree on the future. Besides, the Empire does not care whether we are “Red” or “White” – the Empire wants us all either enslaved or dead. Putin, in the meantime, is still the only world leader with enough guts to openly tell the Empire how ugly, stupid and irresponsible it is (read his 2015 UN Speech). And when I listen to him I see that he is neither “White” nor “Red.” He is simply Russian. So, this is how I became a Kremlin troll and a Putin fanboy. The Saker Quote from: evolvingape on 2017-11-28, 20:18:14 In fact, the answer was obvious all along: while the “White” and the “Red” principles and ideologies were incompatible and mutually exclusive, there is also no doubt that nowadays true patriots of Russia can be found both in the former “Red” and “White” camps. To put it differently, I don’t think that “Whites” and “Reds” will ever agree on the past, but we can, and must, agree on the future. Besides, the Empire does not care whether we are “Red” or “White” – the Empire wants us all either enslaved or dead. I don't consider myself a Kremlin troll, never have, never will. I do admire the Russian spirit, the acknowledgement of the necessity of adhering to international law, and the individual and communal right of sovereignty and self determination. My personal scientific work is focused on human survival on our own planet, and potentially venturing into space to survive and explore. This will require harnessing our potential to manipulate the laws of physics and understanding of the fundamental states of matter so all can benefit and thrive. It is not important that I can do the things that I can do, it is important to me that you can do them also, to this end I gave you my life's work unconditionally. ------------------------ 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! I found the answer here in a photo of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Vladimir Putin.jpeg (38.93 kB, 427x290 - viewed 242 times.) --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2315 on: 2017-11-28, 20:40:14 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	British Army could be cut to just 50,000 over next four years, report warns http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11449136/British-Army-could-be-cut-to-just-50000-over-next-four-years-report-warns.html Defence budgets could be cut by up to another 10 per cent during the next parliament and leave Army at its smallest for 250 years By Tom Whitehead, Rosa Prince and Ben Riley Smith 7:00AM GMT 09 Mar 2015 The British Army could be reduced to its smallest size in nearly 250 years, taking its overall troop level to just 50,000 soldiers, a former Government defence adviser has warned. A report by the respected Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) suggests that defence budgets may be slashed by 10 per cent during the next parliament, shrinking personnel for the three Armed Forces by as many as 42,000. Britain’s military appears once again in line for massive culls after the next general election because of the continuing austerity drive and a lack of commitment by any of the major parties to protect defence spending, Rusi said. Downing Street has been forced to deny that David Cameron and George Osborne, the Chancellor, are at “loggerheads” over whether to maintain the Nato target of committing two per cent of the nation's finances to defence. But ministers’ reluctance to commit to the target was made clear, as Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, refused seven times during a television interview to rule out further cuts. Regular Army soldiers are already being reduced from 102,000 to 82,000 and a new defence review under the next government could see numbers cut again by around 40 per cent, Rusi warned. It would mean the smallest Army since the 1770s, when Britain lost the American colonies. The report comes ahead a crucial debate in the House of Commons on Thursday when Tory MPs are expected to push for a vote to force the Prime Minister Cameron into a commitment on defence spending. Tensions over the £36 billion defence budget are high at a time relations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia are strained and the threat from Isil in Iraq and Syria is growing. US President Barack Obama and his military chiefs have already expressed concerns over further cuts in Britain’s defence and warned it could damage the Army's ability to fight future campaigns. Last week, the head of the America’s Army, Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno, told the Telegraph he was “concerned” about suggestions Britain may not maintain the Nato target. Downing Street denied a report that Mr Cameron was angry at Mr Oborne’s apparent refusal to sign up to maintaining the financial commitment for another parliament. Refusing to discuss the pledge, Mr Hammond told BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show: "We will have a strategic defence and security review at the beginning of the next parliament and we will set out our plans then. "I can’t tell you what will be in the Conservative manifesto, and I can’t prejudge the outcome of the security and defence review that will take place after the next election. We will protect the integrity and the strength of our armed forces." Mr Hammond indicated the Prime Minister would be reluctant to cut regular army numbers if reelected, saying Mr Cameron did not want to "preside over any further cuts in our Armed Forces". Next week, as many as 30 Conservative MPs led by John Baron, the MP for Basildon and Billericay who himself served in the Army, are expected to rebel against the government in order to put pressure on the leadership over the proposed and future cuts. The Rusi report was written by the organisation’s director of UK defence policy, Professor Malcolm Chalmers, who is also a special adviser to the parliamentary joint committee on the national security strategy and was a Cabinet Office advisor for the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review. He predicts “optimistic” and “pessimistic” scenarios for the future of the military based on analysis of the three major political parties’ overall spending plans. He warns that while health, schools and foreign aid budgets are likely to be protected no party has committed to protect defence. He said: “In either scenario, the result will be a remarkably sharp reduction in the footprint of defence in UK society over a decade.” Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, said the report made "sober reading" and warned Britain's "operational readiness" could be damaged. "In a squeezed Defence budget, expenditure on equipment will always take priority over manpower numbers.” But he added: "I think pressure is beginning to mount on the Government to recognise that there might be some votes in Defence after all. People are quite right to be concerned about our overall security, given present world circumstances." Andy Smith, chief executive officer of the UK National Defence Association, added: “If the Government allows the British Army to shrink to a 250-year low, it would demonstrate a shameful lack of commitment to the Defence of the Realm. We do not need a huge army but we certainly need an army that enables us to secure our homeland and our international interests. Military strength guarantees political influence, and we certainly wouldn't have any influence at all with an army of just 50,000. It would put the United Kingdom in a potentially perilous situation and would represent political failure by our leaders on a monumental scale.” Prof Chalmers said spending plans outlined in the last Autumn Statement suggest that spending on government departments could fall from 17.4 per cent of GDP to 12.6 per cent of GDP by 2019/2020 and unprotected departments would be hit hardest. Because of commitments to some defence spending, personnel would once again bear the brunt, he warned. Even on the optimistic outlook, where spending is protected on a par with health or schools, that could see total defence personnel fall from around 145,000 to 130,000 by the end of the decade. In the pessimistic scenario, budgets would be cut by 10 per cent and numbers would fall to 115,000. However, the Government is currently pledging that spending on defence equipment will increase by one per cent annually over the next parliament. If that is maintained, Prof Chalmers said, then a worst case scenario could see troop numbers fall to 103,000 – a drop of 29 per cent. He warns as in the last round of cuts, the Royal Navy will be protected because of the need for personnel for the planned new aircraft carriers, then the Army will take the lion’s share and could be slashed to just 50,000. In the 1640s, at the height of the Civil War, Oliver Cromwell’s army stood at 40,000. Professor Chalmers said: “The final budgetary settlement will be one of the most strongly contested elements of this year’s Spending Review. “In contrast to the health, schools and international development budgets, none of the major parties has committed to protect the defence budget. “Yet the MoD could face a substantial funding gap even on its own planning assumptions of 1 per cent real annual growth in equipment spending and the protection of non-equipment spending at baseline levels.” He concluded: “In reality, the prospects for the defence budget remain closely tied to wider economic growth. “The government is not yet convinced that strategic security risks are high enough to justify an exemption for defence from austerity.” --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2316 on: 2017-11-28, 20:48:01 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Those that enjoy investigative history will find this article interesting: Romanov murder twist: Investigators consider 'ritual killing' theory https://www.rt.com/politics/411172-investigators-to-probe-sacrifice-theory/ Investigators plan to conduct “psychological and historical analysis” to verify a theory that the killing of last Russian Tsar Nicholas II and his family in 1918 was a sacrifice made by the Bolsheviks in a bid for global domination. “Investigators plan to undertake psychological and historical analysis to establish if the shooting of the Russian royal family was a ritual killing,” a spokesperson for the Russian Investigative Committee – the agency dealing with especially important and resonant crimes – announced at a Moscow conference dedicated to the probe of the killing of the Romanovs. Svetlana Molodtsova announced that the Investigative Committee plans to form a special panel of experts comprising representatives from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow and St. Petersburg Universities and the Russian Orthodox Church. She added that the experts would start working after the completion of a major archive research project that was underway at the moment of the conference. The secretary of the Russian Orthodox Church’s commission for examination of the remains of the Royal Family, Bishop Tikhon, told RIA Novosti that Nicholas II remained a symbolic and sacred figure even after his abdication in 1917. Therefore the ritual theory of the killing made sense. “The murder of the Tsar and his family was a very special act with a ritual and symbolic meaning as it put an end to the 300-year Romanov dynasty, which was loathed by the new authorities,” Tikhon said. “Bolsheviks and their henchmen of all sorts were not alien to very unexpected and various ritual symbolism,” he added, citing Vladimir Lenin’s Mausoleum in Moscow as an example of a typical ritual building. “Back in 2015 when the new probe just started it was announced that investigators would look into all theories without a single exception. It would be strange, to say the least, if today we exclude just one theory from the research done by professional historians and forensic experts,” he said. Chief spokesman of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia, Rabbi Boruch Gorin told Interfax that he and his co-believers were shocked by the statements made by representatives of the Investigative Committee and the Russian Orthodox Church. He noted that the representatives of the Committee and the Church have not connected the Romanov family’s killing with Jews in their statements. However, any educated person who knows the history of these accusations would understand that they mean the theory that the killing was a Kabbalah ritual organized by Jewish members of the Bolshevik Party. “We, as a Jewish community are shocked not only because of the absurdity of such assumptions. The myths about the existence of ritual killings relate to various cults and religions, but in Russia … this has become a typical anti-Semitic myth, used by anti-Semitic propaganda for several decades,” Gorin said. “In our view, the absurdity of this theory is evident, because it’s obvious that the murder was committed by complete atheists – people who had rejected any faith in any powers apart from what can be done with their own hands.” The last Russian Emperor, his wife and five children were killed by a group of Bolsheviks in mid-1918 outside the city of Ekaterinburg, in the Ural Mountains. Their burial places were discovered in 1991 and 2007, and in 2000 the Russian Orthodox Church canonized Nicholas II and his family members as martyrs and saints. Their remains were taken out of the unmarked graves and reburied in Romanov’s family sepulcher in the St. Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg. However, the Russian Orthodox Church has refused to recognize the remains as authentic due to insufficient evidence. In 2015, the probe into the killings was resumed. ------------------------ 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! Romanov family.jpg (157.28 kB, 900x506 - viewed 235 times.) --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2317 on: 2017-12-02, 19:55:23 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	A Morally Rudderless America https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/morally-rudderless-america/ by Scott McPherson November 30, 2017 A U.S. Navy pilot flying over far north Okanogan County, Washington, is in hot water for leaving contrails in the sky in the shape of a penis. According to a report from CBS News affiliate KREM, people on the ground saw the image and complained. One mother was “upset because she might have to explain the drawings to her kids.” The reporter assured listeners that “we’re deliberately not showing you those drawings because they’re offensive.” For over half a century the U.S. government has sent our military (and plenty of military aid) to foreign countries, to kill and maim and torture, to overthrow democratic governments and shore up corporate dominance, to prop up brutal dictators, and ultimately to protect America’s global hegemony. Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform rightly observed, “There isn’t a country on earth who is truly a threat to our peace and well being, but we spend a trillion dollars per year sowing discontent and chaos around the globe so we can keep our troops and navies occupied killing and bombing people as the profits flow to the military industrial complex.” War, as Major General Smedley Butler wrote, is a racket. Over these many years the bodies have piled up, as have the endless failures and the resulting chaos. Americans respond to this by closing their eyes and mindlessly chanting paeans to our Empire. Military recruiters roam the halls of high schools, filling impressionable minds with nonsense about “serving your country” and “protecting freedom.” Military spending perpetually grows, as does the number of countries hosting American troops and bases. Meanwhile drones vaporize wedding parties and terrorize civilians in foreign lands. When Madeleine Albright was asked about the deaths of half a million (!) Iraqi children at the hands of US sanctions, she said “the price is worth it.” The silence was deafening. Barack Obama – the “peace president” – boasted that he was “really good at killing people.” The nation yawned. But let’s not put an American mother in the uncomfortable position of explaining the male penis! Such absurdity reminds us of the angry rant from Colonel Kurtz at the end of the film Apocalypse Now, when he marveled over the shameless hypocrisy of military commanders who “train young men to drop fire on people” but bristle at the sight of expletives written on the sides of airplanes. A Navy pilot draws adolescent images in the sky, and Americans are morally outraged. Wouldn’t it be nice if more Americans — including the mainstream media — experienced moral outrage when U.S. pilots kill and maim people in overseas military adventures?” --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2318 on: 2017-12-03, 10:27:04 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	20,000 join Tel Aviv ‘March of Shame’ to protest bill aimed at protecting Netanyahu (VIDEO) https://www.rt.com/news/411764-netanyahu-protest-thousands-corruption/ Thousands of people, outraged at a new bill that would spare the Israeli PM from public outcry linked to two corruption probes, swarmed into downtown Tel Aviv on Saturday in a protest that became the largest since the launch of the investigation. A large crowd descended on central Rothschild Boulevard and marched towards Habima Square, decrying Netanyahu as the “Crime Minister,” according to placards carried by activists. The disgruntled protesters, armed with loudspeakers, chanted “Bibi is a disgrace” and called for him to “go home” or be jailed, and for the reinstatement of legal order. Police did not provide any official count for the rally, but Israel’s Channel 10 and Reuters reported the number of protesters at around 20,000 people, a turnout previously unseen at the weekly demonstrations that have been taking place every Saturday evening since the opening of the probe against Netanyahu in December 2016. Des milliers d'Israéliens manifestent actuellement sur le boulevard Rotshild à #TelAviv contre la corruption et le gouvernement #Netanyahupic.twitter.com/v4525oKRBk — Julien Bahloul (@julienbahloul) 2 декабря 2017 г. “I’m here with a lot of people who are fed up with the government and especially with the prime minister, who is trying to destroy the democracy of our country,” Michal, a participant of the rally, told RT’s Ruptly video news agency, accusing the Netanyahu government of uprooting the efforts of several Jewish generations to establish a democracy in the country. The increase in attendance is likely due to a controversial “Recommendations Law” that is heading for a second reading in parliament on Monday. The law, dubbed the “Netanyahu bill” by the opposition, would prevent police from publishing their recommendations to the Attorney General on whether to charge suspects in existing cases, and ban them altogether from advising the Attorney General in future cases. If adopted by the parliament, the legislation would see police withholding conclusions in corruption probes into Netanyahu, sparing him from a potential public outcry. The Israeli leader is mired into two separate corruption investigations. The first centers on him allegedly accepting gifts such as expensive wine and cigarettes worth some $100,000-$150,000 from billionaire Arnon Milchan. While Netanyahu firmly denies any wrongdoing, he reportedly acknowledged doing Milchan’s bidding to then-US Secretary of State John Kerry. The second probe revolves around his alleged intention to strike a deal with the influential Yediot Aharonot newspaper for better coverage. While the investigation into Netanyahu has been dragging on for a year, the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, is expected to pass the law by the end of next week. --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2319 on: 2017-12-03, 18:30:08 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	I was heading over to the Rivero's site 'What Really Happened ?' a few days ago and did my usual, typed in 'whatr' on DuckDuckGo, hit the down arrow followed by the enter key.. I ended up here: http://ethnicelebs.com/meghan-markle Part of the article links to an essay in ELLE Magazine: Meghan Markle: I'm More Than An 'Other' http://www.elleuk.com/life-and-culture/news/a26855/more-than-an-other/ Suits star Meghan Markle on creating her identity and finding her voice as a mixed race woman. Originally written in July 2015 published in ELLE Magazine in 2015. Seems that the Rivero's have been knocked off the top spot in the search engine, dropping to number two.. must be a hell of a lot of interest lately in "what race is meghan markle". Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay, says minister https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/01/christians-should-pray-from-prince-george-to-be-gay-says-c-of-e-minister Very Rev Kevin Holdsworth says C of E will be forced to support same-sex marriage if the ‘Lord blesses George with the love of a fine young gentleman’ Quite a lot going on lately with the media push attempting to normalise miscegenation and homosexuality.. --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2320 on: 2017-12-03, 19:56:25 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Did Tony Blair really repeal the Death Penalty for Treason? http://denouncethedeception.co.uk/did-tony-blair-really-repeal-the-death-penalty-for-treason September 24, 2017 by Connor Wilkinson The fact that the (un)establishment has been committing treason against the people and their constitutional rights since 1972 is finally coming to light for some. http://denouncethedeception.co.uk/constitutional-crisis-and-the-solution However, some may still suggest that Tony Blair “had done away with the treason laws” in 1998 by purportedly ‘repealing’ the 1795 Treason Act. It has been recently suggested that Blair’s moves was “perfectly legal” even though the Declaration of Rights and the Revolution Settlement in 1689 dictates that “suspending laws or the operation of laws” is illegal. Contrary to popular belief the death penalty still exists in Britain for high treason as the 1795 Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act was NOT repealed in 1998 when Tony Blair introduced the Crime and Disorder Act. In chapter 36 of this 1998 ‘Act’ he attempted to repeal the 1795 Act and the death penalty for high treason but Blair had no lawful authority to do so, and he committed treason in his attempt. He would be in prison today if only the people would stand united under their constitution as the law demands. Some say that treason is not a crime anymore because of his actions, however you would be wrong to think so. Indeed it is what he wants you to think, but with a little research, anyone can work out that Blair made no lawful changes to law, and he never could. Blair actually committed three acts of Treason in all, and did not possess the authority to do so. An example of such a treasonous act would be a year earlier at the signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 which increased the European Union’s powers for action at community level, and included further European integration in legislative, police, judicial, customs and security matters and strengthened Europol. This was a clear act of treason, and because of this, Tony Blair was in fact, actually never the Prime Minister at law. Much like any criminal in supposed “public office”, Blair tried to get rid of the penalty of the crime he was guilty of. Still, some believe that Treason is not a crime today, or at most (as the Police will tell you) a “political matter” which is a complete fabrication. Is institutionalized paedophilia a “political matter” too? On 14 May 2012, an FOI Request was made to the Data Access & Compliance Unit within the Ministry of Justice in regards to the Crime of treason. They handed the Request to the Criminal Law Policy Unit, to which they replied: “…the UK does still have laws governing treason and that treason is still regarded as a crime in the UK…There is also a common law offence of misprision of treason which consists of failing to inform of any treasons committed or threatened by others, or of attempting to rescue any traitor from justice.” So there you have it. The crime of treason still exists and it is still a very serious crime. A fact that past and present administrations of government seem to have forgotten. There is also the common law crime of treason. An offence of attempting to overthrow the government of a state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. “The king,” says Bracton, who wrote under Henry III ( l. 1. c. 8.), “ought not to be subject to man, but to God, and to the law; for the law makes the king. Let the king therefore render to the law, what the law has invested in him with regard to others; dominion, and power: for he is not truly king, where will and pleasure rules, and not the law.” The Declaration of Rights which spawned the Revolution Settlement containing both the Claim and Bill of Right(s) in 1689 states that “all usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm . . . no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate shall at anytime after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, forever.” The Act of Settlement 1700 also reinforces this sentiment by enacting that: “no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him.” Were we really in the EU at law? We we’re never in the EU or the so called “common market” to begin with. This is not only because constitutional law dictates that no foreign powers may have jurisdiction over the United Kingdom, but because the Heath administration lied by telling the country that the ECA would not affect the UK’s sovereignty. Even the Bill which took us into the EEC, said: “there would be no essential surrender of sovereignty…”. This mantra, in one form or another, was repeated throughout the campaign and the debates in Parliament. So we see a Government White Paper which attempted to bury the truth. The Kilmuir Letter, which was written in December, 1960, evidenced that there would indeed be “loss of sovereignty” and was hidden for thirty years leaving the public completely. This damning letter to Edward Heath by the then-Lord Chancellor attempted to remind the Prime Minister of the treacherous steps that he was about to take upon signing the Treaty of Rome. Another document released from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office after thirty years of secrecy titled case file 30/1048 also meticulously documents the Heath administrations Treason, Sedition and Fraud which were used to admit us to the “common market” which later flourished into the European “Union.” The solution never was Brexit. As it turns out, the so-called referendum on the 23rd of June, 2016 did nothing but confuse the people more. The (not so) Great Repeal Bill converts all existing EU law into British law which is illegal. The EU Military integration and absorption of the UK Armed Forces is still underway, with no debate in either purporting parliaments. Never since 1972 have the people been so betrayed. The solution is very simple. In 2001 the Crown was deposed. It has been law for 16 years for the people of the UK to put an end to the institutionalized tyranny and reassert their laws and customs, however this fact has been covered up by impostors within the treasonous regime. To find out more about what YOU can do (as the people) to stop the despotic (dis)establishment, CLICK HERE! http://denouncethedeception.co.uk/will-you-join-the-legal-uprising --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2321 on: 2017-12-03, 20:07:19 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	The Constitutional Crisis & The Solution! http://denouncethedeception.co.uk/constitutional-crisis-and-the-solution The European Communities Act received Royal Assent on the 17th of October 1972. This Act resulted in the United Kingdom joining the EEC (European Economic Community), which had been established by the Treaty of Rome, signed on the 25th of March 1957. Britain finally became a member of the EEC on the 1st of January 1973. This state of constitutional illegality was ultimately entrenched on the 19th of June, 2008 when Royal Assent was given to the Lisbon Treaty. This final “Treaty” of the now-political European Union was ratified by all Member States of the EU on the 13th of November 2009. When Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome in Brussels on the 22nd of January 1972, the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath knowingly and willfully tricked, deceived And betrayed the British people into handing over National Sovereignty to a foreign authority under the guise of a trade deal, that trade deal being the ECTA (The common Market). Whereas Heaths true intention was to surrender our Sovereignty, he lied to the whole country as the people were unaware they were voting for Foreign Rule and under Constitutional law it stands as the most grievous high treason in British history. The famous Lord ‘Kilmuir Letter’ (kept hidden for 30 years) made it painfully obvious that the British Government at this time were ready to commit very serious crimes against the people, and did. In this letter, Edward Heath is reminded of the treacherous steps that he was about to take by the then-Lord Chancellor: ‘THE KILMUIR LETTER’ “My Dear Ted, You wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional implications of our becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome. I have now had an opportunity of considering what you say in your letter and have studied the memoranda you sent me. I agree with you that there are important constitutional issues involved. I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty, but before attempting to define or evaluate the loss I wish to make one general observation. At the end of the day, the issue whether or not to join the European Economic Community must be decided on broad political grounds and if it appears from what follows in this letter that I find the constitutional objections serious that does not mean that I consider them conclusive. I do, however, think it important that we should appreciate clearly from the outset exactly what, from the constitutional point of view, is involved if we sign the treaty, and it is with that consideration in mind that I have addressed myself to the questions you have raised. He is clear that if we do sign the agreement with the EEC we will suffer some loss of Sovereignty. This is clearly an act of Treason because our Constitution allows no surrender of any part of our Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This is evidenced by the convention which says: (Parliament may do many things but what it may not do is surrender any of its rights to govern unless we have been defeated in war). And the ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John’s action in surrendering England to the Pope, and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal because England did not belong to John he only held it in trust for those who followed on. The Money the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid. Because England’s Kings were not vassal Kings to the Pope and the money was not owed. Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three ways:- Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the community; Answer as above. The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those organs of the community; The Constitution confers treaty making powers only on the Sovereign and the Sovereign cannot transfer those powers to a foreign power or even our own parliament because they are not the incumbent Sovereigns to give away as they only hold those powers in trust for those who follow on. Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice. It is a Praemunire to allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of the Sovereign. The European Court Justice or the European court of Human rights are foreign courts not under the control of our Sovereign. Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason. The position of Parliament It is clear that the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council of could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force) make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land. There are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be implemented:- It is a Praemunire to allow any laws or regulations not made by the Sovereign in parliament to take effect as law in England. This is illegal under the Acts of Treason 1351, the Act of Praemunire 1392, The Act of Supremacy 1559, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9. Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council make regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgement on the legislative proposals put before it. A parallel is the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passes British North American Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada, in this respect Parliament here has substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position, and it would have pro tanto, to do the same for the Community. No such power exists for parliament to do this. This would be an Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, an Act of Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights. It would in theory be possible for parliament to enact at the outset legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers even in wartime that we have ever experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons. Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable, we should therefore to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal us own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the statute of Westminster. In short. Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole of a very important field. There is no constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount to a total abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and customs. And it would be an Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, and Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9. Treaty-making Powers The proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some extent fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties such as GATT and O.E.E.C. restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereign that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we undertook not to make tariff or trade agreements without the Council’s approval. But to transfer to the council or the Commission the power to make such treaties on our behalf, and even against our will, is an entirely different proposition. There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the exercise of sovereignty involved in the conscious acceptance by us of obligations under treaty-making powers and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession of these powers to some other body. To confer a sovereign state’s treaty-making powers on an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation to the fully federal state. I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily carry us very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily be involved: as you know although the treaty-making power is vested in the Crown. Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition of taxation to take two examples and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws. This is a surrender of our Sovereignty a clear Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act and a Praemunire, under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, it is Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights. Independence of the Courts There is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions of law (even in a limited field) to another court and as I assume to be the implication of ‘refer’- to accept that court’s decision. You will remember that when a similar proposal was considered in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong objection to it. I have no doubt that the whole of the legal profession in this country would share my dislike for such a proposal which must inevitably detract from the independence and authority of our courts. Of those three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignly involved are serious ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to underestimate the force of objections to them. But these objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on. Having said this, I would emphasise once again that, although those constitutional considerations must be given their lull weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not for one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the scale. In the long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to make some sacrifices of sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see exactly what it is that we are being called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss would be. It is a Praemunire to subject Her Majesty’s Courts of law to the domination of a foreign court outside of Her Majesty’s control.” The once-top secret documents titled “Shoe-horned into the EU” which was also obtained (under the title ‘FCO 30/1048’) from the Public Records office via the 30 year rule highlights the acts of Sedition and Treason along with other crimes Committed by the Heath administration. Every Government that have followed since have been complicit! --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2322 on: 2017-12-03, 20:12:37 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Gordon Brown: Bankers should have been jailed for role in financial crisis https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/31/gordon-brown-bankers-should-have-been-jailed-for-role-in-financial-crisis Ex-PM warns failure to take tougher stand has made it inevitable that rogue bankers will again gamble with public money Gordon Brown has claimed bankers should have been jailed for their fraudulent and dishonest behaviour during the financial crisis that led to Britain’s deepest post-war recession and his defeat in the 2010 general election. The Labour former prime minister used the second extract from his memoirs to warn that the failure to take a tougher line with wrongdoing – as pursued by other countries – has made it inevitable that rogue bankers will again gamble with public money. “If bankers who act fraudulently are not put in jail with their bonuses returned, assets confiscated and banned from future practice, we will only give a green light to similar risk-laden behaviour in new forms,” Brown says. *Interesting timing Gordon..* --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2323 on: 2017-12-03, 20:29:44 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Death penalty moratorium will never be lifted – Russian ombudsman https://www.rt.com/politics/411571-death-penalty-moratorium-will-never/ The Russian plenipotentiary for human rights, Tatyana Moskalkova, has said that the moratorium on death penalty in the country will be extended indefinitely. She added that in her opinion life in prison was an adequate replacement as a punishment. “I cannot decide on this subject but my opinion is that the moratorium will be extended because the sixth protocol on abolition of death penalty, that has been ratified by our nation, cannot be left unfulfilled, otherwise it would cause consequences connected with our membership in the Council of Europe,” Moskalkova said during her lecture in the Moscow Institute of International Relations that was a part of the nationwide “open lesson” event dedicated to the issue of human rights. “Public opinion polls show that a significant part of our population support the death penalty as a punishment for those who commit a murder or a terrorist attack with human casualties. But life in prison can be an adequate alternative as it provides an adequate punishment for the evil and crimes committed by such persons,” the ombudsman added. The moratorium on capital punishment was introduced in 1996 in connection with Russia’s entry into the Council of Europe. The last execution in the Russian Federation took place on September 2, 1996. Many Russian politicians and officials have raised the issue of canceling the moratorium, especially after terrorist attacks or other brutal crimes that attract public attention. One of the more recent examples of such behavior is the proposal of the head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov who said in a televised interview in late November that he personally favored death penalty as punishment for convicted terrorist recruiters. However, the country’s top authorities have so far refused to introduce any changes to the situation, claiming that the question was too complex. A public opinion poll conducted by the independent sociological agency Levada in February this year showed that 44 percent of Russians wanted the death penalty returned and 41 percent said they opposed this measure. 15 percent of respondents said they did not have any opinion on the issue. In 2015, the share of those who supported it was 41 percent with 44 percent against. --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #2324 on: 2017-12-03, 20:37:30 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Quote from: evolvingape on 2017-12-03, 20:29:44 However, the country’s top authorities have so far refused to introduce any changes to the situation, claiming that the question was too complex. It is a complex question, especially in current times for the "British": Quote from: evolvingape on 2017-12-03, 20:07:19 The once-top secret documents titled “Shoe-horned into the EU” which was also obtained (under the title ‘FCO 30/1048’) from the Public Records office via the 30 year rule highlights the acts of Sedition and Treason along with other crimes Committed by the Heath administration. Every Government that have followed since have been complicit! Have we not all in our lifetimes witnessed enough death ? Or is it as Gordon say's, lack of a viable deterrent encourages further egregious behaviour ?: Quote from: evolvingape on 2017-12-03, 20:12:37 “If bankers who act fraudulently are not put in jail with their bonuses returned, assets confiscated and banned from future practice, we will only give a green light to similar risk-laden behaviour in new forms,” Brown says. --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

Pages: 1 ... 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-05-02, 12:52:12

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2