PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2020-09-26, 04:13:47
News: Registration with the OUR forum is now by invitation only.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 ... 100
Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!  (Read 755372 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2581
Everyman decries immorality
Deleted Daily Mail Online Article: “US Backed Plan for Chemical Weapon Attack in Syria to Be Blamed on Assad”
Global Research, June 15, 2013

http://globalresearch.ca/deleted-daily-mail-online-article-us-backed-plan-for-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria-to-be-blamed-on-assad/5339178

In January 29, 2013, Britain’s most popular Daily Newspaper, in its online version Dailymail.co.uk published an article titled:
U.S. ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime’

A few days later they pulled the article.

What the reason was for the deletion remains unclear. The article was published at this URL:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

There exists a cached version of the article which can be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

Syria no-fly zone: Russia's Sergei Lavrov opposed
15 June 2013

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22919322

The US has pledged to support the Syrian opposition with military aid

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said any attempt to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria using US fighter jets and missiles operating from Jordan would violate international law.

The US has moved Patriot missiles and F-16 fighter jets to Jordan, officially as part of an annual exercise.

Russia opposes any foreign military intervention in the Syrian conflict.

The uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, which began in 2011, has left an estimated 93,000 people dead.

"You don't have to be a great expert to understand that this will violate international law”

"There have been leaks from Western media regarding the serious consideration to create a no-fly zone over Syria through the deployment of Patriot anti-aircraft missiles and F-16 jets in Jordan," said Mr Lavrov, speaking at a joint news conference in Moscow with his Italian counterpart.

"You don't have to be a great expert to understand that this will violate international law," he said.

Mr Lavrov also said evidence presented by the US of chemical weapons use in Syria apparently did not meet reliability criteria set out by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Despite demands, Syria no-fly zone a no-go for US
Published October 12, 2014

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/12/despite-demands-syria-no-fly-zone-no-go-for-us/

WASHINGTON –  The Obama administration's promise to limit U.S. military engagement against Islamic State militants makes it difficult to accept Turkey's terms for joining the fight in neighboring Syria.

Turkey and other American allies want the U.S. to create a no-fly zone inside Syrian territory. Yet doing that would mean embracing one of two options President Barack Obama long has resisted: cooperating with Syrian President Bashar Assad's government or taking out its air defenses, an action tantamount to war.

There are increasing demands for the creation of a secure buffer on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey.

The U.S. and others in the coalition fighting the militants are pleading with Turkey, a NATO ally, to prevent the fall of Kobani, a border town where the United Nations is warning of mass casualties.

A "safe zone" would require Americans and their partners to protect ground territory and patrol the sky, meaning enforcement of a no-fly area.

Syria destroys two warplanes used by ISIS to train fighter pilots for terrorist 'air force'
Published: 16:06, 22 October 2014

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2803457/Syria-destroys-two-warplanes-used-ISIS-train-fighter-pilots-terrorist-airforce.html#comments

The Syrian Air Force has destroyed two fighter jets belonging to the Islamic State just days after observers claimed to have witnessed the terror group training fighters to use them.

Monitoring groups in the war-ravaged country last week claimed to have seen the fanatics flying three captured warplanes over short distances from an airbase in Aleppo - understood to be the first time ISIS has taken to the sky.

This morning Syria's Information Minister Omran Zoabi told state news agency SANA that the air force had already destroyed two of the planes and is continuing to search for the third jet.



In order for a no-fly zone to be created there has to be a credible threat from an ISIS air force in the region. A no-fly zone would justify the shooting down of Syrian aircraft that have violated their own sovereign air space.. well at least ISIS have 1 plane! There you go.. mission accomplished!! Full steam ahead boys..


---------------------------
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.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1338
Don't forget our wise Canadian politicians are also sending our F16's over to bomb civilians er I mean terrorists.

I can just imagine them firing up on the tarmac in all their glory!

RRRRRR------RRRRRR------RRRRRR, give er a kick Eh, I did give er a kick, well give er another

RRRRRR------RRRRRR------RRRRRR---------chugga chugga chugga chugga pssss

Ya she don't work Eh, well screw er then let's go have a beer I don't need this shit.

Were also towing our destroyer the USS Pineapple over followed by our fleet of used second hand submarines. They don't actually submerge yet and if they do they may not ever resurface but make no mistake they are a threat to someone....to who i'm not sure.

AC

« Last Edit: 2014-10-23, 16:10:22 by Allcanadian »


---------------------------
I don't like morning people... or mornings or people

Be careful when you blindly follow the Masses... sometimes the "M" is silent.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2581
Everyman decries immorality
Glenn Greenwald of 'The Intercept' mentions the CF18 attack aircraft in his latest article on the Canadian "terror attacks", be sure to click the link to the article where Greenwald has hyper-linked his sources:

Canada, At War For 13 Years, Shocked That ‘A Terrorist’ Attacked Its Soldiers

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/22/canada-proclaiming-war-12-years-shocked-someone-attacked-soldiers/

TORONTO – In Quebec on Monday, two Canadian soldiers were hit by a car driven by Martin Couture-Rouleau, a 25-year-old Canadian who, as The Globe and Mail reported, “converted to Islam recently and called himself Ahmad Rouleau.” One of the soldiers died, as did Couture-Rouleau when he was shot by police upon apprehension after allegedly brandishing a large knife. Police speculated that the incident was deliberate, alleging the driver waited for two hours before hitting the soldiers, one of whom was wearing a uniform. The incident took place in the parking lot of a shopping mall 30 miles southeast of Montreal, “a few kilometres from the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, the military academy operated by the Department of National Defence.”

The right-wing Canadian government wasted no time in seizing on the incident to promote its fear-mongering agenda over terrorism, which includes pending legislation to vest its intelligence agency, CSIS, with more spying and secrecy powers in the name of fighting ISIS. A government spokesperson asserted “clear indications” that the driver “had become radicalized.”

In a “clearly prearranged exchange,” a conservative MP, during parliamentary question time, asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pictured above) whether this was considered a “terrorist attack”; in reply, the prime minister gravely opined that the incident was “obviously extremely troubling.” Canada’s Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney pronounced the incident “clearly linked to terrorist ideology,” while newspapers predictably followed suit, calling it a “suspected terrorist attack” and “homegrown terrorism.” CSIS spokesperson Tahera Mufti said “the event was the violent expression of an extremist ideology promoted by terrorist groups with global followings” and added: “That something like this would happen in a peaceable Canadian community like Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu shows the long reach of these ideologies.”

In sum, the national mood and discourse in Canada is virtually identical to what prevails in every Western country whenever an incident like this happens: shock and bewilderment that someone would want to bring violence to such a good and innocent country (“a peaceable Canadian community like Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu”), followed by claims that the incident shows how primitive and savage is the “terrorist ideology” of extremist Muslims, followed by rage and demand for still more actions of militarism and freedom-deprivation. There are two points worth making about this:

First, Canada has spent the last 13 years proclaiming itself a nation at war. It actively participated in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and was an enthusiastic partner in some of the most extremist War on Terror abuses perpetrated by the U.S. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister revealed, with the support of a large majority of Canadians, that “Canada is poised to go to war in Iraq, as [he] announced plans in Parliament [] to send CF-18 fighter jets for up to six months to battle Islamic extremists.” Just yesterday, Canadian Defence Minister Rob Nicholson flamboyantly appeared at the airfield in Alberta from which the fighter jets left for Iraq and stood tall as he issued the standard Churchillian war rhetoric about the noble fight against evil.

It is always stunning when a country that has brought violence and military force to numerous countries acts shocked and bewildered when someone brings a tiny fraction of that violence back to that country. Regardless of one’s views on the justifiability of Canada’s lengthy military actions, it’s not the slightest bit surprising or difficult to understand why people who identify with those on the other end of Canadian bombs and bullets would decide to attack the military responsible for that violence.

That’s the nature of war. A country doesn’t get to run around for years wallowing in war glory, invading, rendering and bombing others, without the risk of having violence brought back to it. Rather than being baffling or shocking, that reaction is completely natural and predictable. The only surprising thing about any of it is that it doesn’t happen more often.

The issue here is not justification (very few people would view attacks on soldiers in a shopping mall parking lot to be justified). The issue is causation. Every time one of these attacks occurs — from 9/11 on down — Western governments pretend that it was just some sort of unprovoked, utterly “senseless” act of violence caused by primitive, irrational, savage religious extremism inexplicably aimed at a country innocently minding its own business. They even invent fairy tales to feed to the population to explain why it happens: they hate us for our freedoms.

Those fairy tales are pure deceit. Except in the rarest of cases, the violence has clearly identifiable and easy-to-understand causes: namely, anger over the violence that the country’s government has spent years directing at others. The statements of those accused by the west of terrorism, and even the Pentagon’s own commissioned research, have made conclusively clear what motivates these acts: namely, anger over the violence, abuse and interference by Western countries in that part of the world, with the world’s Muslims overwhelmingly the targets and victims. The very policies of militarism and civil liberties erosions justified in the name of stopping terrorism are actually what fuels terrorism and ensures its endless continuation.

If you want to be a country that spends more than a decade proclaiming itself at war and bringing violence to others, then one should expect that violence will sometimes be directed at you as well. Far from being the by-product of primitive and inscrutable religions, that behavior is the natural reaction of human beings targeted with violence. Anyone who doubts that should review the 13-year orgy of violence the U.S. has unleashed on the world since the 9/11 attack, as well as the decades of violence and interference from the U.S. in that region prior to that.

Second, in what conceivable sense can this incident be called a “terrorist” attack? As I have written many times over the last several years, and as some of the best scholarship proves, “terrorism” is a word utterly devoid of objective or consistent meaning. It is little more than a totally malleable, propagandistic fear-mongering term used by Western governments (and non-Western ones) to justify whatever actions they undertake. As Professor Tomis Kapitan wrote in a brilliant essay in The New York Times on Monday: “Part of the success of this rhetoric traces to the fact that there is no consensus about the meaning of ‘terrorism.’”

But to the extent the term has any common understanding, it includes the deliberate (or wholly reckless) targeting of civilians with violence for political ends. But in this case in Canada, it wasn’t civilians who were targeted. If one believes the government’s accounts of the incident, the driver waited two hours until he saw a soldier in uniform. In other words, he seems to have deliberately avoided attacking civilians, and targeted a soldier instead – a member of a military that is currently fighting a war.

Again, the point isn’t justifiability. There is a compelling argument to make that undeployed soldiers engaged in normal civilian activities at home are not valid targets under the laws of war (although the U.S. and its closest allies use extremely broad and permissive standards for what constitutes legitimate military targets when it comes to their own violence). The point is that targeting soldiers who are part of a military fighting an active war is completely inconsistent with the common usage of the word “terrorism,” and yet it is reflexively applied by government officials and media outlets to this incident in Canada (and others like it in the UK and the US).

That’s because the most common functional definition of “terrorism” in Western discourse is quite clear. At this point, it means little more than: “violence directed at Westerners by Muslims” (when not used to mean “violence by Muslims,” it usually just means: violence the state dislikes). The term “terrorism” has become nothing more than a rhetorical weapon for legitimizing all violence by Western countries, and delegitimizing all violence against them, even when the violence called “terrorism” is clearly intended as retaliation for Western violence.

This is about far more than semantics. It is central to how the west propagandizes its citizenries; the manipulative use of the “terrorism” term lies at heart of that. As Professor Kapitan wrote yesterday in The New York Times:

    Even when a definition is agreed upon, the rhetoric of “terror” is applied both selectively and inconsistently. In the mainstream American media, the “terrorist” label is usually reserved for those opposed to the policies of the U.S. and its allies. By contrast, some acts of violence that constitute terrorism under most definitions are not identified as such — for instance, the massacre of over 2000 Palestinian civilians in the Beirut refugee camps in 1982 or the killings of more than 3000 civilians in Nicaragua by “contra” rebels during the 1980s, or the genocide that took the lives of at least a half million Rwandans in 1994. At the opposite end of the spectrum, some actions that do not qualify as terrorism are labeled as such — that would include attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah or ISIS, for instance, against uniformed soldiers on duty.

    Historically, the rhetoric of terror has been used by those in power not only to sway public opinion, but to direct attention away from their own acts of terror.

At this point, “terrorism” is the term that means nothing, but justifies everything. It is long past time that media outlets begin skeptically questioning its usage by political officials rather than mindlessly parroting it.

Photo: AP/The Canadian Press, Adrian Wyld

UPDATE: Multiple conservative commentators have claimed that this article and my subsequent discussion of it are about this morning’s shooting of a solider in Ottawa. Aside from the fact that what I wrote is expressly about a completely different incident – one that took place in Quebec on Monday – this article and my comments were published before this morning’s shooting spree was reported. So unless someone believes I possess powers of clairvoyance, the claim that I was commenting on the Ottawa shooting – about which virtually nothing is known, including the identity and motive of the shooter(s) – is obviously false.

Then there’s also the extremely predictable accusation that I was justifying the attack on the soldiers. I know from prior experience in discussing these questions that no matter how clear you make it that you are writing about causation and not justification, many will still distort what you write to claim you’ve justified the attack. That’s true even if one makes as clear as the English language permits that you’re not writing about justification: “The issue here is not justification (very few people would view attacks on soldiers in a shopping mall parking lot to be justified). The issue is causation.” If there’s a way to make that any clearer, please let me know.

One more time: the difference between “causation” and “justification” is so obvious that it should require no explanation. If one observes that someone who smokes four packs of cigarettes a day can expect to develop emphysema, that’s an observation about causation, not a celebration of the person’s illness. Only a willful desire to distort, or some deep confusion, can account for a failure to process this most basic point.

UPDATE II: In that brilliant essay I referenced above, published just three days ago in The New York Times, Professor Tomis Kaptian made this point:

    Obviously, to point out the causes and objectives of particular terrorist actions is to imply nothing about their legitimacy — that is an independent matter….

That point is so simple and, as he said, “obvious” that I have a hard time understanding what could account for some commentators conflating the two other than a willful desire to mislead.


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2630


---------------------------
"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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2581
Everyman decries immorality
MI5 and Scotland Yard hold emergency talks over terror threat against Britain in the wake of lone wolf gun attack in Canada

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805335/MI5-Scotland-Yard-hold-emergency-talks-terror-threat-against-Britain-wake-lone-wolf-gun-attack-Canada.html

If you do not engage in the mass murder, rape and pillage of other sovereign nations, justified by false flag pretexts and lies to expand and control an empire; such protection would likely be unnecessary..


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2581
Everyman decries immorality
Shock and Awe! Bill Hicks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ielhT_VrqiM

One of history's great truth tellers. The relevancy of the opening segment is frightening and sad and, most importantly, funny. The patron saint of HEAD MEDICINE. required listening... and as relevant today as it was back then.

(Warning kiddies.. extreme language on link)


---------------------------
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.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1338
@evolvingape
Quote
Canada, At War For 13 Years, Shocked That ‘A Terrorist’ Attacked Its Soldiers

Excellent article and I would have to agree with it. One lone fanatic walks onto parliament hill with a gun and the whole nation is in lock down, high alert because of one single man. Apparently they couldn't afford actual security because he just waltzed right in. Then those who proclaimed "we will not be intimidated, we will not live in fear" were apparently hiding under their desk or in the nearest closet.

So into the quagmire we will go, down the rabbit hole, into the abyss of insanity we call normalcy. You can be sure Canada will be throwing all there antiquated second hand weaponry bought from America at the supposed enemy now that they have a common goal and they over there will respond in kind. The cycle of stupidity and ignorance on all sides coming full circle. You know some days I just feel like opting out of the human race because it's so god damn embarrassing to even be associated with these people, such is life.

AC


---------------------------
I don't like morning people... or mornings or people

Be careful when you blindly follow the Masses... sometimes the "M" is silent.
   
Group: Guest
You know some days I just feel like opting out of the human race because it's so god damn embarrassing to even be associated with these people, such is life.

I hear your pain.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsFpm4yAoMQ[/youtube]
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1338
@Matt
Thank you for that inspiration... that we are not alone. Mr.Carlin was a poet wasn't he?, I mean I have read many of the greatest works of our greatest minds and yet they all pale in comparison to the heart felt wisdom displayed by Mr.Carlin concerning the human condition.

It was also pretty comical in the video when George said " I will be gone, I welcome it" and the interviewer said 'is it depression?' at which point George responded "No it lifts me up"...priceless. I think you may understand however I suppose 99% of the people here just don't get it. The problem is no matter what we do, no matter our understanding of the universe we we will always be bound to the beliefs of what we know as a hairless ape, the common man. We can dress them up but we cannot take them anywhere they refuse to go.

So yes as George said were literally screwed because there is no reasoning with a monkey in a three piece suit. We should talk, I will explain the universe for you and I think you will be surprised how simple it is, I think George was right #$%& the monkeys, let them eat cake.

AC


---------------------------
I don't like morning people... or mornings or people

Be careful when you blindly follow the Masses... sometimes the "M" is silent.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1146
The navy silencer scandal story that broke a few days ago, seems to indicate the propensity for false flag operations at the highest levels of secrecy. 

Just read this whole story to the end, there's a lot of truth in there, and I think they are trying to save face by casting this issues as corruption, and sacrificing a guy for conflict of interest.  (meaning you can't award or be involved with decisions to award contracts to others or relatives, because there is a conflict of interest)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/probe-of-silencers-leads-to-web-of-pentagon-secrets/2014/10/12/12c8d110-4fea-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html

I wonder what they were planning to do with all those AK-47's with silencers on them,  start another war and blame Russia for it?   :-\

strange dealings going on behind closed doors,

EM
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 530
@ALL

I have been mustering around with an idea........ for a Day of Worldwide Strike and have worked out how to neutralize any pitfalls.

Call it "The Stay at Home Day to Save the World", where anyone willing to strike on that day for the worldly cause just needs to stay home. No one involved in organizing regional, national or worldwide events as spoke persons can go on TV or make any public stance on that strike day. Not even by phone or e-mail or text or twitter or facebook or any other form of public communication should occur on that day by organizing officials. Silence will be the arms of change. People just need to stay indoors and remain determined during that day to show the level of determination globally. This means all those who are already staying at home will be counted in the effort automatically unless they decide to go outdoors and challenge the effort that way. This means all the sick, the retired, the aged, those already confined indoors will know this day is for them as well and in their normal day will become our day of strike in which they also will participate.

This way, the stay at home strike would permit everyone to participate and eliminate any public demonstrations that are usually spiked by the oppositions with their own Goon Squads Incorporated to foment violence and create distractions that the media will play on and explode into disinformation.

IMAGINE if on that one day organized around the world, that most major cities were rendered ghost towns. No one outside, no one working except those in essential fields, who can simply elect to wear a participating strike pin showing a world and a home. Whatever is OK....

The object of the strike would be to initiate in every country certain general rules of Minimal Base Governance, like;

Article 1: Removal of the Cabal from Power (start)

1) Any person.....

a) who is presently a member of the Freemasons and holding an 18th degree or higher, or,
b) who is presently a member of any other secret society, or,
c) who, since the last 20 years was present at Bohemian Grove or the annual Bilderberg Meetings,
d) and who, regardless of their present societal stature, position, private, religious, corporate, public or military...

must resign immediately from their post and remain available should there be legal charges of gangsterism or other felony charges that could be pending. All resignations are to be without any departure payments such as Severence or Golden Parachutes or other agreements of such kind are all rendered null and void. Those who have resigned will see their assets frozen (less subsistence) as per their country laws on gangsterism or organised crime, until they have been cleared by the proper authorities.

The premise for this Article 1 is very simple. It is a fact that anyone member in any of the above organisations have taken continuous Oaths that supplant their Sworn Allegiance to their particular Nation. This one fact renders all their acts thereafter as being organised and undertaken with subversive intent. This in all countries on Earth is considered Grand Treason and so, the simple fact of being a member is enough to render that person both suspect and guilty of Acts that go against the interests of the Individual Nation or the World. Being a member, but not partaking while knowing the partakings are taking place, is not an excuse for immunity. In this year 2014, given the extremely precarious situation of the Earth and its inhabitants and with the level of danger that has permeated all areas of the World where these people hold prominent motivating powers, it is the opinion of the grand majority of human beings that the main cause of all such events and circumstances are those identified above. It is therefore crucial that for the common interests of mankind, that these people be stopped immediately should they not resign and volunteer their implications.

Let this be the starting point for Earth and the Earthborn to clean up malicious intent and stop playing war.

Article 1: (stop)

Considering all the other pitfalls of more direct societal interventions that can be done by all without any violence, besides the four year ritual brainwashed vote count, I have come to realize that just this one simple Article, would change the world in 90 days. If such a public movement was successful and Strikers (that's you and me and everyone else) were observed to be the grand majority, this would smash the money mongers and send them to hell were they belong. Normal people would thereafter take over all the vacant positions who would then quickly realize the strangleholds maintained by their predecessor and release them one by one so as not to create any undue major shift in country policies that touch the people directly. We WILL have a Normal World were in general, people do in fact care about others more then the grand old buckeroo. There will be no New World Order, just a Normal World with normal people.

This would be another potential clause.

Article 2: National Powers Act

Where........

1) Should the Head of Nation survive Article 1, he must still remain on standby during an interim switch where....
a) All members of representatives who have been elected and have survived Article 1 or have been designated to replace anyone dismissed by Article 1, are now declared to be Independent Representatives who are non-aligned to any party name or belief.
b) Those of "a" will then convene to vote for the head of nation to be among them or vote for the standby Head of Nation. 

Since it would be a DAY of WORLDWIDE STRIKE, the global force of the movement would render it impossible for those money mongers to counter and it would give the real law abiding individuals with positions close to those in immoral power, the moral backbone to take their respective stances in their individual countries. You see, anyone countering this movement would automatically stand out and become suspect as working for the Cabal. More importantly it would provide the Alliance with such public support to go ahead and clean up the store.

This would also provide an immediate understanding for everyone to actually see the level at which the media is controlled by these same money mongers as you would expect not one word would be in the news because the subject matter would be The Elimination of the Freemason Grip, a Major Taboo Subject for the Press. This is their weakness man. The media would not be able to attack this movement because it only has one Article 1 - Removal of the Cabal from Power. The media could never talk about this so they could never create any credible threat of disinformation. It would create great internet momentum and people would soon realize that the media silence on the matter is a sign that the forces at play are indeed true. hahaha

Then the many world freedom internet sites could work on something in tandem, a common goal to publicize this one date as being a peaceful day of silence to portray worldwide displeasure and demand for SPECIFIC change.

There has to be a way of neutralizing the acidic world we have inherited from these perverts. Make it a Unified Theory of World Peace Event. The Elephant does not know, but those monsters are only mice.

Just trying to apply some logic to the problem, the answer is not rocket science.

wattsup

PS: Another simple but potent solution is have everyone possible repeat this phrase 3 times a day for one month.

"Thank you All Mighty for this World Free of Freemasonry, Secret Societies and their members, in a just and perfect manner."

Just this one line affirmation of thanks to the Universal Power could stop them faster and faster with more and more affirmers. You formulate Thanks as it being already realized, for it to be reality. By ending with "in a just and perfect manner", this provides universal assurances that their demise will not be to the detriment of others. This means anyone targeted in the affirmation will not meet their demise in a way that will endanger others. Example: Heart attack while flying a private jet could result in the plane crashing on homes. Most of the targeted would wind up dead in their sleep. The majority verb is so powerful that all religions using prayer have designed their prayers as negative reinforcement so when the majority of the public recites regular prayers, they are reinforcing their universal thanks to be kept in the state they are asking.

Example 1: Instead of saying "Thank you for this daily bread" we say "Give us this day our daily bread". The first will always provide you with your daily bread, the second will keep you in a state that makes sure you will never have enough in order for you to keep asking for more. Prayers are the most destructive verbs because they are usually recited with human emotion (the power increases), fear, guilt, despair and without any actual knowledge of the after effects being in majority counter productive to the actual intent of the person praying.

Exampe 2: You have a problem? Gives thanks for it being already solved and the universe will solve it and keep it in a state of being solved. If you ask or plead for help in solving the problem, that same problem will always persist so you can keep asking for help. The Universe sees you asking for help and thinks "Hey, this guy likes always asking for help so let's just keep those conditions alive that keep him asking for help and by doing so we are making sure he continues doing what he likes and that is - asking for help". 



---------------------------
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1476
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
What if I told you this reality is an echo chamber made of a house of mirrors. It is voice commanded and action operated.
I gained this insight from my life after death and multiple near death experience. When I started to function in this new playing field I was astounded that it 'Pays' attention and rewards its operator.
Really. You have what you perceive you should have. Change your perception and change your reality. Pretty simple.


---------------------------
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2581
Everyman decries immorality
The earths magnetic field has ncreased substantially lately.

If any of you has a neo disk magnet, stand it on edge on a table and notice what happens. Aleady been replicated in NY and im in FL.

Try it.  Look up my vid on yt.   "its a compass"  just a few down on search list.

Mags

Perhaps this is not the thread we should be using, apologies, I have nothing more to say here on this topic.   :)

Cheers Grum.

@Grum
wattsup

PS: Yes, me too, sorry for off topic.

Out of the three of you, only one came out with any honour.

and a word to a RAT.. you would be naive to think I did not notice the timing..

wattsup.. word of advice fella.. around here we do not organise 'movements', we are not figurehead leaders of men. We are mostly old souls who spend our last remaining time on this planet attempting to circumvent technological suppression and to teach people to fish. What we do not do is set ourselves up for assassination via organising global strikes that would achieve the square root of fuck all on the big picture.. think before you speak as in the current climate you endanger all of us with such a reckless act!


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2581
Everyman decries immorality
Truthers as Terrorists: Who are the terrorists today?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/10/28/truthers-as-terrorists-who-are-the-terrorists-today/

A Canadian reporter has introduced a new phrase, “terrorist truthers”, as the initial stage in creating a new semantic club to use against critics of government ops and of false flag attacks.

The reporter, Brian Lilley, has used the occasion of the alleged attack on the Canadian Parliament–almost certainly itself an arranged event–to assail those who do not condemn it as “terrorism”.

While that sounds like typical politics, where right-wingers are eager to politicize such events and left-wingers more cautious and hesitant, a bit more appears to be going on here than that.

Joshua Blakeney, for example, has observed that this event appears tailor-made to be used as a justification to silence critics of Israel. And it also looks as though the phrase, once introduced, will then gradually be extended in meaning to include 9/11 Truthers and 7/7 Truthers, as David Cameron, the UK PM, recently proposed.

In a bizarre performance, Cameron recommended that those who are skeptical of the “official accounts” of 9/11 and of 7/7 should be dealt with has harshly as members of ISIS, which seems rather extreme, considering that ISIS is being bombed and strafed by US and British fighters and bombers. It conjures up the image of having these intellectuals being lined up against the wall and shot for the “thought crimes” of questioning stories the public has been fed by their own governments that are unable to withstand critical scrutiny. So, are we now required to accept fanciful theories that are provably false just because the government supports them or face a firing squad?
« Last Edit: 2014-10-30, 01:42:41 by evolvingape »


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2581
Everyman decries immorality
British PM David Cameron: “Non-Violent Extremists” Including “9/11 Truthers” and “Conspiracy Theorists” are Just as Dangerous as ISIL Terrorists

http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-pm-david-cameron-non-violent-extremists-including-911-truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists-are-just-as-dangerous-as-isil-terrorists/5405059

Dear Mr Cameron

I write this open letter to you in response to your recent speech at the United Nations calling for military intervention in Iraq and Syria over the threat of ISIL.  In particular I would like to make mention of your reference to the so called threat to society of what you have termed ‘non-violent extremists’, including those who are attempting to bring forward information and evidence about 9/11 which contradicts the official version of events.

Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL for a moment, I find this position on 9/11 evidence to be quite incredible.  It is a position that is either extremely ignorant, or it is a position that goes against freedom and democracy in British society to such an extent that it is scarcely believable.  Huge numbers of extremely credible and professional people across the world are now bringing forward incontrovertible facts and evidence showing us that the events of 9/11 have been systematically covered up, and that the public has been deceived and manipulated on this issue at a quite incredible level.  Just like the public was deceived and manipulated about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

While you are labelling these people who bring this evidence forward about 9/11 as ‘non-violent extremists’, are you aware of what is currently happening in New York City regarding 9/11?

Are you aware that more than 100,000 New York residents have just signed the petition calling for a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 through the ‘High Rise Safety Initiative’?

Are you aware that through the fundraising efforts of public groups in the US, there is currently a massive digital screen in the centre of Times Square showing rolling video footage of the controlled demolition of World Trade Centre Building 7 to three million New Yorkers?  This is footage of a collapse of a massive 47 story building (not hit by a plane) that most people have not even been aware of or seen before now.  How can this level of information cover-up be possible in this day and age?

Are you aware that many members of US Congress are now demanding that President Obama release the 28 redacted pages of the  9/11 Commission Report because there is information in those pages that will shock the nation, according to the two members of Congress who have been authorised to view the pages?

But yet you have just stated to the world that you consider members of the public to be ‘non-violent extremists’ and a part of the ISIL challenge if they merely wish that these facts, evidence, and information about 9/11 be made available to the wider public and that appropriate investigations are held.

I repeat my previous point.  To make that statement to the world as you did, you are either extremely ignorant about this issue, or you are attempting to take a position which is so at odds with a decent, free society that it beggars belief.  I find it difficult to believe that the Prime Minister of Britain would be unaware of what I have stated here, and therefore I have to believe that it is the latter scenario that is most likely.

Just to reinforce my point here, according to what you have said, because of their views on 9/11, or because of the evidence they have brought forward, you consider the following people to be ‘non-violent extremists’ who are a part of the challenge that society faces with the ISIL threat:

·         Members of US Congress who have called for the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report to be released

·         100,000 members of the New York public for formally supporting and requesting a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 on 9/11

·         Dozens of first responder fire fighters who risked their lives on 9/11 and who lost 343 of their colleagues that day, including those who formed the organisation ‘Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth’

·         More than 2,200 professional architects, engineers, and demolition experts from the organisation ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’

·         Norman Minneta – US Secretary of Transport during 9/11 who had his formal testimony to the 9/11 investigation panel stricken from the record

·         Richard Clarke – US Head of Counter Terrorism during 9/11

·         Numerous family members of the victims of 9/11

The above list is just a very quick start, but gives a feel for the type of people who you are now labelling as ‘non-violent extremists’ and a part of the battle against ISIL because of their views about 9/11 or the evidence they are bringing forward.  According to your speech to the United Nations, we now need to bring in legislation that will be able to shut down internet sites that bring forward the information and the evidence that the people listed above have been trying to highlight for investigation.  That to me sounds like extremist behaviour.  In fact, that sounds to me like the words of someone who is supporting an attempted cover up of monumental proportions.

It seems that everyone now acknowledges that we were deceived and manipulated on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to take us to war.  It also looks like we have been deceived and manipulated on a grand scale regarding the true facts about 9/11.  So, on this basis, why should you or anyone else believe one word about what the United States is saying about the threat of ISIL?

You have already attempted to take the UK to war in Syria on the basis of alleged evidence against the Assad government that has since proven to be inconclusive at best. Now just a few months later you are once again attempting to take the UK to war with Syria, this time because you now have conclusive evidence of a new and different threat.  Meanwhile, you consider anyone who holds views about 9/11 that are contrary to the official story to be ‘non-violent extremists’.

Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL, which seems to be clouded in uncertainties in terms of exactly who they are, who and how they have been created and supported, and what their wider threat is to the world, I find your comments at the United Nations about the other aspects of this issue to be quite incredible.

9/11 is the event that launched the so called global war on terror and military action in the Middle East.  It is now incontrovertible that we have been deceived and manipulated on a large scale about the true facts of 9/11.  Getting the true facts about 9/11 runs right to the heart of all the issues we currently see in the Middle East and the so called war on terror.  For you to label ordinary, caring, and patriotic members of the public as ‘non-violent extremists’ simply for asking these questions about 9/11 and bringing forward this evidence, and to state that these types of internet sites should be censored, then I have to say that it is you who are the extremist, in the extreme.

The truth facts and evidence about 9/11 are now coming forward and there is a tidal wave of growing awareness as people are now getting to see this information, as shown by what is happening in New York City as we speak.  It cannot be covered up by any crude efforts by the UK government to censor the internet or to give these people an extremist label.  It is far too late for that.  For anyone in office to continue to support the attempted suppression of this information will simply result in them being positioned on the wrong side of history.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Drew – MSc

UK Facilitator – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2581
Everyman decries immorality
The Fun of Empire: Fighting on All Sides of a War in Syria
08/26/2014

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/26/fun-empire-fighting-sides-war/

CBS News, August 18, 2011:

    President Barack Obama officially demanded that Syrian President Bashar Assad resign for the sake of his own people, saying he was no longer fit to lead after “imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people” during a crackdown on pro-reform protesters.

New York Times, October 24, 2012:

    Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.

Barack Obama, August 31, 2013:

    Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. . . . [W]e are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus.

New York Times, today:

    President Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there, but a mounting concern for the White House is how to target the Sunni extremists without helping President Bashar al-Assad. . . . The flights are a significant step toward direct American military action in Syria, an intervention that could alter the battlefield in the nation’s three-year civil war. . . .

    On Monday, Syria warned the White House that it needed to coordinate airstrikes against ISIS or it would view them as a breach of its sovereignty and an “act of aggression.” But it signaled its readiness to work with the United States in a coordinated campaign against the militants.


It was not even a year ago when we were bombarded with messaging that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a Supreme Evil and Grave Threat, and that military action against his regime was both a moral and strategic imperative. The standard cast of “liberal interventionists” –  Tony Blair, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Nicholas Kristof and Samantha Power - issued stirring sermons on the duties of war against Assad. Secretary of State John Kerry actually compared Assad to (guess who?) Hitler, instructing the nation that “this is our Munich moment.” Striking Assad, he argued, “is a matter of national security. It’s a matter of the credibility of the United States of America. It’s a matter of upholding the interests of our allies and friends in the region.”

U.S. military action against the Assad regime was thwarted only by overwhelming American public opinion which opposed it and by a resounding rejection by the UK Parliament of Prime Minister David Cameron’s desire to assume the usual subservient British role in support of American wars.

Now the Obama administration and American political class is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the failed “Bomb Assad!” campaign by starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad – the very same side the U.S. has been arming over the last two years.

It’s as though the U.S. knew for certain all along that it wanted to fight in the war in Syria, and just needed a little time to figure out on which side it would fight. It switched sides virtually on a dime, and the standard Pentagon courtiers of the U.S. media and war-cheering foreign policy elites are dutifully following suit, mindlessly depicting ISIS as an unprecedented combination of military might and well-armed and well-funded savagery (where did they get those arms and funds?). Something very similar happened in Libya: the U.S. spent a decade insisting that a Global War on Terror – complete with full-scale dismantling of basic liberties and political values – was necessary to fight against the Unique Threat of Al Qaeda and “Jihadists”, only to then fight on the same side as them, and arming and empowering them.

Nobody disputes the brutality and extremism of ISIS, but that is a completely different question from whether the U.S. should take military action against it. To begin with, the U.S. not only ignores, but actively supports, all sorts of brutal and extreme parties in the region.

More important, what are air strikes going to accomplish? All one has to do is look at the horrific chaos and misery in Libya - the Successful Humanitarian Intervention™ - to know that bombing Bad People out of existence accomplishes little in the way of strategic or humanitarian value. If one really wants to advocate that the U.S. should destroy or at least seriously degrade ISIS, then one should honestly face what that actually entails, as detailed by the New America Foundation’s Brian Fishman:

    No one has offered a plausible strategy to defeat ISIL that does not include a major U.S. commitment on the ground and the renewal of functional governance on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border. And no one will, because none exists. . . .

    Bombing ISIL will not destroy it. Giving the Kurds sniper rifles or artillery will not destroy it. A new prime minister in Iraq will not destroy it. . . . [W]ar makes the jihadist movement stronger, even in the face of major tactical and operational defeats.

    The conflicts in Syria and Iraq strengthen ISIL because war is the only force terrible enough to hold together a broad and extreme enough Sunni coalition to be amenable to ISIL. Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi recognized this in 2004 and built a strategy of provoking Shia militias in order to consolidate fearful Sunni groups. . .

    Without war, ISIL is a fringe terrorist organization. With war, it is a state. . . . This is where I am supposed to advocate a brilliant strategy to defeat ISIL by Christmas at some surprisingly reasonable cost. But it won’t happen. The cost to defeat ISIL would be very high and would require a multi-year commitment. . . .

    The country must be ready to accept the sacrifices necessary to achieve grand political ends. Until then, any call to “defeat ISIL” that is not forthright about what that will require is actually an argument for expensive failure.


If you like running around sermonizing on the need to destroy ISIS, at least be honest enough to acknowledge what that will really require and then advocate that. Anything short of that is just self-glorifying deceit: donning the costume of Churchillian Resolve and Moral Purpose without any substance.

It seems pretty clear at this point that U.S. military action in the Middle East is the end in itself, and the particular form it takes – even including the side for which the U.S. fights – is an ancillary consideration. That’s how the U.S., in less than a year, can get away with depicting involvement in the war in Syria – on opposite sides – as a national imperative. Ironically, just as was true of Al Qaeda, provoking the U.S. into military action would, for the reasons Fishman explained, help ISIS as well.

But the only clear lesson from all of this is that no matter the propagandistic script used, U.S. military action in that region virtually never fulfills the stated goals (nor is it intended to do so), and achieves little other than justifying endless military action for its own sake. How long before we hear that U.S. military action is needed (again) in Libya to restrain the chaos and extremism unleashed by the NATO intervention in Libya? Does anyone really believe that “limited” bombing of Syria and Iraq in a rage against ISIS will result in anything other than more justifications for military action in that region?


UPDATE: The U.S. “is sharing intelligence about jihadist deployments with Damascus through Iraqi and Russian channels,” the Agence France-Presse reports today, citing one source as saying: “The cooperation has already begun.”

From The New Hitler (back) to U.S. Partner in less than a year: an impressive feat for both Assad and U.S. propaganda.


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2078
Quote
Barack Obama, August 31, 2013:

    Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. . . . [W]e are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus.

Yes, the 'blind eye' of the U.S. is reserved exclusively for the
State of Israel when it conducts its ethnic cleansing of Gaza
and other areas of Palestine.


---------------------------
The animal mind ALWAYS reacts to what it does not understand. This is what sets dogs barking. If you are going to tell the truth, you are going to have to be okay with barking dogs, because they will harry your passage until you pass through town.
Les Visible - 27 February 2020
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2581
Everyman decries immorality
Wake Up, Europe
George Soros

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/wake-up-europe/?insrc=hpss

Europe is facing a challenge from Russia to its very existence. Neither the European leaders nor their citizens are fully aware of this challenge or know how best to deal with it. I attribute this mainly to the fact that the European Union in general and the eurozone in particular lost their way after the financial crisis of 2008.

The fiscal rules that currently prevail in Europe have aroused a lot of popular resentment. Anti-Europe parties captured nearly 30 percent of the seats in the latest elections for the European Parliament but they had no realistic alternative to the EU to point to until recently. Now Russia is presenting an alternative that poses a fundamental challenge to the values and principles on which the European Union was originally founded. It is based on the use of force that manifests itself in repression at home and aggression abroad, as opposed to the rule of law. What is shocking is that Vladimir Putin’s Russia has proved to be in some ways superior to the European Union—more flexible and constantly springing surprises. That has given it a tactical advantage, at least in the near term.

Europe and the United States—each for its own reasons—are determined to avoid any direct military confrontation with Russia. Russia is taking advantage of their reluctance. Violating its treaty obligations, Russia has annexed Crimea and established separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine. In August, when the recently installed government in Kiev threatened to win the low-level war in eastern Ukraine against separatist forces backed by Russia, President Putin invaded Ukraine with regular armed forces in violation of the Russian law that exempts conscripts from foreign service without their consent.

In seventy-two hours these forces destroyed several hundred of Ukraine’s armored vehicles, a substantial portion of its fighting force. According to General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, the Russians used multiple launch rocket systems armed with cluster munitions and thermobaric warheads (an even more inhumane weapon that ought to be outlawed) with devastating effect.* The local militia from the Ukrainian city of Dnepropetrovsk suffered the brunt of the losses because they were communicating by cell phones and could thus easily be located and targeted by the Russians. President Putin has, so far, abided by a cease-fire agreement he concluded with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on September 5, but Putin retains the choice to continue the cease-fire as long as he finds it advantageous or to resume a full-scale assault.

In September, President Poroshenko visited Washington where he received an enthusiastic welcome from a joint session of Congress. He asked for “both lethal and nonlethal” defensive weapons in his speech. However, President Obama refused his request for Javelin hand-held missiles that could be used against advancing tanks. Poroshenko was given radar, but what use is it without missiles? European countries are equally reluctant to provide military assistance to Ukraine, fearing Russian retaliation. The Washington visit gave President Poroshenko a façade of support with little substance behind it.

Equally disturbing has been the determination of official international leaders to withhold new financial commitments to Ukraine until after the October 26 election there (which will take place just after this issue goes to press). This has led to an avoidable pressure on Ukrainian currency reserves and raised the specter of a full-blown financial crisis in the country.

There is now pressure from donors, whether in Europe or the US, to “bail in” the bondholders of Ukrainian sovereign debt, i.e., for bondholders to take losses on their investments as a precondition for further official assistance to Ukraine that would put more taxpayers’ money at risk. That would be an egregious error. The Ukrainian government strenuously opposes the proposal because it would put Ukraine into a technical default that would make it practically impossible for the private sector to refinance its debt. Bailing in private creditors would save very little money and it would make Ukraine entirely dependent on the official donors.

To complicate matters, Russia is simultaneously dangling carrots and wielding sticks. It is offering—but failing to sign—a deal for gas supplies that would take care of Ukraine’s needs for the winter. At the same time Russia is trying to prevent the delivery of gas that Ukraine secured from the European market through Slovakia. Similarly, Russia is negotiating for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to monitor the borders while continuing to attack the Donetsk airport and the port city of Mariupol.

It is easy to foresee what lies ahead. Putin will await the results of the elections on October 26 and then offer Poroshenko the gas and other benefits he has been dangling on condition that he appoint a prime minister acceptable to Putin. That would exclude anybody associated with the victory of the forces that brought down the Viktor Yanukovych government by resisting it for months on the Maidan—Independence Square. I consider it highly unlikely that Poroshenko would accept such an offer. If he did, he would be disowned by the defenders of the Maidan; the resistance forces would then be revived.

Putin may then revert to the smaller victory that would still be within his reach: he could open by force a land route from Russia to Crimea and Transnistria before winter. Alternatively, he could simply sit back and await the economic and financial collapse of Ukraine. I suspect that he may be holding out the prospect of a grand bargain in which Russia would help the United States against ISIS—for instance by not supplying to Syria the S300 missiles it has promised, thus in effect preserving US air domination—and Russia would be allowed to have its way in the “near abroad,” as many of the nations adjoining Russia are called. What is worse, President Obama may accept such a deal.

That would be a tragic mistake, with far-reaching geopolitical consequences. Without underestimating the threat from ISIS, I would argue that preserving the independence of Ukraine should take precedence; without it, even the alliance against ISIS would fall apart. The collapse of Ukraine would be a tremendous loss for NATO, the European Union, and the United States. A victorious Russia would become much more influential within the EU and pose a potent threat to the Baltic states with their large ethnic Russian populations. Instead of supporting Ukraine, NATO would have to defend itself on its own soil. This would expose both the EU and the US to the danger they have been so eager to avoid: a direct military confrontation with Russia. The European Union would become even more divided and ungovernable. Why should the US and other NATO nations allow this to happen?

The argument that has prevailed in both Europe and the United States is that Putin is no Hitler; by giving him everything he can reasonably ask for, he can be prevented from resorting to further use of force. In the meantime, the sanctions against Russia—which include, for example, restrictions on business transactions, finance, and trade—will have their effect and in the long run Russia will have to retreat in order to earn some relief from them.

These are false hopes derived from a false argument with no factual evidence to support it. Putin has repeatedly resorted to force and he is liable to do so again unless he faces strong resistance. Even if it is possible that the hypothesis could turn out to be valid, it is extremely irresponsible not to prepare a Plan B.

There are two counterarguments that are less obvious but even more important. First, Western authorities have ignored the importance of what I call the “new Ukraine” that was born in the successful resistance on the Maidan. Many officials with a history of dealing with Ukraine have difficulty adjusting to the revolutionary change that has taken place there. The recently signed Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine was originally negotiated with the Yanukovych government. This detailed road map now needs adjustment to a totally different situation. For instance, the road map calls for the gradual replacement and retraining of the judiciary over five years whereas the public is clamoring for immediate and radical renewal. As the new mayor of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko, put it, “If you put fresh cucumbers into a barrel of pickles, they will soon turn into pickles.”

Contrary to some widely circulated accounts, the resistance on the Maidan was led by the cream of civil society: young people, many of whom had studied abroad and refused to join either government or business on their return because they found both of them repugnant. (Nationalists and anti-Semitic extremists made up only a minority of the anti-Yanukovych protesters.) They are the leaders of the new Ukraine and they are adamantly opposed to a return of the “old Ukraine,” with its endemic corruption and ineffective government.

The new Ukraine has to contend with Russian aggression, bureaucratic resistance both at home and abroad, and confusion in the general population. Surprisingly, it has the support of many oligarchs, President Poroshenko foremost among them, and the population at large. There are of course profound differences in history, language, and outlook between the eastern and western parts of the country, but Ukraine is more united and more European-minded than ever before. That unity, however, is extremely fragile.

The new Ukraine has remained largely unrecognized because it took time before it could make its influence felt. It had practically no security forces at its disposal when it was born. The security forces of the old Ukraine were actively engaged in suppressing the Maidan rebellion and they were disoriented this summer when they had to take orders from a government formed by the supporters of the rebellion. No wonder that the new government was at first unable to put up an effective resistance to the establishment of the separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine. It is all the more remarkable that President Poroshenko was able, within a few months of his election, to mount an attack that threatened to reclaim those enclaves.

To appreciate the merits of the new Ukraine you need to have had some personal experience with it. I can speak from personal experience although I must also confess to a bias in its favor. I established a foundation in Ukraine in 1990 even before the country became independent. Its board and staff are composed entirely of Ukrainians and it has deep roots in civil society. I visited the country often, especially in the early years, but not between 2004 and early 2014, when I returned to witness the birth of the new Ukraine.

I was immediately impressed by the tremendous improvement in maturity and expertise during that time both in my foundation and in civil society at large. Currently, civic and political engagement is probably higher than anywhere else in Europe. People have proven their willingness to sacrifice their lives for their country. These are the hidden strengths of the new Ukraine that have been overlooked by the West.

The other deficiency of the current European attitude toward Ukraine is that it fails to recognize that the Russian attack on Ukraine is indirectly an attack on the European Union and its principles of governance. It ought to be evident that it is inappropriate for a country, or association of countries, at war to pursue a policy of fiscal austerity as the European Union continues to do. All available resources ought to be put to work in the war effort even if that involves running up budget deficits. The fragility of the new Ukraine makes the ambivalence of the West all the more perilous. Not only the survival of the new Ukraine but the future of NATO and the European Union itself is at risk. In the absence of unified resistance it is unrealistic to expect that Putin will stop pushing beyond Ukraine when the division of Europe and its domination by Russia is in sight.

Having identified some of the shortcomings of the current approach, I will try to spell out the course that Europe ought to follow. Sanctions against Russia are necessary but they are a necessary evil. They have a depressive effect not only on Russia but also on the European economies, including Germany. This aggravates the recessionary and deflationary forces that are already at work. By contrast, assisting Ukraine in defending itself against Russian aggression would have a stimulative effect not only on Ukraine but also on Europe. That is the principle that ought to guide European assistance to Ukraine.

Germany, as the main advocate of fiscal austerity, needs to understand the internal contradiction involved. Chancellor Angela Merkel has behaved as a true European with regard to the threat posed by Russia. She has been the foremost advocate of sanctions on Russia, and she has been more willing to defy German public opinion and business interests on this than on any other issue. Only after the Malaysian civilian airliner was shot down in July did German public opinion catch up with her. Yet on fiscal austerity she has recently reaffirmed her allegiance to the orthodoxy of the Bundesbank—probably in response to the electoral inroads made by the Alternative for Germany, the anti-euro party. She does not seem to realize how inconsistent that is. She ought to be even more committed to helping Ukraine than to imposing sanctions on Russia.

The new Ukraine has the political will both to defend Europe against Russian aggression and to engage in radical structural reforms. To preserve and reinforce that will, Ukraine needs to receive adequate assistance from its supporters. Without it, the results will be disappointing and hope will turn into despair. Disenchantment already started to set in after Ukraine suffered a military defeat and did not receive the weapons it needs to defend itself.

It is high time for the members of the European Union to wake up and behave as countries indirectly at war. They are better off helping Ukraine to defend itself than having to fight for themselves. One way or another, the internal contradiction between being at war and remaining committed to fiscal austerity has to be eliminated. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Let me be specific. In its last progress report, issued in early September, the IMF estimated that in a worst-case scenario Ukraine would need additional support of $19 billion. Conditions have deteriorated further since then. After the Ukrainian elections the IMF will need to reassess its baseline forecast in consultation with the Ukrainian government. It should provide an immediate cash injection of at least $20 billion, with a promise of more when needed. Ukraine’s partners should provide additional financing conditional on implementation of the IMF-supported program, at their own risk, in line with standard practice.

The spending of borrowed funds is controlled by the agreement between the IMF and the Ukrainian government. Four billion dollars would go to make up the shortfall in Ukrainian payments to date; $2 billion would be assigned to repairing the coal mines in eastern Ukraine that remain under the control of the central government; and $2 billion would be earmarked for the purchase of additional gas for the winter. The rest would replenish the currency reserves of the central bank.

The new assistance package would include a debt exchange that would transform Ukraine’s hard currency Eurobond debt (which totals almost $18 billion) into long-term, less risky bonds. This would lighten Ukraine’s debt burden and bring down its risk premium. By participating in the exchange, bondholders would agree to accept a lower interest rate and wait longer to get their money back. The exchange would be voluntary and market-based so that it could not be mischaracterized as a default. Bondholders would participate willingly because the new long-term bonds would be guaranteed—but only partially—by the US or Europe, much as the US helped Latin America emerge from its debt crisis in the 1980s with so-called Brady bonds (named for US Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady).

Such an exchange would have a few important benefits. One is that, over the next two or three critical years, the government could use considerably less of its scarce hard currency reserves to pay off bondholders. The money could be used for other urgent needs.

By trimming Ukraine debt payments in the next few years, the exchange would also reduce the chance of a sovereign default, discouraging capital flight and arresting the incipient run on the banks. This would make it easier to persuade owners of Ukraine’s banks (many of them foreign) to inject urgently needed new capital into them. The banks desperately need bigger capital cushions if Ukraine is to avoid a full-blown banking crisis, but shareholders know that a debt crisis could cause a banking crisis that wipes out their equity.

Finally, Ukraine would keep bondholders engaged rather than watch them cash out at 100 cents on the dollar as existing debt comes due in the next few years. This would make it easier for Ukraine to reenter the international bond markets once the crisis has passed. Under the current conditions it would be more practical and cost-efficient for the US and Europe not to use their own credit directly to guarantee part of Ukraine’s debt, but to employ intermediaries such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the World Bank and its subsidiaries.

The Ukrainian state-owned company Naftogaz is a black hole in the budget and a major source of corruption. Naftogaz currently sells gas to households for $47 per thousand cubic meters (TCM), for which it pays $380 per TCM. At present people cannot control the temperature in their apartments. A radical restructuring of Naftogaz’s entire system could reduce household consumption at least by half and totally eliminate Ukraine’s dependence on Russia for gas. That would involve charging households the market price for gas. The first step would be to install meters in apartments and the second to distribute a cash subsidy to needy households.

The will to make these reforms is strong both in the new management and in the incoming government but the task is extremely complicated (how do you define who is needy?) and the expertise is inadequate. The World Bank and its subsidiaries could sponsor a project development team that would bring together international and domestic experts to convert the existing political will into bankable projects. The initial cost would exceed $10 billion but it could be financed by project bonds issued by the European Investment Bank and it would produce very high returns.

It is also high time for the European Union to take a critical look at itself. There must be something wrong with the EU if Putin’s Russia can be so successful even in the short term. The bureaucracy of the EU no longer has a monopoly of power and it has little to be proud of. It should learn to be more united, flexible, and efficient. And Europeans themselves need to take a close look at the new Ukraine. That could help them recapture the original spirit that led to the creation of the European Union. The European Union would save itself by saving Ukraine.

—October 23, 2014

Some interesting comments about this article over at zerohedge:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-23/george-soros-slams-putin-warns-existential-threat-russia

Can you smell the desperation ?


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2581
Everyman decries immorality
Christopher Bollyn on meaning of Israeli cartoon depicting Netanyahu as 9/11 pilot

Israeli Cartoon Depicts Netanyahu as 9-11 Pilot

October 31, 2014

http://12160.info/page/christopher-bollyn-on-meaning-of-israeli-cartoon-depicting-netany

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- Arthur Schopenhauer

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."
- Benjamin Netanyahu, quoted in Ha'aretz, "Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel", April 16, 2008

Source: "Controversial cartoon depicts Netanyahu as 9/11 pilot"
by J.C. Sevcik, UPI, October 30, 2014

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/10/30/Controversial-cartoon-depicts-Netanyahu-as-911-pilot/9201414700027/

Ha'aretz, one of Israel's leading newspapers, published a cartoon by Amos Biderman on October 30, 2014, depicting the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, as a terrorist pilot flying a plane into one of the towers of the World Trade Center.

Taken at face value, the cartoon indicates that Israeli intellectuals like Biderman are well aware of the findings of my 9-11 research, published in the Solving 9-11 set of books, i.e. that Netanyahu was one of the architects of the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11.  It is well known that political cartoonists are able to broach difficult subjects before they can be openly discussed in the mainstream media.

The controversial Biderman cartoon showing Netanyahu as a terrorist pilot on 9-11 reminds me of the quotation of Arthur Schopenhauer: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

It seems to me that we have now reached the third stage of 9-11 truth:  it is now self-evident that Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, Michael Chertoff, and a host of senior members of Israeli intelligence were the real architects and perpetrators of the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11.


---------------------------
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.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 530
Out of the three of you, only one came out with any honour.

and a word to a RAT.. you would be naive to think I did not notice the timing..

wattsup.. word of advice fella.. around here we do not organise 'movements', we are not figurehead leaders of men. We are mostly old souls who spend our last remaining time on this planet attempting to circumvent technological suppression and to teach people to fish. What we do not do is set ourselves up for assassination via organising global strikes that would achieve the square root of fuck all on the big picture.. think before you speak as in the current climate you endanger all of us with such a reckless act!

@evolvingape

Sorry you feel that way. It was simply an analysis of the worlds main problem and how to deal with it for the regular Joe or Jane. For me, it's simply another problem looking for a solution. Dangerous or not never crossed my mind as I am just as an observer doing a cold analysis of an Earthly viral disease called "Cabalism". Find an antidote and a vaccine (without the mercury) and you will save the world, or, at least buy it a few more centuries.

One question: What do you mean by "came out with any honor and the word RAT?

wattsup



---------------------------
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2581
Everyman decries immorality
Thousands of people died on 9/11, more than a million people have died since 9/11, and many are still dying now today because of 9/11.

Having a random and irrelevant off topic discussion in this thread is hard to imagine let alone participate in. Grumage recognised this and said so, retaining honour, you did not wattsup.

The RAT knows who he is and so do a lot of people, leave it at that for now.

Protests lead to violence, violence leads to death. I do not think you want that on your conscience.

No more discussion off topic from me, if you want to talk about other stuff start another thread ok.


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2581
Everyman decries immorality
A little history on Bonfire Night, the human race is at a turning point; be careful what you wish for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot

The British government is leading a gunpowder plot against democracy

This bill of corporate rights threatens to blow the sovereignty of parliament unless it can be stopped

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/british-government-leading-gunpowder-plot-democracy-eu-us-trade

On this day a year ago, I was in despair. A dark cloud was rising over the Atlantic, threatening to blot out some of the freedoms our ancestors lost their lives to secure. The ability of parliaments on both sides of the ocean to legislate on behalf of their people was at risk from an astonishing treaty that would grant corporations special powers to sue governments. I could not see a way of stopping it.

Almost no one had heard of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US, except those who were quietly negotiating it. And I suspected that almost no one ever would. Even the name seemed perfectly designed to repel public interest. I wrote about it for one reason: to be able to tell my children that I had not done nothing.

To my amazement, the article went viral. As a result of the public reaction and the involvement of remarkable campaigners, the European commission and the British government responded. The Stop TTIP petition now carries more than 750,000 signatures; the 38 Degrees petition has 910,000. Last month there were 450 protest actions across 24 member states. The commission was forced to hold a public consultation about the most controversial aspect, and 150,000 people responded. Never let it be said that people cannot engage with complex issues.

Nothing has yet been won. Corporations and governments – led by the UK – are mobilising to thwart this uprising. But their position slips a little every month. When the British minister responsible at the time, Ken Clarke, responded to my first articles, he insisted that “nothing could be more foolish” than making the European negotiating position public, as I’d proposed. But last month the commission was obliged to do just this. It’s beginning to look as if the fight against TTIP could become a historic victory for people against corporate power.

The central problem is what the negotiators call investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The treaty would allow corporations to sue governments before an arbitration panel composed of corporate lawyers, at which other people have no representation, and which is not subject to judicial review.

Already, thanks to the insertion of ISDS into much smaller trade treaties, big business is engaged in an orgy of litigation, whose purpose is to strike down any law that might impinge on its anticipated future profits. The tobacco firm Philip Morris is suing governments in Uruguay and Australia for trying to discourage people from smoking. The oil firm Occidental was awarded $2.3bn in compensation from Ecuador, which terminated the company’s drilling concession in the Amazon after finding that Occidental had broken Ecuadorean law. The Swedish company Vattenfall is suing the German government for shutting down nuclear power. An Australian firm is suing El Salvador’s government for $300m for refusing permission for a goldmine over concerns it would poison the drinking water.

The same mechanism, under TTIP, could be used to prevent UK governments from reversing the privatisation of the railways and the NHS, or from defending public health and the natural world against corporate greed. The corporate lawyers who sit on these panels are beholden only to the companies whose cases they adjudicate, who at other times are their employers.

As one of these people commented: “When I wake up at night and think about arbitration, it never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all … Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament.”

So outrageous is this arrangement that even the Economist, usually the champion of corporate power and trade treaties, has now come out against it. It calls investor-state dispute settlement “a way to let multinational companies get rich at the expense of ordinary people”.

When David Cameron and the corporate press launched their campaign against the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker for president of the European commission, they claimed that he threatened British sovereignty. It was a perfect inversion of reality. Juncker, seeing the way the public debate was going, promised in his manifesto that “I will not sacrifice Europe’s safety, health, social and data protection standards … on the altar of free trade … Nor will I accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the EU member states is limited by special regimes for investor disputes.” Juncker’s crime was that he had pledged not to give away as much of our sovereignty to corporate lawyers as Cameron and the media barons demanded.

Juncker is now coming under extreme pressure. Last month 14 states wrote to him, privately and without consulting their parliaments, demanding the inclusion of ISDS (the letter was leaked a few days ago). And who is leading this campaign? The British government. It’s hard to get your head around the duplicity involved. While claiming to be so exercised about our sovereignty that it is prepared to leave the EU, our government is secretly insisting that the European commission slaughter our sovereignty on behalf of corporate profits. Cameron is leading a gunpowder plot against democracy.

He and his ministers have failed to answer the howlingly obvious question: what’s wrong with the courts? If corporations want to sue governments, they already have a right to do so, through the courts, like anyone else. It’s not as if, with their vast budgets, they are disadvantaged in this arena. Why should they be allowed to use a separate legal system, to which the rest of us have no access? What happened to the principle of equality before the law?

If our courts are fit to deprive citizens of their liberty, why are they unfit to deprive corporations of anticipated future profits? Let’s not hear another word from the defenders of TTIP until they have answered this question.

It cannot be ducked for much longer. Unlike previous treaties, this one is being dragged by campaigners into the open, where its justifications shrivel on exposure to the light. There’s a tough struggle to come, and the outcome is by no means certain, but my sense is that we will win.

George Monbiot   
    The Guardian, Tuesday 4 November 2014 20.16 GMT   


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2581
Everyman decries immorality
25 Points of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/926-25-points-of-specific-concern-in-the-nist-wtc-reports.html

The End of the Road for NIST

By Tony Szamboti

Editor's Note: In recent years, various members of the AE911Truth team have been working on a white paper titled “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports.” Last month they finally completed the document. Its 25 concise points offer the most convincing proof that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the September 11, 2001, destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings were unscientific and fraudulent. The authors of "The 25 Points" designed the document to provide material that would compel the convening of a grand jury. Whether or not a grand jury is ever impaneled in any jurisdiction, though, readers of this white paper have the duty and privilege of acting as a virtual grand jury in all jurisdictions. After weighing the evidence meticulously laid out in "The 25 Points," readers can, by their resulting actions, help determine whether there will one day be a new, fully funded, truly independent, wholly transparent, and unimpeachably honest investigation of 9/11.


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2078
It is now well known by most "Truthers" that 9/11
symbolized continuation of the occult plan long
in progress.

Quote from: John Kaminski - The Rebel.Org
You must know by now that Arabs living in caves in Afghanistan did not knock down the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001, murdering three thousand people in the process. You must know that all the subsequent USA wars since that have murdered millions of innocent people were total frauds meant to rob defenseless countries of their wealth based on the false pretext of 9/11 and the phony terror hysteria it precipitated.

You must know by now that the U.S. government and mainstream media continue to insist the 9/11 Arab hijacker story is true, and that this false fact is being taught in public schools, creating the unfortunate situation in which the government echoed by the media is foisting a deliberately false view of history on the people it pretends to govern, inform and protect.

You must know by now that Osama bin Laden died ten years before Barack Obama said he did. You must know that Obama ordered the murders of Seal Team 6 before any of those principled individuals could reveal the lie the president told to boost his election chances.

You must know by now that Saddam Hussein didn’t have the weapons of mass destruction which led to the United States “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq that murdered more than a million innocent people. You must know that the deal was about stealing Iraqi oil, which has been accomplished.

You must know by now that the invasion of Afghanistan was a giant hoax to protect poppy production so the CIA could sell more heroin on the streets of the world. You must know that all those American soldiers who have come home and committed suicide have done it out of shame for the needless atrocities they were involved in.

You must know by now that Muammar Qaddafi wasn’t cruel to his Libyan people like Barack Obama said he was, that he provided free houses to newlyweds and free college for everyone and had a notion to make all of Africa independent of white exploitation with its own currency. You must know that he was unjustly murdered and raped in the street after Obama declared a no fly zone over Libya in order to steal billions of dollars in gold he possessed.

You must know by now that no children died at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The school had been closed for years because of asbestos problems, and dozens of people in town got their houses bought for them for participating in the colossal charade. You must know that this is the most bizarre event in American history, even more bizarre than the false flag 9/11 demolition.

You must know by now that no Jews were gassed by Germans during World War II, and that the so-called Jewish Holocaust was a colossal hoax. You must know that the Associated Press reported in 1947 that only 271,000 or so people died in all the work camps, and those deaths were caused by starvation when Allied bombings cut off the supply lines to the camps.

You must know by know that Adolf Hitler put forth nine different peace proposals prior to World War II and that the so-called allies — the U.S., Britain and the USSR — were all run by Jews intent on stamping out the greatest threat to Jewish world financial hegemony that the world has ever known.

You must know by now that Hellstorm, the greatest book on what America did to the Germans AFTER World War II, is now available in its entirety at:

http://therebel.org/en/books/history/809699-thomas-goodrich-hellstorm

You must know by now that Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t kill John F. Kennedy, and that the job was orchestrated by Lyndon Johnson, David Ben Gurion, Sam Giancana, George H. W. Bush and many other familiar names on the American political scene who couldn’t stand the idea that JFK was trying to be an honest president and ruin the financial scam of the Jews who owned the Federal Reserve.

You must know by now that no American president has ever been honest — and lived.

You must know by now that the FBI has fabricated virtually all the so-called terror events since 9/11.

You must know by now that Russia didn’t start the massacres in the Ukraine, the U.S. backed Mossad hit team that hijacked the Ukrainian government did.

You must know by now that the Bolshevik Revolution was a completely Jewish operation and wound up murdering 100 million non Jewish individuals during the course of the 20th century. Why the U.S. chose Stalin rather than Hitler to support is one of the key questions in American history.

You must know by now that we didn’t go to the moon, because humans can’t survive the radiation above the Van Allen belt.

You must know by now that anybody who talks about ETs or beings from other dimensions is, knowingly or unknowingly, helping the Jewish world conquerors remain invisible by deflecting attention from their criminal activities and misdirecting it toward these constructed fantasies.

You must know by now that Iran never intended to possess nuclear weapons; their chief ayatollah wouldn’t permit them. You must know that Israel has always wanted all its neighbors in a state of convulsed disarray so that they can’t focus their wrath on the criminal Israeli state, the racist hideaway of criminals from all over the world.

You must know by now that the United States broke every treaty it ever made with the American Indian tribes, and pretty much has broken every treaty it has made with countries around the world.

You must know by now that all American elections are fixed by various computer program shenanigans.

You must know by know that your current president, an outright homosexual, is married to a man.

You must know by know that your previous president had overnight visits from an ex-Marine male escort bodybuilder.
You must know by now that Richard Nixon had a homosexual lover named Bebe Rebozo.

You must know by now that Lyndon Johnson supervised the murder of John F. Kennedy and had a lover named Mathilde Krim, who was also a Mossad agent.

You must know by now that Martin Luther King was murdered by an Army sniper, and that James Earl Ray took the fall for something he didn’t do.

You must know by now that Bobby Kennedy was killed by a shot from a bodyguard from behind and that Sirhan Sirhan never knew what happened that night.

You must know by now that cigarettes contain radioactive polonium for the purpose of population control.

You must know by now that genetically modified wheat is a poison meant to reduce the human population.

You must know by now that the weather is no longer natural and that Hurricane Sandy was a deliberately engineered storm.

You must know by now that the IRS is a private company, funneling all its profits to the Queen of England.

You must know by now that there is no law compelling most Americans to pay income taxes.

You must know by now that Jews believe it is their Talmudic duty to kill or enslave all the non Jews of the world. You must know that Jews regard all non Jews as animals whom it is OK to kill as long as they don’t get caught. You must also know that Jews control all the courts of the civilized world, and non Jews will never receive justice in any court as long as they are opposed by a Jew, because all the judges are approved by the Jews and all the lawyers are trained by the Jews.

You must know by now that Jews trumpet the shibboleth of “strength in diversity” for all countries it sabotages by race mixing, but strictly prohibits the intrusion of any non Jews in Israel because Jews know the introduction of foreign races into any homogenous population inevitably destroys that country with endless conflict, thereby creating more money making opportunities for Jews who support both sides and foment further strife.

You must know by now that the so-called people running the United States will admit to none of these truths listed here, and that the Department of Homeland Security was created to protect only the Jews, and not the rest of the American people, which is why 97 percent of DHS funding goes to Jewish organizations to assist with the elimination of the non Jewish population.

You must know by now that Americans are the most deluded populace ever to live on this planet, thinking that they themselves are heroes while their government goes around ravaging the world for fun and profit. And not just that, that the government Americans have put in charge of themselves is busily and continuously trying to kill its own citizens to adhere to the dictates of the world Jewish organization to kill or enslave the entire non Jewish population of the world.

You must know by now that if you don’t know everything on this list, your life is in grave jeopardy and your life expectancy is much shorter than you realize.

This would be a good checklist to run past your favorite local elected official to make you realize how important it is to vote him (or her) out of office as soon as humanly possible.

Even now, the plan goes on to its conclusion.

We have yet to see the worst.


---------------------------
The animal mind ALWAYS reacts to what it does not understand. This is what sets dogs barking. If you are going to tell the truth, you are going to have to be okay with barking dogs, because they will harry your passage until you pass through town.
Les Visible - 27 February 2020
   
Group: Guest
It is now well known by most "Truthers" that 9/11
symbolized continuation of the occult plan long
in progress.

Even now, the plan goes on to its conclusion.

We have yet to see the worst.


Good post and thank you for the book.

I do have to question one assertion though:
"You must know by now that cigarettes contain radioactive polonium for the purpose of population control."

I know there are a lot of nasty chemicals in cigarettes, but I have yet to detect any above baseline levels of radiation in them.  Maybe Philip Morris is slacking on their agenda a bit.
   
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 ... 100
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2020-09-26, 04:13:47