Terrorist in the White House

[GET YOU HOT]

[FRAME]http://www.nogw.com/cia.html[/FRAME]

 

[Fuckallyall]

You are crazy, man. This site is NO different than what you and other wannabe conspiracy theorists accuse the government of doing. Putting in some facts, then going waaaaaayyyyy out to left field. For example, VLF does not affect humans. The wavelength is too long. It does not carry enough of a charge to intefere with us (or most animals). Some think it may be behind whale beachings, but it is believed that pockets of pollution in the water and illness in the animals are to blame. But hey, since I don't agree, I must be blind or a plant by the government.

 

[GET YOU HOT]

Thanks for showing up

 

[GET YOU HOT]

The thing is All You all Get Fucked by ordinary news casts, and if you link to 90% of these stories there is factual information to support it.

 

[QueEx]

The thing is All You all Get Fucked by ordinary news casts, and if you link to 90% of these stories there is factual information to support it.

... and therein lies the problem. What is and what isn't, fact. But most important are the OPINIONS supposedly adduced from those facts. I think that may be where many of us have disagreement. Assuming what is purported to be fact is in fact that, way too often I see quantum leaps to arrive at conclusions not even reasonably inferred from ... the facts.

What I see from both the far-right and far-left is the manipulation of the facts to reach unreasonable, twisted or unwarrented conclusions cloaked and disguised as fact. When you mix enough of those and throw in a cup of half-truths for good measure -- you often end up with the recipe for a conspiracy.

QueEx

 

[VegasGuy]

... and therein lies the problem. What is and what isn't, fact. But most important are the OPINIONS supposedly adduced from those facts. I think that may be where many of us have disagreement. Assuming what is purported to be fact is in fact that, way too often I see quantum leaps to arrive at conclusions not even reasonably inferred from ... the facts.

What I see from both the far-right and far-left is the manipulation of the facts to reach unreasonable, twisted or unwarrented conclusions cloaked and disguised as fact. When you mix enough of those and throw in a cup of half-truths for good measure -- you often end up with the recipe for a conspiracy.

QueEx

Well said. This is why BGOL pays you the Big Bucks!

-VG

 

[African Herbsman]

Nice find

 

[Fuckallyall]

... and therein lies the problem. What is and what isn't, fact. But most important are the OPINIONS supposedly adduced from those facts. I think that may be where many of us have disagreement. Assuming what is purported to be fact is in fact that, way too often I see quantum leaps to arrive at conclusions not even reasonably inferred from ... the facts.

What I see from both the far-right and far-left is the manipulation of the facts to reach unreasonable, twisted or unwarrented conclusions cloaked and disguised as fact. When you mix enough of those and throw in a cup of half-truths for good measure -- you often end up with the recipe for a conspiracy.

QueEx

Dude, that's what I was trying to say. For example, many anti-semites were correct in thier assertions that Jews were heavily involved in the European banking system. Then they used that fact to conclude that "JEWS WANTED TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD". It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. What I find interesting is that I usually get dismissed when I challenge theory with fact.

 

[Makkonnen]

... and therein lies the problem. What is and what isn't, fact. But most important are the OPINIONS supposedly adduced from those facts. I think that may be where many of us have disagreement. Assuming what is purported to be fact is in fact that, way too often I see quantum leaps to arrive at conclusions not even reasonably inferred from ... the facts.

What I see from both the far-right and far-left is the manipulation of the facts to reach unreasonable, twisted or unwarrented conclusions cloaked and disguised as fact. When you mix enough of those and throw in a cup of half-truths for good measure -- you often end up with the recipe for a conspiracy.

QueEx

the simple fact is the US for all intents and purposes and those who run the US control the world, politically, militarily and financially and they must "conspire" to keep it that way or they will lose their control

Those in power have no problem murdering millions of people in order to maintain their grip on power so people guessing that they'd manipulate political contests or news or any other propaganda or societal control programs is not a reach.

Do you believe it is a stretch for people who have no moral dilemma in causing the deaths of millions of people to do any of the farfetched bullshit that many of these conspiracy theories put forward?
Im not saying these tales woven so poorly are accurate but one cannot discount them on the basis that those they accuse are above doing such things. I honestly dont believe they could maintain the current world stability without those maneuvers and because others around the globe in positions of power agree somewhat- things do not change much

For instance- the CIA has always liked to put its people into power in foreign nations after promoting or desiging a coup - so calling allawi or the present afghani leader, both of whom owe their existence to the CIA, CIA assets is no wild leap
Is it a wild leap that the CIA was built with the help of rescued Nazi SS officers? No its a fact. But it might sound wild to someone ignorant of the facts.

Im not talkin about the aluminum foil wrapped helmet type of shit here

Bohemian Grove stories were in that same realm of I dont know until Alex Jones took a camcorder into it and I saw a very famous political hack interviewed by him in NYC and he asked him about it and the dude flew into a rage when he discovered he was talkin to the guy who infiltrated their meeting
people like george bush sr and jr, colin powell, schwartzenegger etc pretending to kill babies on altars and shit- that aint a theory

this dude is down with that bohemian grove shit- he fuckin flipped out on alex jones over it I bugged out because I watched him on the Gergen and Shields segment on mcneil lehrer for years and he never showed any emotion at all

 

[BUMBAY DA DOGG]

A lot of great info!

 

[Fuckallyall]

the simple fact is the US for all intents and purposes and those who run the US control the world, politically, militarily and financially and they must "conspire" to keep it that way or they will lose their control

Those in power have no problem murdering millions of people in order to maintain their grip on power so people guessing that they'd manipulate political contests or news or any other propaganda or societal control programs is not a reach.

Do you believe it is a stretch for people who have no moral dilemma in causing the deaths of millions of people to do any of the farfetched bullshit that many of these conspiracy theories put forward?
Im not saying these tales woven so poorly are accurate but one cannot discount them on the basis that those they accuse are above doing such things. I honestly dont believe they could maintain the current world stability without those maneuvers and because others around the globe in positions of power agree somewhat- things do not change much

For instance- the CIA has always liked to put its people into power in foreign nations after promoting or desiging a coup - so calling allawi or the present afghani leader, both of whom owe their existence to the CIA, CIA assets is no wild leap
Is it a wild leap that the CIA was built with the help of rescued Nazi SS officers? No its a fact. But it might sound wild to someone ignorant of the facts.

Im not talkin about the aluminum foil wrapped helmet type of shit here

Bohemian Grove stories were in that same realm of I dont know until Alex Jones took a camcorder into it and I saw a very famous political hack interviewed by him in NYC and he asked him about it and the dude flew into a rage when he discovered he was talkin to the guy who infiltrated their meeting
people like george bush sr and jr, colin powell, schwartzenegger etc pretending to kill babies on altars and shit- that aint a theory

this dude is down with that bohemian grove shit- he fuckin flipped out on alex jones over it I bugged out because I watched him on the Gergen and Shields segment on mcneil lehrer for years and he never showed any emotion at all

Mak, yes, it is OFTEN a wild leap. Those folks you talk about, and many others like them almost always turned on the CIA or, modified thier intentions to a lesser extent. The greatest example is Castro. He was assisted by the CIA, and turned when the US would not give him more money. Would you call him a CIA asset ? The same goes with Allawai. He used the US, and the US dissed him. So calling him a CIA asset is a long strtch indeed. This is especially true when you consider the fact that that these same theories don't take into account all of the actions an "asset" makes. And about the thing about the Nazi's setting up the CIA is bullshit too. The CIA was well on it's way to becoming the at the end of World War II. The CIA was had another name, but the same purpose. It changed it's name about the same time the Department of War changed it's name to the Department of Defence.

 

[QueEx]

the simple fact is the US for all intents and purposes and those who run the US control the world, politically, militarily and financially and they must "conspire" to keep it that way or they will lose their control

With all due respect, I can appreciate your thoughts. I just have this pet peeve with the word "they". Who are the they that people so often refer to? I know, none of us (maybe) are in a position to know the every they. But I have a simple rule, if you can't identify the they, then someone has some research and investigation to do. I say that because they is just too damn easy -- we tend to use the pronoun when we don't really know who is fucking us, and, if we don't know who is fucking us, its awfully hard to know how to stop it. "They" tends to become the catch-all for our own ignorance.

As for the US being in control, I can't say that I'm angry with that. I don't hold any illusions that the rest of the world wouldn't dominate or control if it had half of a chance. I don't believe that the Chinese, Russians, Iranians or any other 1st, 2nd or 3rd world power would rule or control with my beneficence in my mind. I know that because my experience tells me that ... some of which is based on exposure -- and I am picking my words carefully lest I wake up suddenly like a famous poster (gene cisco) would say: smelling Newports.

I think, and I would love for someone to tell/show me differently, that every country operates in what it perceives as its best interest. Some are better capable of seeing to its interest than others.

I also don't think that everything those in power in this country do are BEST for our interest. Some times those in power err -- whether out of greed, ignorance or negligence. And, when that happens, regardless of the reason, I think the people and their government should deal with it.

<u>I know</u> too that the Ruskies, et al., err too and I know that they are constantly seeking ways to tip the balance of power. You don't have to believe me -- but <u>I know</u> these things. And I know that they do as much dirty shit as we do. It must be that staying on top is a dirty fucking business. But as long as someone else is doing dirt, I sure as hell don't want to come to the show clean. On the other hand, there has to be a limit to shit and some ethical/moral lines that should not be crossed, by my government and the rest.

Those in power have no problem murdering millions of people in order to maintain their grip on power so people guessing that they'd manipulate political contests or news or any other propaganda or societal control programs is not a reach.

Let me have a continuing objection as stated above to the "they" etc. Again, with due respect, who is it that you're referring to? We might agree, but I can't agree if I don't know who we're talking about.

Do you believe it is a stretch for people who have no moral dilemma in causing the deaths of millions of people to do any of the farfetched bullshit that many of these conspiracy theories put forward?

Honestly, I believe it is a stretch to say X happened back then, therefore, you know X must be happening now. I might be an idiot, but shit doesn't work for me quite that simply. Maybe that comes from an old legal rule that goes: character evidence (what someone did in the past) is not admissible to prove that the actor (the same person) has acted in accordance therewith on this (now) occassion. That is, because X robbed a bank 8 years ago, you just can't bring in a witness to say that for the proposition of proving that X robbed the liqour store he is now accused of robbing. Because I know my 8 year old will take a couple of extra cookies from the jar when give permission to take 2 -- doesn't mean I will accuse him when the jar comes up empty and no gave permission to eat them all.

Now, I'm not stupid either. When I see the top on the cookie jar always screwed on cross-threaded, a chair is always pulled up to the shelf, and a scuff mark always near the same spot on the floor -- each time his little ass has gotten cookies before and thats what I found when the perverbial cookie jar is now empty -- I can use that shit against him. That is, when I see similar enough markings from the governments hand, I can more easily say its been up to no good -=- not because it did a certain thing in the past, but because it fits a common plan or scheme used in the past that bears its marks in the particular incident now in question.

So, do I believe its a stretch - yes. I need more than just "you know them muffukas did it before ... so you know they did _________ this time."

How do I know the government did or didn't do ________ ? I don't, but I try to use my best ability to read, deduce and reason -- and I try my damnest to read critically tossing out the shit that doesn't flow or naturally follow in the opinions that I read. And, yeah. I fuck up. I mis-read, I overlook shit or sometimes, the truth just wasn't out there to be known.

Im not saying these tales woven so poorly are accurate <u>but</u> one cannot discount them on the basis that those they accuse are above doing such things. I honestly dont believe they could maintain the current world stability without those maneuvers and because others around the globe in positions of power agree somewhat- things do not change much

You may not "discount" them, but not discounting them and putting such tales forth as significant is quite a different thing. Hell, in this world, anything is possible but a reasonable assessment would say that a particular thing is not probable based on what we know. Must people I see tossing around conspiracy theories <u>NEVER</U> come close to admitting that the shit is not probable. It may not be important, but those opinions lose credibility quick with me -- and I suspect they lose credibility with a lot of other people, as well.

For instance- the CIA has always liked to put its people into power in foreign nations after promoting or desiging a coup - so calling allawi or the present afghani leader, both of whom owe their existence to the CIA, CIA assets is no wild leap

Yeah, to me thats a wild leap (again, with all due respect). Lets say its true that the CIA puts people into power in foreign nations after promoting or designing a coup -=- but calling that person a "CIA asset" doesn't follow. Assuming by asset you mean one who will now report to and/or do the CIA's bidding, I think you have to show (by some reasonable evidence or example) where the person (say Alllawi) is now doing the bidding, taking orders from, etc, in order to say he is an "asset". If you can show something close to that (I know we don't always know exactly & much of our suppositions are based on what we hope are credible sources) then to me that would lead to the conclusion that Allawi (or whomever) is an asset. Even so, does that mean its a bad thing ???

Is it a wild leap that the CIA was built with the help of rescued Nazi SS officers? No its a fact. But it might sound wild to someone ignorant of the facts.

If its fact, its fact. It might sound wild, but that wouldn't be opinion.

Bohemian Grove stories were in that same realm of I dont know until Alex Jones took a camcorder into it and I saw a very famous political hack interviewed by him in NYC and he asked him about it and the dude flew into a rage when he discovered he was talkin to the guy who infiltrated their meeting

people like george bush sr and jr, colin powell, schwartzenegger etc pretending to kill babies on altars and shit- that aint a theory

I haven't seen those clips and I won't pass judgment on them without seeing them. I am not saying, however, that there aren't secret societies; and I'm not saing that secret societies don't influence people in power, elected and not. But I don't beleive that all in power are corrupt and influenced that way nor do I believe that all of the press is so influenced. Hence, most dirty shit eventually comes to light. And, sometimes, we get even.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

... The CIA was well on it's way to becoming the at the end of World War II. The CIA was had another name, but the same purpose. It changed it's name about the same time the Department of War changed it's name to the Department of Defence.

It was the OSS, Office of Strategic Services.

QueEx

 

[Makkonnen]

Mak, yes, it is OFTEN a wild leap. Those folks you talk about, and many others like them almost always turned on the CIA or, modified thier intentions to a lesser extent. The greatest example is Castro. He was assisted by the CIA, and turned when the US would not give him more money. Would you call him a CIA asset ? The same goes with Allawai. He used the US, and the US dissed him. So calling him a CIA asset is a long strtch indeed. This is especially true when you consider the fact that that these same theories don't take into account all of the actions an "asset" makes. And about the thing about the Nazi's setting up the CIA is bullshit too. The CIA was well on it's way to becoming the at the end of World War II. The CIA was had another name, but the same purpose. It changed it's name about the same time the Department of War changed it's name to the Department of Defence.

Do some research- I never said Nazis set up the CIA. I said the US Government took SS Officers and they assisted in the design of the CIA. Research it and you will find out it is true. There was a scramble for many Nazi scientists, doctors and other important figures at the end of the war. Our space program would not have been what it was in the 60's had it not been for Nazi scientists as well.
I worked for a corporation in NY started by a nazi and they had many government contracts including with NASA. The man who started it came here as a war criminal and had his own company shortly thereafter.
Skilled professionals are always in demand. The proficiency of the SS was unmatched to that point in world history. They were evil in every sense of the word but their precision was classic german engineering, meticulous. They used IBM computing machines to keep track of all the jews and others they murdered in death camps. Don't sleep. Read up, this isnt theory and its fairly well known and admitted that they were brought here.



Im about to answer you que- this is the greatest discourse on this board yet IMO

 

[GET YOU HOT]

A lot of great info!

That is what i'm here for to enlighten, you make the final call but people looking to fault me is just plain wrong. Thing is im not trying to change your ideology but i'm matter a fact about facts.

 

[Makkonnen]

With all due respect, I can appreciate your thoughts. I just have this pet

peeve with the word "they". Who are the they that people so often refer to? I know, none of

us (maybe) are in a position to know the every they. But I have a simple rule, if you can't

identify the they, then someone has some research and investigation to do. I say that

because they is just too damn easy -- we tend to use the pronoun when we don't really know

who is fucking us, and, if we don't know who is fucking us, its awfully hard to know how to

stop it. "They" tends to become the catch-all for our own ignorance.

I agree. When I say "they/those in power" I mean those who control the most resources/wealth

and assert the most political and social power. The two aren't always connected but most

often seem to be. They are arguably the ones with the highest stake in maintain their

advantageous position. This also includes corporate entities that make their will known

through political and socioeconomic gestures. For example a Bechtel who has former employees

in high government offices due to campaign contributions and political alliances who in turn

make decisions or design policy to benefit Bechtel.

The same way you'd be foolish not to attend your child's school pta meeting it would be

foolish to not press your position in circles of influence that can be favorable or

detrimental to you and your family's legacy in the world arena if you are a Rockefeller.

A very small percentage of the population controls almost all the world's resources. The

struggle involved in maintaining that status is tremendous and very fluid. When I say "they"

as I did, that is who I refer to. People in government often make mistakes, as anyone who has

ever participated in it can tell you, but the overall plans, designs and agenda of government

here in America is shaped by those with the influence to direct it and that is increasingly

less the American "people" as in "We the people".

As for the US being in control, I can't say that I'm angry with that. I don't hold any

illusions that the rest of the world wouldn't dominate or control if it had half of a chance.

I don't believe that the Chinese, Russians, Iranians or any other 1st, 2nd or 3rd world

power would rule or control with my beneficence in my mind. I know that because my

experience tells me that ... some of which is based on exposure -- and I am picking my words

carefully lest I wake up suddenly like a famous poster (gene cisco) would say: smelling

Newports.

I think, and I would love for someone to tell/show me differently, that every country

operates in what it perceives as its best interest. Some are better capable of seeing to its

interest than others.

I also don't think that everything those in power in this country do are BEST for our

interest. Some times those in power err -- whether out of greed, ignorance or negligence.

And, when that happens, regardless of the reason, I think the people and their government

should deal with it.

I completely agree. I dont hate this nation or the people in it. I just have a problem with proclaiming to be about one thing but secretly being about the total opposite of it, which is often the case when it comes to things like freedom and democracy, both here and abroad. I also know its a cold universe out there and certain things must be done.

<u>I know</u> too that the Ruskies, et al., err too and I know that they are constantly

seeking ways to tip the balance of power. You don't have to believe me -- but <u>I know</u>

these things. And I know that they do as much dirty shit as we do. It must be that staying

on top is a dirty fucking business. But as long as someone else is doing dirt, I sure as

hell don't want to come to the show clean. On the other hand, there has to be a limit to

shit and some ethical/moral lines that should not be crossed, by my government and the rest.

thats my main problem- some of these muthafuckas will feed their momma plutonium to earn 5 bucks so you know people they couldnt give a shit about are totally fucked.
I mean how long can you fuck over everyone around you before that shit comes back to bite you? I think a better balance can be struck between protecting self-interest and helping others but that isn't the mindset of those who have most of the world's resources.

Honestly, I believe it is a stretch to say X happened back then, therefore, you know X must

be happening now. I might be an idiot, but shit doesn't work for me quite that simply.

Maybe that comes from an old legal rule that goes: character evidence (what someone did in

the past) is not admissible to prove that the actor (the same person) has acted in accordance

therewith on this (now) occassion. That is, because X robbed a bank 8 years ago, you just

can't bring in a witness to say that for the proposition of proving that X robbed the liqour

store he is now accused of robbing. Because I know my 8 year old will take a couple of extra

cookies from the jar when give permission to take 2 -- doesn't mean I will accuse him when

the jar comes up empty and no gave permission to eat them all.

Now, I'm not stupid either. When I see the top on the cookie jar always screwed on

cross-threaded, a chair is always pulled up to the shelf, and a scuff mark always near the

same spot on the floor -- each time his little ass has gotten cookies before and thats what I

found when the perverbial cookie jar is now empty -- I can use that shit against him. That

is, when I see similar enough markings from the governments hand, I can more easily say its

been up to no good -=- not because it did a certain thing in the past, but because it fits a

common plan or scheme used in the past that bears its marks in the particular incident now in

question.

So, do I believe its a stretch - yes. I need more than just "you know them muffukas did it

before ... so you know they did _________ this time."


How do I know the government did or didn't do ________ ? I don't, but I try to use my best

ability to read, deduce and reason -- and I try my damnest to read critically tossing out the

shit that doesn't flow or naturally follow in the opinions that I read. And, yeah. I fuck

up. I mis-read, I overlook shit or sometimes, the truth just wasn't out there to be known.

I agree

You may not "discount" them, but not discounting them and putting such tales forth as

significant is quite a different thing. Hell, in this world, anything is possible but

a reasonable assessment would say that a particular thing is not probable based on

what we know. Must people I see tossing around conspiracy theories <u>NEVER</U> come

close to admitting that the shit is not probable. It may not be important, but those

opinions lose credibility quick with me -- and I suspect they lose credibility with a lot of

other people, as well.

I agree again. Take 9-11 for instance. I have researched some of the plans and agendas that those people in power( who I referred to above and their agents aka CFR etc) laid out over the years. Wolfowitz documented his plans on Iraq and the Middle East years before getting into office with GW and once he was in there he followed through along with the others who shared his views. No secret really, no theorizing to do. Was there a conspiracy? Yes and No. No because their intent was not a secret really. But they did plot to use semi-illegal means(im not a lawyer here so this is shady ground for me) to bring about their wishes. A fake reason for invading seems like it would have crossed some line somewhere but I could be wrong.

Now take controlling people's minds with ultra low frequency waves radio or micro or whatever. Is it possible? Yes I've read scientific studies where certain stimulus directed at certain parts of the brain can generate certain reactions visually like near death experiences -light at the end of the tunnel type stuff. So yes it is possible. Is it probable? Depends on who they are supposedly doing it to and why. Many cooky bullshit consp theories leave much to be desired in the area of motive.


Now take a look at some other shit that I personally believe - which is a conspiracy theory.

I found out Bob Woodward worked for naval intelligence prior to being a reporter. I also found out he got a job at the washington post with no experience in journalism whatsoever. It lasted a few weeks, he went to another small paper for a year or somesuch thing then returned to the Post. Once a spook always a spook is what I have heard and believe. I also see supposedly liberal anti-Bush media outlets sitting on stories that are heavily hazardous to the president for years at a time so that the impact is less than it would be. Including the Post and the NY Times. I know of times during WW2 for instance when those papers were actually used to spread outright propaganda and lies countering other American journalists in coordination with the government's wishes- Post Hiroshima and Nagasaki reports about radioactivity and fallout and the effects on the japanese civilian population for instance.
I also know in the UK there is a secret code they issue to all news outlets to black out certain news stories, some of which have already been released by other outlets abroad. So all in all I believe that freedom of the press is bullshit when it is undermined by secret government programs and propaganda campaigns etc for mainstream media outlets. I believe the government conspires to deceive the public and there is evidence to show that - armstrong williams and all the other paid advertisements without disclosure and all the above.
I don't think its unreasonable or doesnt follow from the evidence. Is it probable? yes
I see a history of the behavior, I see it occuring presently and I don't think its crazy but that's just me.
I know people in government who spend much time thinking of ways to do things value propaganda as a serious tool.

Yeah, to me thats a wild leap (again, with all due respect). Lets say its true that the CIA

puts people into power in foreign nations after promoting or designing a coup -=- but calling

that person a "CIA asset" doesn't follow. Assuming by asset you mean one who will now report

to and/or do the CIA's bidding, I think you have to show (by some reasonable evidence or

example) where the person (say Alllawi) is now doing the bidding, taking orders from,

etc, in order to say he is an "asset". If you can show something close to that (I know

we don't always know exactly & much of our suppositions are based on what we hope are

credible sources) then to me that would lead to the conclusion that Allawi (or whomever) is

an asset. Even so, does that mean its a bad thing ???

Take the leader of Afghanistan for instance-

Hamid Kirzai

A mid-level character in the Northern Alliance. Rescued by the CIA from his execution by the Taliban. Placed as the new head of Afghanistan. CIA and US Military pay off all chieftains to gain their allegiance and their going along with Kirzai being the leader. He's president. New elections time. He is the only candidate featured on tv or radio or that has the resources to cross the nation in safety. He wins. US troops in the country. I dont find it a wild leap that he does whatever it is the US tells him to do whenever they tell him. My use of the CIA asset term is not good maybe since its an actual piece of intelligence organization terminology beyond its face value meaning. To me hes a US Government controlled entity.
Why can't prisoners sign up for experimental testing? You're a lawyer you know that one. I see it similarly and even if the US presence left the area I'd think that he could possibly still have an allegiance to the entity that put him in power unless his actions proved otherwise.
Same with the Shah in Iran after the CIA implemented and funded the overthrow of the democratically elected leader there.

Are these things bad?
In Afghanistan? probably not but it lends false hope to people who dont think like the rest of the nation, because shit will revert back to some kill the buddhists and christians mentality. Mufuckas are hicks. Eurasian hillbilly muslims with nothing better to do than grow opium, fuck men and kill each other over who has the most goats

In Iran? hell no. They had the choice of the optional friend or foe approach to gaining iranian allegiance and they chose the strong arm. How great would caucasian Persia love America who supported and befriended them? Instead they got 25 years of friendship at the expense of thousands of innocent people killed by the fuckhead Shah. And even when people in the country now try to press for better relations fuckhead GW tells them to fuck off because he thinks he can strongarm them again like before.
I think both approaches have their advantages for those who would gain from regional activity but I believe a continued friendly business relationship would be more profitable for all involved than intermittent short term rampant rape but I could be wrong I havent seen an actual analysis of what both numbers would be. Plus conflict generates alot of wealth.

I haven't seen those clips and I won't pass judgment on them without seeing them. I am not

saying, however, that there aren't secret societies; and I'm not saing that secret societies

don't influence people in power, elected and not. But I don't beleive that all in power are

corrupt and influenced that way nor do I believe that all of the press is so influenced.

Hence, most dirty shit eventually comes to light. And, sometimes, we get even.

QueEx

I agree with that too. I often get very upset about the casualties of these policies. That's my main problem.. It just seems that "they" have to do increasingly more horiible things to keep their share of the global pie and when they fail, which they eventually will do, I don't really want to be around to get a piece of that asswhipping. If they dont fail and I'm wrong I seriously fear for the future of humanity and freewill.


also on the conspiracy tip there is stuff I dont know how to call
like the cold war
I've read that the largest truck manufacturing plant in the world in Russia was built by GM or Ford and that the designs for a ball bearing manufacturing facility, without which no guidance systems for missiles, plane systems etc could work, were also provided by American corps at the height of the cold war- now that shit is a serious fuck up or a perfectly conceived plan. I dont know if the cold war was legit or an experiment in what types of society people will accept.

 

[domex]

A Little something for the sheeple!

<embed src="http://lads.myspace.com/videos/vplayer.swf?u=YUhSMGNEb3ZMMk52Ym5SbGJuUXViVzkyYVdWekxtTmtiaTV0ZVhOd1lXTmxMbU52YlM4d01EQTFORFl3THpreUx6STRMelUwTmpBek9ESXlPUzVtYkhZPQ==&d=457" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="430" height="346"></embed><br>Get this video and more at <a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=546038229&n=2">MySpace.com</a>

 

[GET YOU HOT]

Conspiracy-to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement .

Que Ex

Honestly, I believe it is a stretch to say X happened back then, therefore, you know X must be happening now. I might be an idiot, but shit doesn't work for me quite that simply. Maybe that comes from an old legal rule that goes: character evidence (what someone did in the past) is not admissible to prove that the actor (the same person) has acted in accordance therewith on this (now) occassion. That is, because X robbed a bank 8 years ago, you just can't bring in a witness to say that for the proposition of proving that X robbed the liqour store he is now accused of robbing. Because I know my 8 year old will take a couple of extra cookies from the jar when give permission to take 2 -- doesn't mean I will accuse him when the jar comes up empty and no gave permission to eat them all.

Now, I'm not stupid either. When I see the top on the cookie jar always screwed on cross-threaded, a chair is always pulled up to the shelf, and a scuff mark always near the same spot on the floor -- each time his little ass has gotten cookies before and thats what I found when the perverbial cookie jar is now empty -- I can use that shit against him. That is, when I see similar enough markings from the governments hand, I can more easily say its been up to no good -=- not because it did a certain thing in the past, but because it fits a common plan or scheme used in the past that bears its marks in the particular incident now in question.

So, do I believe its a stretch - yes. I need more than just "you know them muffukas did it before ... so you know they did _________ this time."

How do I know the government did or didn't do ________ ? I don't, but I try to use my best ability to read, deduce and reason -- and I try my damnest to read critically tossing out the shit that doesn't flow or naturally follow in the opinions that I read. And, yeah. I fuck up. I mis-read, I overlook shit or sometimes, the truth just wasn't out there to be known.

The law does provide for and will eventually hold the cookie snatchers responsible. If conspiritors have/have not, did/did not succeed, plotted/failed, replicating/testing or anything you can name and were never held fully accountable(or not), "they" aka George W. Bush and Co. or whoever, can be tried & convicted by witnesses and documentation stating those facts alone...its called CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME..there are many forms and the most prevalent in many of my factual posts centers around this one...

3.01B CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES--BASIC ELEMENTS

(1) Count ___ of the indictment accuses the defendants of a conspiracy to defraud the United States by dishonest means in violation of federal law. It is a crime for two or more persons to conspire, or agree, to defraud the United States, even if they never actually achieve their goal.

(2) A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership. For you to find any one of the defendants guilty of the conspiracy charge, the government must prove each and every one of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(A) First, that two or more persons conspired, or agreed, to defraud the United States, or one of its agencies or departments, by dishonest means. The word "defraud" is not limited to its ordinary meaning of cheating the government out of money or property. "Defraud" also means impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any government agency or department by dishonest means.

(B) Second, the government must prove that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy.

(C) And third, the government must prove that a member of the conspiracy did one of the overt acts described in the indictment for the purpose of advancing or helping the conspiracy.

(3) You must be convinced that the government has proved all of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find any one of these defendants guilty of the conspiracy charge.

[(4) This crime does not require proof that the defendants intended to directly commit the fraud themselves. Proof that they intended to use a third party as a go-between may be sufficient. But the government must prove that the United States or one of its agencies or departments was the ultimate target of the conspiracy, and that the defendants intended to defraud.]

SOURCE:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/crim_jury_insts/msword/chap3_10.doc

Piece by piece the sheer Nuts & Bolts of Democracy are being dismantled by The 10%--Led by the omniprescent Dictator George W. Bush.

 

[Makkonnen]

FUckyouall-








[frame]http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB146/[/frame]

[frame]http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/05/nara050802.html[/frame]

C.I.A. Said to Rebuff Congress on Nazi Files
By Douglas Jehl
The New York Times

Sunday 30 January 2005

WASHINGTON - The Central Intelligence Agency is refusing to provide hundreds of thousands of pages of documents sought by a government working group under a 1998 law that requires full disclosure of classified records related to Nazi war criminals, say Congressional officials from both parties.

Under the law, the C.I.A. has already provided more than 1.2 million pages of documents, the vast majority of them from the archives of its World War II predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services. Many documents have been declassified, and some made public last year showed a closer relationship between the United States government and Nazi war criminals than had previously been understood, including the C.I.A.'s recruitment of war criminal suspects or Nazi collaborators.

For nearly three years, the C.I.A. has interpreted the 1998 law narrowly and rebuffed requests for additional records, say Congressional officials and some members of the working group, who also contend that that stance seems to violate the law.

These officials say the agency has sometimes agreed to provide information about former Nazis, but not about the extent of the agency's dealings with them after World War II. In other cases, it has refused to provide information about individuals and their conduct during the war unless the working group can first provide evidence that they were complicit in war crimes.

The agency's stance poses a sharp test between the C.I.A.'s deep institutional reluctance to make public details about any intelligence operations and the broad mandate set forth in the law to lift the veil about relationships between the United States government and Nazi war criminals.

The dispute has not previously been made public. Critics of the C.I.A.'s stance, including all three private citizens who are members of the working group, said they were disclosing the dispute now in hopes of resolving the impasse by March, when the working group's mandate is to expire.

"I think that the C.I.A. has defied the law, and in so doing has also trivialized the Holocaust, thumbed its nose at the survivors of the Holocaust and also at Americans who gave their lives in the effort to defeat the Nazis in World War II," said Elizabeth Holtzman, a former congresswoman from New York and a member of the group. "We have bent over backward; we have given them every opportunity to comply."

At the request of Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, the Senate Judiciary Committee plans to hold a public hearing on the matter early next month, and is planning to call C.I.A. officials and members of the working group as witnesses, Congressional officials said.

A C.I.A. spokesman said the agency had already declassified and released 1.25 million pages of documents under the law, including those related to 775 different name files.

"The C.I.A. has not withheld any material identified in its files related to the commission of war crimes by officials, agents or collaborators of Nazi Germany," he said.

The spokesman acknowledged that the C.I.A. had refused to disclose other material "that does not relate to war crimes per se" and that the agency was working on a report to Congress to justify its actions under exemptions spelled out in the law.

A spokeswoman for the panel, formally known as the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group, said it would not comment on the dispute. The group is led by a representative of the National Archives, and includes representatives of the C.I.A., the F.B.I., the Defense Department and other government agencies, and has taken no formal stand on the matter, people involved in the issue said.

But in interviews, all three public members of the group, including Ms. Holtzman; Richard Ben-Veniste, a Washington lawyer; and Thomas H. Baer, a former federal prosecutor, made plain their opposition to the C.I.A.'s position. Congressional officials said the three had a sympathetic hearing from Senator DeWine, a sponsor of the 1998 law, known as the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act.

The 1998 law that established the working group directed that it "locate, identify, inventory, recommend for declassification and make available to the public at the National Archives and Records Administration, all classified Nazi war criminal records of the United States."

Under the law, the heads of government agencies have the power to exempt from release nine categories of national security information. But to assert such exemptions, agency heads are required to submit a report to Congressional committees, a step the C.I.A. has not yet taken, the Congressional officials said.

"I can only say that the posture the C.I.A. has taken differs from all the other agencies that have been involved, and that's not a position we can accept," Mr. Ben-Veniste said. In a separate interview, Mr. Baer said: "Too much has been secret for too long. The C.I.A. has not complied with the statute."

A book, "U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis," that was released by the working group in May provided a partial picture of those dealings. It has shown that the American government worked closely with Nazi war criminals and collaborators, allowing many of them to live in the United States after World War II.

Historians who have studied the documents made public so far have said that at least five associates of the Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann, the architect of Hitler's campaign to exterminate Jews, had worked for the C.I.A. Eichmann, who was arrested by the Allies in 1945, escaped and fled to Argentina. He was captured by Israeli agents in 1960, tried and hanged. The records also indicate that the C.I.A. tried to recruit two dozen more war criminals or Nazi collaborators.

American officials have defended the recruiting of former Nazis as having been essential to gaining access to intelligence after World War II, particularly about the Soviet Union and its cold war allies. Among former Nazis who were given refuge in the United States was Wernher von Braun, the German scientist who developed the V-2 rocket in World War II for the Nazis and played a major role in the development of the American space program.

After World War II, the Allied powers who occupied Germany defined war crimes broadly, declaring the Nazi SS to be a criminal organization guilty of exterminating and persecuting Jews and killing prisoners of war and slave laborers. They identified as a war criminal anyone who was a principal, accessory to, or consented in the commission of war crimes, or anyone who was a member of an organization or group connected with the commission of such crimes.

Exactly how many pages of documents the C.I.A. is still withholding is not clear, according to people involved in the dispute. But they said that at minimum, they believed it amounted to hundreds of thousands of pages.

A report made public by the working group in 1999 said an initial survey by the C.I.A. estimated that more than two million pages of documents among records in the agency's files for the years 1947 to 1998 included "operational, personality, country, and project files; analytical products, source material, and biographic reports" related to Nazi war criminals. The agency estimated that an additional 2.1 million pages among the files of its predecessor organizations, including the O.S.S., from 1941 to 1947, could be covered by the group's mandate.

The group outlined its objections to the C.I.A.'s position in a letter sent to the agency in February 2004, according to Congressional officials. The group's mandate to examine intelligence documents related to the Nazi war criminals was to expire last year. But Congress agreed to extend it until the end of March 2005, in a step that Congressional officials from both parties said was intended in large part to allow more time to resolve the impasse.

[frame]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/14/national/main617522.shtml[/frame]


im sure i could find countless additions

 

[Temujin]

Honestly, I believe it is a stretch to say X happened back then, therefore, you know X must be happening now. I might be an idiot, but shit doesn't work for me quite that simply. Maybe that comes from an old legal rule that goes: character evidence (what someone did in the past) is not admissible to prove that the actor (the same person) has acted in accordance therewith on this (now) occassion. That is, because X robbed a bank 8 years ago, you just can't bring in a witness to say that for the proposition of proving that X robbed the liqour store he is now accused of robbing. Because I know my 8 year old will take a couple of extra cookies from the jar when give permission to take 2 -- doesn't mean I will accuse him when the jar comes up empty and no gave permission to eat them all.

Now, I'm not stupid either. When I see the top on the cookie jar always screwed on cross-threaded, a chair is always pulled up to the shelf, and a scuff mark always near the same spot on the floor -- each time his little ass has gotten cookies before and thats what I found when the perverbial cookie jar is now empty -- I can use that shit against him. That is, when I see similar enough markings from the governments hand, I can more easily say its been up to no good -=- not because it did a certain thing in the past, but because it fits a common plan or scheme used in the past that bears its marks in the particular incident now in question.

QueEx

As you know character evidence can be admitted to show a pattern of behavior. So no you can't say because I robbed a liquor store 8 years ago I robbed a bank. But you can say that because I robbed 8 liquor stores over the course of 5 years in the same manner that this crime fits that pattern of behavior.

The history of the American government is filled with examples of their (meaning people in power in the government who change over time) willingness to kill, rob, and lie to fullfill their political or personal goals. For whatever reason people in power of both corporate and governmental entities in America have used their power to the detriment of the public at large. This is not isolated instances over time this is a consistent pattern of behavior. A pattern of behavior that makes these theories very possible.

The steps in analyzing a theory or hypothesis are possibility, probability, and fact. When introduced to a new theory the first step in analysis is whether that theory is possible. If it is deemed impossible on its face then there is no need of further investigation. For instance if someone told me the earth is square I would not need to investigate to see if that is true. If the theory is possible then a wise scientist will investigate its probability. If investigation deems the event/theory more probable then not then one can rely on it tangentially. If it is proven to be very probable then one may be able to eventually stand on it factually.

Most of us run into walls during these discussions not in analyzing the probability of a theory or event but its possiblity. There are essentially two camps people that believe government and corporate corruption is on its face impossible so therefore any theory not as of yet proven as fact is impossible. And those the think every theory of government corruption given the history of behavior is possible and therefore investigate the probability.

For those that think theories of government and corporate conspiracy are impossible it is unreasonable to discuss their probability. It would be stupid to investigate the probability of something you deem impossible on its face.

I personally take the stance that theories such as these are on their face possible and I withold judgment on their probability until I investigate. There has just been way to much consistent past behavior to make it reasonable to assume these things impossible.

 

[Makeherhappy]

This again is interesting.
The arguements are funny.
The thread is pointless.
Their are going to be ones that believe and ones that doubt. That's the beauty of choice.
But to remain completely in the dark, is ignorant. Then when something happens, "we couldn't have imagined this."

The arguement for proof is not a good one. Their is something called "National Security," that prevents a lot of "proof" to come out. We all know people end up dead or disappear.


One name I am starting to hear more and more in the media, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Not until a couple of months ago, did you start hearing his name more and more in the media. HE FOR SURE IS ONE OF THOSE "THEY" For the ones that doubt, read, "The Grand Chessboard." I've mentioned it before. I'm reading a couple of other books, when i find the time, that shed light on the "THEY."


Taxonomy of proof: contrapositive
CONTRAPOSITIVE IS A QUITE POWERFUL method in proof: it allows you to attack a proof backwards. Instead of going from the assumptions and trying to derive the result, you start by assuming the result is false and show that this violates one of the assumptions. This makes use of the logical law of contrapositive:

IF A THEN B is equivalent to IF NOT B THEN NOT A

Since we are assuming that the result is not true and end up by contradicting our assumptions, this is a kind of proof by contradiction known as proof by contrapositive.2We used it back in Section 1 for the very first proof; it is used quite a lot. It gives a lot of flexibility in IF AND ONLY IF, because it allows us to interpret the ``forward'' and ``backward'' part of the proof in several different ways:

Since the proof is out there, let's get the answers by going at it backwards.


Yall be easy

and remember,

"Secret people do secret thing"

 

[Freeze]

No matter how many facts you give niggas they think everything with this government is a conspiracy theory.

Good Find.