OT - What do you think and feel about this,...

[lambic2000]

Originally posted by CJFusco
"Even so, I would not believe everything that the government tells me, if I were you.

Unless there's a liberal Democrat in office, right?

Stephen

[hoff944]

Nice one lambic2000. Make that a liberal bedwetting socialist democrat.

[carolinus]

If any of you believe everything that either party tells you, then you are just as bad as the other. It is proven that neither party is to be completely trusted with our liberty.

[Sternn]

In response to the comments about Osama and Sadaam.

First, Sadamm has been in power ruling Iraq since the 70's. During the 80's he was our 'ally'. Our country, including Rumsfeld who personally met with him and during a 20/20 interview during the 80's which you can find on my website called him a 'great human being' and an all around 'nice guy'. Now he is all of a sudden the sporn of satan.

Sadaam has never attacked the US in his whole history of being in power. The only weapons he has he got FROM us, and most are out dated.

Also, for those not familar with the Iran/Iraq war that went on for a few decades, those countries HATE each other. Why? Factional muslims fight with each other over who is right. Thats why the Osama link is not possible. Sunni's and ****te's will NEVER 'team up' because both are sworn enemies. They have been trying to kill off each other for years, and Osama sits on the opposite side of the table from Sadaam. To think they would consider joining forces is ludicris if you have every studied any of their beliefs or culture.

Also, why did we have a first Gulf war? Because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Well, if you check some of the articles I have links to from the Washington Post and MSNBC, you will find there was more to the original story as well.

After the Iran/Iraq war was over, Iraq was left with this arsenal we gave them. We wanted to take it back, but had no idea how. Luckily a sisutaiton occured which allowed us to do it and keep the moral high ground. Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields. They knew it, we knew it, everyone knew it. Iraq sent a team of diplomats to the US and to the UN to address the issue. The UN declined to address the issue, so Iraq went to the Bush I administration (Sadaam spoke with Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25 1990 in a documented conversation) in which she said and I quote:

"We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

After Sadaam laid out his evidence of slant oil drilling and his plans of stopping Kuwait by sending in troops. He took this as a green light from the US to attack with their support, but he had no idea there were forces mounting against him.

The minute his troops crossed the border Bush sent our forces into action. We were going to 'save' Kuwait. This is after we just basically in no so many words told Sadaam to invade. Why? Now we have a reason to go in and destroy and take back all those weapons we gave him.

So, anyone who thinks the guy is some mad raving lunatic, is not totally wrong, but he has be in power for a few decades and has managed to keep his country going and the people happy. If he was some crazy man, the people would rise up against him, like they do in countries across Africa on a monthly basis.

If we are really worried about going after crazed despots, we should start in Africa. Anyone watching the international news (because our country only shows us the stuff they want us to see). Right now in the Congo there is a civil war going on and the troops are EATING and COOKING their enemies alive. Thats right. Why are we not stopping that? What about Mugabe? What about Zaire? Anyone remember Somalia (The country from Blackhawk Down)? There are crazy warlords who ARE a threat to their countries and to the world as a whole, but we are just focused on Iraq. At any given time there is an average of 41 armed conflicts going on around the globe, most do not involve us (CIA statistic 2002). Why are we not 'stepping in' to help the underdogs in these conflicts? Why do they only get news coverage in Europe and Australia?

Simple, no money, no profit, and we don't help anyone unless we are helping ourselves.

[overkill]

If he is not a lunatic then why did he test his own bio/chem weapons on his own people? Or that never happened? I was told that he tortures and kills inocent people. I heard that if anyone spoke against himthe were killed on the spot. True?

[Sternn]

Hah, I guess the filter is part of the Sunni faction because it won't let me say S-H-I-T-T-I-E!

Anyway the testing of weapons on hisown people is like the story of him ripping babies from incubators, its all propoganda. As far as him gassing the Kurds, well the CIA came out 2 weeks ago and said he didn't even do that.

The Kurds are yet another Muslim faction who wants to break off and have their own country. If a state in the US decided to do that, do you think our government would let them?

The Kurds have been having armed conflicts with the Iraqi government for years. While we were 'allies' with Sadaam, we helped surpress and kill the Kurds, now we are like 'they should be free'. Thats why the Kurds hate us too, because we GAVE Sadaam gas to use on them, now we want to 'help' free them, something they have been fighting over for quite sometime, but until now it hasn't been part of our agenda, but now the money is there we back the people we tried to kill and kill the people we used to back.

The Kurds were actually gassed by the Iranians. This was proven through autopsies which just came to light, plus the pictures can show more than most people realize, which is why they stopped showing them on the news.

See, the Iraqi's during this time had mustard gas. They were trying to make VX a form of nerve gas, but did not have the technology at the time to make or produce it. We gave them mustard gas, even though it's use is banned under the second Geneva Convention. See, the bodies of the Kurds were tested and found to contain a blood agent (a cyanide based gas) which the Iranians were known to use and the Iraqi's did not possess and could not manufacture. This means the Kurds found at Halabja (the location this story originated from) were killed by Iranians during a border battle.

This was reported on 1/31/2003 in the New York Times by a former Iraqi Analyst for the CIA who now teaches at the US Army War College.

http://www.theaxisofevil.net/article.asp?id=323

Bush I knew this went he made this remark, as did GW, and like the information Powell presented which also has now been proven to all be false (see the Washington Post and New York Times pretty much all of last week), the people only hear the initial report, then the subsequent report which shows its false is either not printed or hidden in a small article on the back page, while our own government continues to sell it as the truth.

Why? As Lenin said, if you tell someone something is the truth long enough, they will believe it. And he was right.

On a side note, Bush must really like Lenin and Hitler, I have another aritcle and noticed myself that in at least three of his speeches he has given on TV that he has ripped lines directly from Lenin and Hitler. If that doesn't worry you, when your elected official is regurgitating lines used by Hitler and Lenin, then your not paying attention.

-S

[hoff944]

The Washington Post and the New York times are two of the most liberal news papers. Of course it will show it is all false. Their hate for Americans is more than their hate for each other which is why Saddam wants to unite the Arab world. Ahmed Yassin, the leader of Hamas is calling on Muslims to attack Americans and Westerners the moment a military action is launched against Saddam Hussein. “Strike them everywhere.” So would it be okay if we were to keep a careful eye on Muslims when this all comes down? I'm sure we'd be accused of racial profiling then, but I digress. If Saddam and Osama were at odds with each other, I think Saddam would have no problem whatsoever with selling weapons to Osama and his chronies. We might have given Saddam weapons at the time, but different times call for different measures, different administrations, etc.

[Sternn]

I wouldn't go as far to label those paper liberal. If those are the liberal newspapers, which ones would you consider conservative?

I have links to articles echoing the same sentiments in a few dozen papers around the country (San Francisco Gate, LA Times, Miami Herald, Florida Sun, and a few others). Plus I have links to dozens more around the world all over Europe, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

Are all the state just runnning liberal news? Are all other countries doing the same?

In fact, here are just a few of the links:

One from the Toronto Star today:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035777647520&call_page=TS_Columnists&call_pageid=970599109774&call_pagepath=Columnists

One from the Observer in England:

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,892112,00.html


One from Harry Browne [He's not liberal, he's a Libertarian! ]

http://www.theaxisofevil.net/article.asp?id=385

And the infamous 'leaked' evidence sent to news agencies and websites everywhere - it has links to every major news source and cites its sources well, and proves that every statement Powell made was a lie. I mirrored it on my site and you can find it here.

http://www.theaxisofevil.net/article.asp?id=387

It also contains evidence found on .MIL websites and other government sites which directly contridict statements Powell made. You have to love the internet.

-S

[CJFusco]

"Make that a liberal bedwetting socialist democrat."

See, what'd I say? People who can't back up their arguments with fact and logic eventually stoop to name-calling. Interesting that none of us "liberal bedwetting socialists" have been forced to call names.

"If any of you believe everything that either party tells you, then you are just as bad as the other. It is proven that neither party is to be completely trusted with our liberty."

You're right; a politician's a politician. I trust neither party, as their actions in office are more than often identical to the other side's.

Here is some information on the FIRST Gulf War:

"But those motives [of Kuwaiti oil] were not presented to the American public. It was told that the United States wanted to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi control. The major media dwelled on this as a reason for war, without noting that other countries had been invaded without the United States showing such concern (East Timor by Indonesia, Iran by Iraq, Lebanon by Israel, Mozambique by South Africa; to say nothing of countries invaded by the U.S. itself - Grenada, Panama)...

...Bush seemed determined to go to war. Iraq had made several attempts to negotiate thier withdrawl from Kuwait once they learned of the oncoming U.S. attack, including an Iraqi proposal reported on August 29 by NEWSDAY... but there was no response from the United States...

... Although in the course of the war Saddam Hussein had been depicted by U.S. officials and press as another Hitler, the war ended short of a march into Baghdad, leaving Hussein in power. It seemed that the United States wanted to weaken him, but not to eliminate him, in order to keep him as a balance against Iran. In the years before the Gulf War, the United States had sold arms to both Iran and Iraq, at different times favoring one or the other as part of a traditional 'balance of power' strategy."

-Howard Zinn, THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

"The benefits [of winning the Gulf War] are undeniably impressive... U.S. military power is henceforth likely to be taken more seriously... the Middle East and Persian Gulf region is now clearly an American sphere of prepoderance...

... [there are some] negative consequences [to the war]. The very intensity of the air attack on Iraq gives rise to concern that the conduct of the war may come to be seen as evidence that Americans view Arab lives as worthless... and that raises the moral question of the proportionality of response."

- Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor

[944S Boyeee]

First off, I'm very offended that my comments have been "discounted by pretty much everyone here"!!! - actually, I'm not offended - but it is fun to pretend I care what people think of my thoughts.

I'm going to type my views only this one time (as it is long) and from now on, I'll simply state "see my long post" whenever I fell the need to put my .2 worth in.

Let's put on our "exploring caps for a moment". I'm not saying Saddam is a good man - but I do think he isn't as bad as we all think. I'm not saying Bush is a bad man - but I do think he isn't as good as we all think.

Just so everyone knows - I'm not pro or con ANYONE. My fear is of the Illuminati (the people who really run the whole show around Earth).

The illuminati are coming for your freedom and fasssssssst!
I for one will fight to the death for my freedom. Otherwise, life is not
worth living - but I'm not going to kill innocents to "gain that freedom".

Well, I quit watching news on TV because all 198 channels keep saying the same thing.

What I find rather interesting though, is that very few people in the
internet discussion groups believe any of it.
Shades of Oklahoma City Batman... doesn't anybody but the couch potatoes of the world believe George Bush?

Here are three rather interesting articles I pulled for your perusal.
There are tons more at http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html
How come Americans don't believe their own president?

IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE FORCE BEHIND THE U.S. ATROCITIES JUST ASK: WHO BENEFITS?

"Nothing would be what it is, Because everything would be what it isn't.
And contrary-wise -what it is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it
would. You see?" - Alice in Wonderland.

The force that seeks to control this world and introduce its global
fascist state, the network I call the Illuminati, is nothing if not predictable.

The unbelievable horror perpetrated on the cities of New York and
Washington is a problem-reaction-solution sting on the collective mind of all humanity and I have been expecting an event of this magnitude for some years. I thought it could be a war or a nuclear "terrorist" device, but something fantastic was always going to happen during the years of the Bush presidency when the agenda would be pressed forward with a gathering pace.

Fast as the world was being moved towards global centralised fascism, it
was still not fast enough to match the timescale demanded by the Illuminati agenda. And the opposition to their globalisation plans and their assaults on freedom, was gathering by the day. It was clear that something of enormous magnitude was being orchestrated that would so devastate the collective human mind with fear, horror, and insecurity, that "solutions" could be offered that would advance the agenda in a colossal leap almost overnight. This is what we saw in America on the ritually-significant eleventh day of the ninth month - 911 is the number for emergencies in the United States. Ritual and esoteric codes are at the heart of everything the Illuminati undertakes.

And, mind-numbing as these atrocities are, this is the start, not the end,
of the next cycle of the Illuminati agenda for the mental, emotional,
spiritual, and physical imprisonment of humankind. More and more death and destruction will unfold as the "Free World" unites as an (in affect) world army and world government to use the threat of "terrorism" (their own) to justify a war against the people and countries they choose to take the rap for what the very forces WITHIN the "free world" are themselves responsible for. Even war with the Islamic peoples is not the end, but the means to an end - a conflict with the remaining forces of communism, which they also control. Remember that the Illuminati operate through every country and within "terrorist" organisations and those agencies which "oppose" such terrorism. Only by having agents within all "sides" can they be sure of controlling the game and knowing the outcome before it starts. The Illuminati have operatives within the Islamic world, just as they have them in the so-called "free world", as we shall see in the months to come.

Saddam Hussein is every bit as much a knowing Illuminati pawn as Father George and Boy George Bush in America, for example (see "And The Truth Shall Set You Free").

The predictability of the ritualistic, emotionless, reptilian mind can be
seen in the news management that has followed this U.S. disaster. Look at what always happens in these circumstances and you will see that the
blueprint is the same in almost every case. Before the event happens the fall-guy or "patsy" is already set up to take the blame, thus steering the public mind away from dangerous speculation and onto a pre-ordained target.

After the Kennedy assassination it was Lee Harvey Oswald; after Oklahoma it was Timothy McVeigh; now it is Osama Bin Laden/Saddam.

Bin Laden, deeply misguided as he may be, is no more responsible for what happened on 9/11 than I am. His name was introduced with the most obvious co-ordination immediately after the disaster unfolded in the same way that the background to Lee Harvey Oswald was being circulated BEFORE President Kennedy was even dead.

The idea that this guy from the mountains of Afghanistan with far more
mouth than substance could be the "Mr. Big" of this enormous operation is utterly insulting to anyone of even basic intelligence. We are not talking a parcel bomb here, nor even some mind-controlled fanatic driving a car bomb into a restaurant in Jerusalem. Four commercial airliners had to be simultaneously hi-jacked in American air space via American airports and flown into highly specific targets within 45 minutes of each other. How was this possible?

Because it was an inside job, that's how, orchestrated by forces WITHIN
the United States and planned by the highest levels of U.S. "Intelligence" in co-ordination with other strands of the Illuminati spider's web worldwide.

With an army now of mind-controlled assets at their disposal, it is possible to get them to do anything they require once the mind is programmed and the trigger given to activate them. Those responsible for hi-jacking those planes and flying them into buildings will, in their conscious mind, have believed in the "cause" they were programmed to believe in. But in truth they were not hi-jacking and flying those planes, their programming was.

Mind control is now so sophisticated that such programming is almost
child's play.

...continued..........

944s Boyeee

[Sternn]

Not a personal attack hoff944, but a serious question to address an issue I see often.

You say, and I quote:

"I think Saddam would have no problem whatsoever with selling weapons to Osama and his chronies"

That is the big issue most people don't see today and our government is selling you on, and you don't even know it. First, you said 'I think' as opposed to 'I know' or 'I'm Sure'. You have an opinion on it, which is good, I'm not attacking that. I'm just pointing out your statement itself says you have reservations on some level about what you believe to be true.

I'm in the same boat don't get me wrong. Do I think Sadaam would sell arms to his enemy to fight another enemy? Maybe. Basically the same answer you gave, however, what caught my attention was the justification you gave, which was none.

I get that daily from people when discussing these issues. People say 'Sadaam is a threat' and 'We have to invade Iraq'. I ask why? They respond 'just because' or 'didn't you watch the news'?

I do watch the news. Daily, worldwide, across the globe. Most all news, even the good unedited stuff here in the states is still somewhat slanted to help push the Bush agenda.

Most people don't have active knowledge of Iraq. Most people don't know that it Britain controlled Iraq as a territory until 1932 when they setup a puppet government (monarchy actually) to 'rule' Iraq, since there were so many uprisings and what today many would call 'terrorist' attacks. This worked great until 1958 when the people rose up and through a military coup took the government over and kicked out all British companies and severed most British ties in a protest to the imperialistic rule that had been thrown upon them by an outside invading army.

Britain let them go, because they were losing men left and right in battles all over the country.

Now, people forget the people of that country had the will of an opposing western army throw upon them before, and they eventually rose up and defeated the British. Somehow we are supposed to invade and then hold that country for an indifinate (the Pentagon says 10-20 years) without the people rising up as we take their natural resources and force them to work hard manual labor at wage rates one tenth of what they would make doing the same thing in our own country?

My point being, most people don't see 'the big picture'. They see what CNN tells them. They get their opinions from some guy in a bad suit with an even worse matching tie. They have no idea of what really is causing the conflict other than what they see on TV or read in a daily new paper.

For anyone to say 'I think Sadaam would...' needs to follow up with some evidence of 'why' and it needs to be more than just 'I saw a blurb on the local news'. Why? Because we are talking about a war, which to the chargin of the US public, is not like it appears in the old John Wayne movies. If you have never seen dead bodies, looked into the eyes of a deadman, then you cannot know the true horrors that are involved. Trying to explain the impact of these atrocities to someone who has never seen death on such a large scale is like trying to explain colors to a blind man. The one statistic our government loves to 'leave out' of the news is the amount of dead women, children, and the elderly. When bombs start falling, and they take out power plants, there is no clean water. People in hospitals on life support die. Older patients cannot get the care they need and also die. In fact, in a UN released document today they predict over a hundred thousand children will die, again, if we bomb Iraq. Thats right, we wiped out close to 100,000 last time indavertantly. We didn't drop bombs right on them, but they could not get to food and medical supplies due to the situtation there, and many died, along with the sick and elderly.

You don't see those pictures on the news. You also don't see 'civilians' who get bombed or shot. Thousands left without arms, legs, eyes, or afflicted with other long term disabilities.

Soldiers are not allowed to take pictures. Some do. However possession of pictures from a battle scene is illegal, so I can't say I have any or offer to show them to you. Why are they illegal? Our government likes war to be a nice piece on CNN that fits between Hardball and the Money Report, they want some commentary about how we are helping Iraq, with a backdrop of happy muslims, not pictures of decapitated women and children, starving human beings, or hospitals filled with horrors beyond immagination. These are the things most American's do not see.

To say Sadaam is doing something and not back it up is to say you favor a war without really knowing why. To favor war and what it brings with it, you really should know what you are supporting, not just whats spoon fed to you on US TV at night.

-S

[944S Boyeee]

............

This terror was not a failure of U.S. Intelligence for God's sake. They
were not supposed to uncover the plot and getting weapons onto planes is so much easier if you have support from those who control the system. I have heard that this is another "Pearl Harbor" and yes it is. You can read in .."And The Truth Shall Set You Free" and other books and studies how the American government knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, but they did nothing about it. Why? Because they wanted it to happen for a specific reason - to justify the U.S. entry into the Second World War, which President Roosevelt (a blood relative of the Bushes) had said, just to get elected, that America would not be involved in.

Problem-reaction-solution - and it's the same with the terrible events of 9/11.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the "pin it on bin Laden" campaign was launched as per pre-arranged plan. The Republican Senator and Illuminati stooge, Orrin Hatch, for example, told CNN that he had high-level information from the FBI that bin Laden was behind the unprecedented attacks. "I do have some information," Hatch said in reference to his FBI briefing. "They've come to the conclusion that this looks like it may be the signature of Osama bin Laden, that he may be the one behind this." It's OK, don't go on, Orrin, we get the message and you have done your job.

Then we had the story of the hire car found so conveniently at Boston
airport, where two planes were hijacked, which contained - yes wait for it...... a copy of the Koran and an instruction video for how to fly commercial jets!!!

Am I in fairyland or what? I am surprised they did not claim to have
discovered a letter from bin Laden in the car wishing the occupants the
best of luck with their task. Maybe they plan to "find" that tomorrow, eh? It's unbelievable nonsense, of course it is, but most will believe it. And you will see more and more manufactured "evidence" of the "bin Laden
connection" and his "other" connections (now it's Sadam all of a sudden)systematically revealed in the days and weeks ahead.

So, the question: Who benefits? Well, the Illuminati want a world Government and army, a world currency and centralised global financial dictatorship and control. They want micro-chipped people and a society based on constant surveillance of all kinds at all times. And they want a frightened, docile, subservient, people who give their power away to the "authorities" who can save them from what they have been manipulated to fear.

Funnily enough the question "who benefits from these horrific events in
America?" can be answered very simply: Anyone who wants to introduce the above. The disaster of 9-11, means that:

The Illuminati now have the excuse to retaliate against anyone their
propaganda machine can manipulate the population to believe was to blame.

Attacks against Islamic targets have the potential to be the trigger for
massive conflict and upheaval across the world and especially in the
Middle and Near East. The opportunities to then widen the conflict to involve Russia and China are endless (notice talks aleady of how North Korea now has weapons of mass distruction). A third world war is part of the agenda and this can open the way for that as the dominoes fall.

The "free world united with America" rhetoric from Blair and other "world
leaders" is code for coming together as a world army and police force to
fight a "war against terrorism". Already the Bilderberg-controlled NATO
(the world army in waiting) has pledged such support and the collective
consciousness is being manipulated so comprehensively at this time that
most people will support American and NATO terrorist attacks on substantiated targets in the name of fighting terrorism or protection from a threat. The stunning contradiction in this policy will be lost on the majority blinded by the blatant and intense mind manipulation that has followed the outrages in those U.S. cities.

As conflict escalates as a result of such calculated "retaliation" the
pressure for centralisation of military power and the willingness to
concede that power by the populations of America and elsewhere will gather until the world army is in place, a world army with the power to attack and take over any country that their propaganda machine can demonise.


continued........

944S Boyeee

[944S Boyeee]

........

The collective mind of humanity, and particularly that of America, is
understandably now in a deeply traumatised state. They have been subjected to collective trauma-based mind control and, as any mind controller or researcher can tell you, a traumatised mind is a suggestible mind. So in the wake of the trauma comes the programming to manipulate the population to see events in the desired fashion.

One of the biggest potential obstacles to the "New World Order", the
centrally-controlled fascist global state, is the psyche of most American
people. When faced with the prospect of giving up their right of
self-determination to global military, political, and financial control,
most would be vehemently opposed ONCE they realized what was happening.

Their collective sense of security, confidence, and pride in their nation
and system has been built on the foundations of immense military and
financial strength. It is a collective version of the John Wayne
mentality - "don't mess with us - this is America." From that has come their collective confidence in themselves as a nation. Now that very sense of who they are, and their belief that they have the power to stand alone, is in danger of being devastated.

It is absolutely no co-incidence that the targets of those hi-jacked
planes were the very symbols of America's sense of itself and its own security - the Pentagon, symbol of their military might, and the World Trade Centre, twin pillars of their financial might. This is not primarily an attack on America, it is an attack on America's image and imagination of itself.

Break their spirit and their sense of being "American"; break America's
confidence in itself; put it in fear and fundamental insecurity; and you have overcome the most significant opposition to America allowing itself to be absorbed into the Illuminati's global and centrally-dictated society. The American psyche will now be bombarded with more and more shocks to its security and sense of self, as with Oklahoma and the school shootings in the past. But from now on everything will be increased dramatically (Anthrax, Nukes, Bio-war, etc.). It is vital that Americans refuse to submit to this and realise that those who are condemning the terrorism in their midst are those who are responsible for it.

I am very staggered at what a controlled society the "Land of the Free" really is (though still not as bad as Canada). Now in the wake of this tragedy, the United States, and other countries, are set to become a fortress of invasive surveillance and, what's more, because of what has happened, the American people will not utter a significant word of protest at the rapid expansion of this Big Brother society. Problem-reaction-solution. Watch for micro-chipping of people to be suggested to "stop the terrorists". Some on this forum have already said they would support such an idea - super scary!!!

An economic disaster has long been predicted by those who have exposed and studied the Illuminati agenda. To overcome resistance to single currencies and central control of global finance, they need a world economic crash that will destroy the present system and kid the people into accepting centralised global control as the only way to overcome the crash - the Euro dollar is a start to this idea. Anyone notice how high gas prices are getting......hummmmmmmmm??? The crash is a comin'!!

Problem-reaction-solution. This is another reason why these attacks struck in the very heart of America's economic system - and why in the days before the carnage the talk of a global economic recession was plastered across the world media. Now they have a blank sheet of paper with the chance to justify such a collapse and you will see global economic bodies brought in to "co-ordinate a response to the economic crisis". Indeed the G7 (Illuminati) grouping of nations has already begun this process.

These are just a few of the "benefits" to the agenda from the death and
destruction in New York and Washington that was, I repeat, co-ordinated by forces within U.S. borders. Those responsible are possessed by non-human entities and have no regard for human life any more than most humans have regard for the death and suffering of cattle. The reptilian mind has an undeveloped emotional level and therefore there is no emotional consequence for them no matter to what depths of horror and depravity they may sink.

You only had to watch the emotionless, going-through-the-motions, reading the script, responses of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, the UK Prime Minister, in the face of such immense suffering to see an example of this. It was in the class of the Queen of England after the murder of Princess Diana. At least Reagan was a professional actor. Bush and Blair wouldn't get in a school play.

Did George W. Bush know that these devastating disasters were going to
happen that day? What do you think?? Did Tony Blair? What do you think??

But even they are only pawns in a game controlled by far greater powers and they are as expendable as anyone once they have served their purpose.

Personally I would not be surprised in the least if Bush was sacrificed eventually to advance the "global terrorism" scenario, and perhaps someone very close to Blair also. Watch out for an assassination of Bush Jr. to really trigger this "war" against Saddam. And, of course, if Bush does go, the new President would be the serial killer, Dick Cheney (see "The Biggest Secret"). The stakes are going to be stacked very high indeed from this point because the final push to global fascism has begun.

The world will never be the same again, that's true, but within every
danger there is opportunity. And for those of us, the vast majority, who seek peace not conflict, freedom-for-all, not dictatorship-by-the-few, now have to look ourselves in the mirror and ask what we are going to do to stop these lunatics from taking over their asylum.

Complaining is not good enough any more. Running is no longer an option because soon there will be nowhere to run. It is time to lift the arse (that's "ass" or "Bush" to Americans) from the chair and let's stop
sitting down and taking this crap. People can bombard the radio phone-ins with another version of reality and when they cut you off get back again and again; tell everyone you know where they can get information to give them another fix on what is really happening; organize PEACEFUL protests against the fascist state whenever freedoms are threatened; get people together at meetings to discuss and assimilate information the media will not tell you; LOSE FEAR AND BE IRREVERENT IN THE FACE OF THIS ARROGANT DICTATORSHIP. IT CAN ONLY SURVIVE IF WE ARE FRIGHTENED OF IT AND INTIMIDATED BY IT.

There is so much we can do if only we first decide that we want to
dedicate our lives to this with an unbreakable determination that will not concede to any level of intimidation or consequences.

This is the real fight going on right now. The fight for freedom - not from an attack from Saddam or Osama - but an attack on the very freedoms American's treasure - by people who won't let us know the truth AND have never told us the truth.

Let's all stayed tuned and we will find out in the end who is right......enjoy your microchips!!!!!

944S Boyeee

[hoff944]

Okay....so this is going no where. Everyone believes (dis-believes) there own sources and no one is going to be swayed from their opinions. So from here on out it is pretty much useless. This will have to be one of those agree to disagree situations. I have to admit 944SBoyee, your essay above was very interesting.

(By the way sternn, Libertarians are pretty much torn on the whole war issue. I tend to lean Libertarian myself.)

[ae1969]

I would love to be at a bar and chat politics and shoot the s-h-i-t with u guys...............

and I mean all of you...even if I agree or disagree with some of the things you said........

944sBoyee....... nice reading....its so flippen out there it could definitely be 100% true. How you sit down in one sitting and type all that I'll never know.... but very interesting reading...

Ok overkill ...u started this post.... now come in and give it your blessing and put it out of its misery.

[overkill]

OK OK,... guys, thanks for the info. I feel alot better now. I mean now that I have an understanding of whats going on. If anyone else is still nervous or scared by all means keep posting. It help when you talk about it.

[CJFusco]

NO! I am not willing to let this thing die just when it's starting to get interesting.

First, to expand on what Sternn was saying: although the American press lauded the used of U.S. "smart bombs," and claimed that they were accurate nearly 100% of the time, the truth is that they failed nearly 40% of the time and fell onto civilian homes, hotels, hospitals, and schools instead of their intended military targets. The result? Over 10,000 innocent people died.

Now down to brass tacks.

I had resisted posting about the Illuminati theory for a long time, but 944Boyee beat me to the punch. Whereas the idea of an all-powerful shadow government sounds more than far fetched, there are a lot of weird "coincidences" to support the theory. I can't think of any at the moment (it's been awhile since I've read up on the subject), but I do know that the group goes back thousands and thousands of years, and the roots are as deeply entreanched as the monsters of HP Lovecraft.

The number 23 comes up very, very often.


If 944Boyee is right, don't run out and join the first anti-Illuminatus group that you encounter, for anyone claiming to be opposed to the actions of the Illuminati is probably Illuminati themselves.

944Boyee, if you are actually Hagbard Celine, I want in...

[Z-man]

Originally posted by hoff944
Okay....so this is going no where. Everyone believes (dis-believes) there own sources and no one is going to be swayed from their opinions. So from here on out it is pretty much useless. This will have to be one of those agree to disagree situations. I have to admit 944SBoyee, your essay above was very interesting.

(By the way sternn, Libertarians are pretty much torn on the whole war issue. I tend to lean Libertarian myself.)

While I agree with you hoff944, it will probably not die so soon.

HOWEVER: (the next words may bring this thread to it's death...)
Moving of Off-Topic.

Hey, look at it this way: maybe some of the 911 guys can have some input as well....

-Z-man.

[Sternn]

Hoff- Yeah, I hear Libertarians leaning both ways.

Don't get me wrong, I'm more conservative than liberal. I collect assult weapons. I was in the military and have worked for 12 different government agencies, and have security clearance. I have worked on projects with GW himself [well, he was governor at the time, but it still count ]

But I have problems with the 'new' US policy of 'pre-emptive strike'. To attack someone that may or may not attack you is and always has been wrong. The CIA says there is no chance, and I tend to believe those guys more than a man who used the word 'stratergery' and 'mis-underestimated'.

Also, as pointed out in a great article I posted on my site last week Norman Schwartskopf is even AGAINST this war. Why? He is not convinced at all of the claims they are making against Iraq. He also made one of the greatest statements to date about the Bush regime (can we say regime or is that unamerican?):

'It appears that a group of mean who have never been in a war and have never seen death want to send other men to their deaths'

A great and true statement. Bush went AWOL during Vietnam. It's aproven fact. His daddy helped 'clean up' his record once he got into office. Rumsfeld's only encounter with war is what he sees in the movies, as is most of the other people in Bush's cabinet.

As I pointed out previously, those whose knowledge of what war actually is usually try and keep people out of it. Those who grew up watching the Hollywood version while playing COMBAT on their 2600 have a gross interpetation of what really happens. Those people should not be allowed to push a war on everyone else until they have seen it up close and personal.

I'm still for the answer Sadaam proposed - letting Bush and Sadaam duel it out. To bad Bush has never fought a fight on his own and would get his ass kicked or that would have been a good fight, plus saved thousands of lives as well as ending this current issue.

Once again, it's not that anyone is FOR Sadaam, it's more like we are AGAINST Bush.

Sadaam didn't gas his own people, but our military did.

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryA42276A.htm

Thats right, Sadaam didn't use mustard gas and nerve gas on his people, but our own military did it to sailors to 'see what would happen' back before and during the Vietnam war. Only now is the Defense Dept. admitting this, after many of our own men died while they covered up the truth.

Rumsfeld also has the worst record when it comes to our troops. He starts by ENDING all VA benefits for WW2 vets. He then works on pulling benefits for people who served in Desert Storm. After that, he goes on record saying that draftees during Vietnam 'served no purpose' and they 'added no value' to our forces, and therefore should not be entitled to any benefits. He later apologized for that after half the military got upset.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24794-2003Jan21.html

For a guy who is the top dog at the pentagon, he doesn't really seem to care too much about the troops who formerly fought and died or even worse fought and became disabled. He has actively tried to take away all government benefits for many groups of former soliders all so they can put that money into more weapons.

And for some reason our military has not stood up to him yet, mainly because they are getting more money now hand over fist. And no one says anything about this.

Until last year the pentagon denied there was a Gulf War syndrome. Now, since Rumsfeld lost the court case they had to recognize over 100,000 us service men were stricken with a syndrome that they still claim doesn't exist. It's funny how 100,000 people have symtoms of something that isn't there. Once again Rumsfeld was on the fore-front fighting against acknowledging this to keep the men from their rightful compensation.

And we are letting this guy and a guy who literally hid during Vietnam lead our country into war?

-S

[Zendalar]

INCOMING RANT:

EDITED TO MORE SUITABLE CONTENT (EMPTIED), because the post was about using nukes, although the US has not counted out of using those.