Syria

[JimboUK]

Cameron is the worst PM this country has ever had, he thinks what the last person who spoke to him thinks, he doesn't have any thoughts of his own. As for chemical weapons, the Turks found sarin gas in the homes of people linked to the "rebels" http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/

[Hardwaremaster]

What I think many people don't realize is Syria, has a mutual defense pack with Russia. Thats why Russia keeps sending them weapons, it also has a mutual defense pack with Iran. Now here's were it gets interesting, Iran has a mutual defense pack with China. Thats why it let China build miles of oil derricks in Iran. So, any attack on any of these countries, will be interpreted as an attack on the collective which is called BRICK, and is in all actuality a coalition similar NATO. Now, either NATO is not aware of this, which is highly unlikely or, thier trying to drag everyone into WWIII. And as far as Assad and the so called Syrian rebels go, they're not acually rebels, they're Blackwater mercenaries contracted out to destablize the country, to remove Assad from power. Then they will create a puppet government, one, that will be a loyal to the United States, and by extension NATO. If you by chance believe the news, they're saying his attacking his own people, his a tyrant, blah, blah, blah. Which is out right lies, the Syrian people love him, Syria has one of the highest education ratings in the middleeast, same go's for Iran. Which I believe if you dig into this far enough you will find, that since Iran is allied with major powers. If it wanted a nuke, it could buy one from Russia, or China.

 

Isreal has been saying since the eightys, that it's about to immeditaly acquire a nuclear warhead, right, thirty years later, and were still waiting. Does no one remeber the lies, the George W Bush Jr: told the world regarding the nukeular weapons in Afganistan. And later it turned out their never was any to begin with. Do you know what the first thing was the United States Government did when it occupyed, or should I say conquered Afganistan. Before the power was even restored they put in a Central Bank, thats right a bank, because it didn't have one to begin with. Because in the Muslim Faith usury is illigal and is punisible by death. If your not quite getting it yet, let me elaborate. The countries before September Eleventh that had no Central Bank were, Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Lebenon, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and finally Sudan. Notice, it's all the countires our governments are saying are tyrants. People haven't got a clue. Mainly because they don't care, you can find anything, and i mean, anything on the Internet if you know were to look. Kings, Emperors, Presidents, all relics of an age long past, they don't make the calls anymore guys. Their just there to absorb the public anger while the real leaders work in the shadows by names you've probably never heard of.

 

 

 

John Fitzgerald Kennedy died soon after his speech, many thought he was talking about communism, but he wasn't. Listen to the words and the context carefully, one of the dead give aways was he said. "The office of the president has been used, to formulate a plan to usurp the American people." How would communists do that. Every president before JFK were Republicians and Democrats, but, more importantly most of the American presidents were around before, and indeed, way before Communism even existed. But, the video wasn't what got him killed, nope, what did, was him wanting to print American dollars called Greenbacks.

 

Instead of borrowing the money from the Federal Reserve Bank at interest which was causing inflation to rise and America to go into debt. Here's the real trick though, if your in debt, that usally means a person loaned to money to you, the question is who. But the first thing Vice Lyndon B Johnson did when he got in office was revoke the Greenbacks with an executive order. I wonder why. Does anyone remember what happend to JFKs brother, you think he might have known something?

 

You guys want to find out who shot JFK, look at the video, watch the direction the blood flys out, anyone who has played an FPS will notice what I'm talking about. I'll give you a hint, it's in the car.

But i guess Im just a Crazy Conspiracy Theorist. :D

 

Edit: This website won't let me use the GIF extension. Huh. :dry:

 

 

 

http://paulshort.com/other-stuff/who-shot-jfk

http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/jfk_speech_transcript.htm

 

 

Edited August 29, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[Harbringe]

Syria is a proxy war between Shia / Sunni and their backers East and West and its not going to end in Syria . Syria's real problem is that they are an ally of Iran and are in the way of that war with Iran. The truth is its 1935 - 36 and we are in the pre events to a world war . This coming war has a confluence of interests ( like all wars) and there are those who are determined to see their interests prevail no matter the cost . Evidence for this coming conflict are all around us , but most like those of the 1930's are oblivious to it .

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZK5gRLJ9h0

Edited June 16, 2013 by Harbringe

[sukeban]

First, fantastic news from the elections in Iran! It won't change the Western government narrative that "Iran is crazy and wants to destroy us," but it should demonstrate to the Western public that there is a VERY wide gulf between the opinions of the Iranian government and the sentiment of its people.

 

@Hardware

 

I don't necessarily know about Central Banks and all of that, but I agree in general that there is a deeper structure to global politics than political parties and nation states. I think that it's more class-based than conspiratorial, however, with the elite of the Western world identifying more with each other as a class than with the people of their respective countries (with perhaps Warren Buffet as a lone apostate). Said elites are free to enrich themselves at the expense of their home nations, since their fortunes are no longer tied up with the political success of individual countries due to globalized banking and business structures.

 

I also don't really think that the rebels in Syria are Blackwater contractors. I think that to ascribe all of the political unrest of the Arab Spring to Western machinations is to sell the actual people of the Middle East quite a bit short. I've no doubt that our nations exercise covert influence in the region, but none of what has happened in the Middle East thus far would not have been possible without large portions of Middle Eastern society being profoundly unhappy with their governments, whether pro-Western or anti-Western. You are correct that Syria, Iraq, and Iran (especially Iran) are/were relatively advanced and progressive nations, with sizable middle classes and relatively advanced in terms of education, but that does not at all rule out the possibility that heaps of people living in those countries are/were not also deeply dissatisfied. So whilst Western intelligence agencies might have had a role in terms of agitation, these situations would have gone nowhere if a large amount of the citizenry wasn't ready to jump on board.

 

@Harbringe

 

Much as the situation has the potential to become more dire, I can't see a real war between larger powers happening. I completely agree that many folks in Washington want a war with Iran, but I cannot see even that being parlayed into Russia - NATO, China - NATO, or Russia + China - NATO conflict. What interest could possibly be satisfied, from a Chinese or Russian perspective, from a war with the West? China alone is not strong enough to dent a NATO force and their ability to project power outside of their borders is doubtful. Russia potentially has a better military and power projection capabilities (and more of an historic interest in the region), but they could not last long against the West either. Any conflict with the West would leave these nations economically crippled and set back decades in terms of military strength (especially China). The unspoken threat of nuclear weapons would ensure that no country would be completely routed, but a war with the West would still be foolhardy and premature (if indeed one is desired). Despite America's failures in modern nation-building, its ability to completely wreck shop in a short period of time is still not to be doubted.

Edited June 16, 2013 by sukeban

[TRoaches]

But i guess Im just a Crazy Conspiracy Theorist. :biggrin:

You're not crazy, and there is much truth in your post. That said, when someone starts frantically connecting dots without any focus, like going from Syria to international banks to shadow governments to 9-11 then back to banks to Kennedy to monetary policy then back to Kennedy and the direction of his blood spray, then punctuate it with the phrase "crazy conspiracy theorist" you run the risk of causing anyone reading it to blow it off as exactly the rantings of a crazy conspiracy theorist. None of what you posted is entirely crazy and much of it isn't even theoretical but it does lack focus and, due to this lack of focus, will cause most people to ignore it while perpetuating the stereotype of a person who takes an interest in the history and context that lies below the surface of current events as a "crazy conspiracy theorist".

 

Please don't take this critique personally. It is only my advice. Take it or leave it.

[JimboUK]

@Sukeban That's good news coming out of Iran, good for the Iranians anyway, it won't make the slightest bit of difference to our warmongering leaders. I agree on it not leading to world war, like the east/west cold war the conflict will be fought by proxy with the main powers avoiding conflict with each other.

 

Edit: This could prove awkward for Cameron http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10124089/Boris-Johnson-Dont-arm-the-Syria-maniacs.html Johnson is being lined up as a replacement for Cameron and has a lot of support in the party, unlike Cameron who is generally seen as a waste of space.

[Hardwaremaster]

 

But i guess Im just a Crazy Conspiracy Theorist. :biggrin:

You're not crazy, and there is much truth in your post. That said, when someone starts frantically connecting dots without any focus, like going from Syria to international banks to shadow governments to 9-11 then back to banks to Kennedy to monetary policy then back to Kennedy and the direction of his blood spray, then punctuate it with the phrase "crazy conspiracy theorist" you run the risk of causing anyone reading it to blow it off as exactly the rantings of a crazy conspiracy theorist. None of what you posted is entirely crazy and much of it isn't even theoretical but it does lack focus and, due to this lack of focus, will cause most people to ignore it while perpetuating the stereotype of a person who takes an interest in the history and context that lies below the surface of current events as a "crazy conspiracy theorist".

 

Please don't take this critique personally. It is only my advice. Take it or leave it.

 

My apologies, you know I always forget, to those who don't know what I'm talking about. I come off as a raving lunatic, so no offense was taken, as that was my fault. As I didn't properly explain as to what I was getting at, but let me stress this problem is world wide, no one exact group can be blamed for it, and generalizing it was stupid of me, as it's a machine with everyone playing their parts. So, if you'll indulge me for a minute I'll elaborate with links, information and various pieces of history. If I didin't think that my previous post was related i wouldn't have posted it, as thats a forum rule your not suppose to hijack threads or go off topic, as well as make posts without new information. And I've been debating about making a seperate thread regarding this issue. If I knew people were interested in reading it, without writing it off, before doing their own investigation into the relevant material of the post in question. And since this is a debate section i do not claim anything i say as fact, as truth is relevant to the observer, and what you preceive as truth based on the information you posses which makes sense with the situation based on: result, reaction, and consequence.

 

Here's a good place to start, it will explain whats wrong with modern banking, and generaly the whole world right now.

 

Read in order.

 

http://nesara.insights2.org/MH1.html

http://nesara.insights2.org/MH2.html

http://nesara.insights2.org/MH3.html

http://nesara.insights2.org/MH4.html

http://nesara.insights2.org/MH5.html

Edited June 17, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[sukeban]

Right on cue, it appears as though the "rebels" are beginning to take aim at the other religious minorities of Syria--this time the Christians, who are formally neutral in the conflict. The attack has coincided with a marked uptick in the number of suicide bombings taking place in Syria, all of which, of course, are directed against government targets or civilians in government-controlled areas, indicating that they are the handiwork of the opposition. To compound matters, last week the militias claimed that they had received anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.... one wonders from which Western nation they managed to obtain those from? Today these weapons might be used to reenact the Mujahadeen glory days of the 1980s, and the US can revel in news footage of downed Syrian jets and helicopters, but... will we be so celebratory when these weapons are used to bring down Russian or Iranian passenger jets?

 

Furthermore, the conflict is now spreading into Lebanon, where fundamentalist Sunni militias are brazenly attacking the secular military, accusing them of supporting Hezbollah and Assad in Syria. That is pretty rich, as the militias are essentially demanding that the Lebanese military actively intervene in the Syrian conflict on the side of the fundamentalists, a move that a state in Lebanon's precarious sectarian position absolutely cannot afford to take. Such a self-serving interpretation of the military's neutrality is clearly a pretext to justify their continued opposition to Lebanon's secular state--an arrangement that no fundamentalist would ever, of course, be satisfied with--perhaps in the interest of widening the Sunni/everyone else conflict to include Lebanon as well.

 

Pretty sure that the only people pleased with these developments are our puritanical "friends" in the Gulf monarchies.

Edited June 27, 2013 by sukeban

[TRoaches]

@sukeban: What you are describing is very reminiscent of the persecution and mass murder that black africans were subjected to after the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya. It did not take long after Gaddafi's fall for the "freedom fighters" that overthrew him to show their true colors. Gaddafi's regime was not without its bad points, but he was a champion of civil rights compared to the monsters that took power in his absence. At least under his rule ethnically motivated mob killings were not tolerated.

[JimboUK]

The persecution of Christians is going also on in Egypt http://www.humanevents.com/2013/06/03/arab-spring-egypts-legal-persecution-of-christians/ I remember watching the uprising unfold on Al Jazeera, I remember Christians putting themselves between the army and Muslim protesters so the Muslims could prey, these weren't the actions of a group who favoured Mubarak.