Journalist throws shoes at Bush [Archive]

View Full Version : Journalist throws shoes at Bush

Bube

12-15-2008, 12:16 PM

Ok, I think this is funny as hell for a ton of reasons :D

Not the act itself, I mean, throwing your shoes at a president? Stupid move. But there are just too many small moments in the 10-second video you can't help laugh at.

Here's (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html) the CNN link.

And I must say, Bush has unbelievable reflexes. And I've never seen somebody who could take their shoes off as fast as the crazy guy.

And I found the attached animation hilarious :D

thatmariolover

12-15-2008, 12:26 PM

I guess throwing shoes at somebody is one of the worst insults there is in Muslim cultures.

I have to agree, though. The reflexes were CRAZY.

Professor S

12-15-2008, 12:48 PM

What immediately struck me was the fact that the reporter owes his shoe throwing freedom to the man that he threw his shoes at.

Nighthawk

12-15-2008, 02:00 PM

< AFK > Maliki :lol:

I guess throwing shoes at somebody is one of the worst insults there is in Muslim cultures.

wrong.

thatmariolover

12-15-2008, 02:33 PM

< AFK > Maliki :lol:

wrong.

Yeah, my comment was made in ignorance and was based on a misleading news article. Ah well.

Fox 6

12-15-2008, 02:45 PM

Imagine if he nailed Bush right in the face. There'd be hell to pay.

The Germanator

12-15-2008, 03:49 PM

Nighthawk

12-15-2008, 03:58 PM

this guy is low on hit rating i guess... and attacking a boss, without any tanks or healers? you're doomed to get knocked-down by trash mobs :p

gekko

12-15-2008, 05:41 PM

I like how he smiled after the first shoe was thrown. That's classic.

Jason1

12-15-2008, 06:05 PM

Oh god when I first saw this I about lost it. Halarious. That guy has got some balls man...wow.

GameMaster

12-15-2008, 06:39 PM

Now just imagine this with a little of Benny Hill's Yakety Sax in the background.

Teuthida

12-15-2008, 07:00 PM

http://james.nerdiphythesoul.com/bennyhillifier/?id=duLds-TZMGw

GameMaster

12-15-2008, 08:35 PM

http://james.nerdiphythesoul.com/bennyhillifier/?id=duLds-TZMGw

I knew there to be another Digg reader here. I just had to plant the bait and wait. :D

Angrist

12-16-2008, 05:30 AM

I like how he smiled after the first shoe was thrown. That's classic.Yeah that's what I thought. :D

manasecret

12-16-2008, 10:02 AM

What immediately struck me was the fact that the reporter owes his shoe throwing freedom to the man that he threw his shoes at.

He's not exactly free right now, still in custody, now with the Iraqi military. Now, if you meant his shoe-throwing-without-getting-beheaded freedom to the man that he threw shoes at, then ok.

Angrist

12-16-2008, 10:08 AM

America, delivering the world the freedom to throw shoes.

Bube

12-16-2008, 10:18 AM

To be honest, if it wasn't for himself, Bush would never have been able to go to Iraq, so the guy would never have needed to throw his shoes at him. Bush brought this upon himself.

Professor S

12-16-2008, 11:56 AM

He's not exactly free right now, still in custody, now with the Iraqi military. Now, if you meant his shoe-throwing-without-getting-beheaded freedom to the man that he threw shoes at, then ok.

Thats basically what I meant, being that the man has the freedom to communicate dissent. Under Saddam, the man would have been sent back to his family in a series of plastic bags.... and that's not hyperbole, thats historical fact. If he were a woman, he would have been raped first and then sent back in small plastic bags.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the Iraq war, there is no arguing that the Iraqi people are far better off now than they were then. I'm sorry, there is that argument, but it simply lacks any credibility under any fair analysis whether you want to crunch casualty numbers or preferrably just use common sense.

That said, throwing shoes is still assault, so I wouldn't expect him to get off scott free. You can't just go around throwing your shoes at people, President or no.

Nighthawk

12-17-2008, 03:18 PM

the game everyone has been waiting for (http://www.sockandawe.com/) :p

Angrist

12-17-2008, 03:23 PM

Hehe, great. :D

KillerGremlin

12-17-2008, 04:32 PM

Funny shit....Bush's grin is priceless.

I keep saying it...Bush is a hella cool guy. I mean I think he would be a fun guy to smoke a bowl with and go to the strip club. I could see him having a few drinks, putting some singles in some g-strings....

I mean he seems like a really cool guy.

Cool president? Eh....entertaining, sure. Intelligent, probably. Good president? Not likely.

He'd make a cool uncle though.

Add to the list of Muslim stereotypes:
1) keep their women in check
2) go alalalalala and darka darka
3) fly planes into things
4) throw shoes

KillerGremlin

12-17-2008, 04:46 PM

http://fc13.deviantart.com/fs38/f/2008/349/c/6/Pokeball_GO_by_guruji.gif

mickydaniels

12-17-2008, 05:09 PM

Thats basically what I meant, being that the man has the freedom to communicate dissent. Under Saddam, the man would have been sent back to his family in a series of plastic bags.... and that's not hyperbole, thats historical fact. If he were a woman, he would have been raped first and then sent back in small plastic bags.
I really hate comments like this. What you really mean to say is that the consequences have changed.

KillerGremlin

12-17-2008, 05:10 PM

I really hate comments like this. What you really mean to say is that the consequences have changed.

They rape him like a woman now?

Professor S

12-17-2008, 05:22 PM

I really hate comments like this. What you really mean to say is that the consequences have changed.

Ah, more senseless equivocation! When the consequences move from torture and dismemberment to being charged with simple assult, which he is guilty of BTW, and I think thats a significant change in consequences and worthy of comment.

remove the shoe throwing, and he likely would have been questioned and released.

Now if it ends up this idiot is sent to GITMO, maybe you'd have an argument, but even then he wouldn't be summarily executed.

mickydaniels

12-17-2008, 06:22 PM

KillerGremlin

12-17-2008, 07:27 PM

Is nonviolent protest the only acceptable form of protest now

Well when you put it that way, we should have just shoot the shoe-throwing mother fucker. And then when the rest of the world complained about our cruelty we could wave our big American dicks at them and remind them that we have the largest stockpile of nukes, the largest spread of foreign occupancy, and huge economic power.

seriously you guys are making way to much of something that is supposed to be funny.

Professor S

12-18-2008, 08:51 AM

Sorry, but the fact that the guy left behind a note saying it's great to die a matyr tells me he could care less about his punishment, only getting out his message.
By the way, this guy could get 15 years in prison, not exactly simple assault. Interesting that you state he was an idiot for using his shoes. Is nonviolent protest the only acceptable form of protest now? Would King George III have received a respectable reception here in the 1770's?

So assualt is acceptable protest? In that case, I'm going to go smash Obama in the head with a brick because of his stimulus plan. After all, its just protest, right?[/sarcasm]

Yes, non-violence is the only form of protest that is acceptable. Anything else is not protest, but revolution. Protest works to CHANGE THE MINDS of those in power by making a statement. Revolution is an attempt by bypass the system all together. You reference of King George only serves to illustrate that fact, as the Colonists petitioned George for YEARS to have a voice and equal rights without success, and the revolution was a war to send them home, not a form of protest.

I'm a little dismayed at you seeming acceptance of violence as a legitimate form of protest. Martin Luther King and Ghandi understood that when you react violently you only serve to alienate those that you disagree with, rather than changing their minds.

In the end Bush came out looking good in all of this, and most people view the shoe thrower as a fool. Bush didn't overreact and even made some memorably funny quotes. So this "protester" did nothing to help his cause, and instead made Bush look better because of his moronic actions.

thatmariolover

12-18-2008, 09:21 AM

So assualt is acceptable protest? In that case, I'm going to go smash Obama in the head with a brick because of his stimulus plan. After all, its just protest, right?[/sarcasm]

Of course I don't think throwing a shoe (or violence in general) is an acceptable form of protest. But you do have to take his point of view to heart before judging him. He doesn't recognize Bush as somebody that gave him freedoms. He sees Bush as the leader of a military occupation of his country. If the US was crumbling from within and another country came over and enforced unfamiliar rules and laws, of course part of the population would rebel.

Those supporting this war see themselves as benefactors, bringing the light and justice to the underprivileged. But not all of them want our help, and you can hardly expect them to take that sitting down. Of course there are less violent ways to express your frustration than throwing a shoe.

In the end I think 15 years in prison is hardly a just punishment for somebody who threw a shoe for something he truly believes in.

Professor S

12-18-2008, 11:14 AM

Of course I don't think throwing a shoe (or violence in general) is an acceptable form of protest. But you do have to take his point of view to heart before judging him. He doesn't recognize Bush as somebody that gave him freedoms. He sees Bush as the leader of a military occupation of his country. If the US was crumbling from within and another country came over and enforced unfamiliar rules and laws, of course part of the population would rebel.

Those supporting this war see themselves as benefactors, bringing the light and justice to the underprivileged. But not all of them want our help, and you can hardly expect them to take that sitting down. Of course there are less violent ways to express your frustration than throwing a shoe.

In the end I think 15 years in prison is hardly a just punishment for somebody who threw a shoe for something he truly believes in.

I recognize his rights to dislike Bush, and I recognize his argument as being a legitimate one, even if I disagree with it. What Im disagreeing with is the shoe tossing. Its his actions that are punishable, not his ideas or speech, and that was and is my point. The reporter simply could have stood up and screamed the same messages and gotten as much attention for his beliefs.

His show throwing destroyed his own argument and marginalized his opinion because he looks like a fool.

mickydaniels

12-18-2008, 12:20 PM

I recognize his rights to dislike Bush, and I recognize his argument as being a legitimate one, even if I disagree with it. What Im disagreeing with is the shoe tossing. Its his actions that are punishable, not his ideas or speech, and that was and is my point. The reporter simply could have stood up and screamed the same messages and gotten as much attention for his beliefs.

His show throwing destroyed his own argument and marginalized his opinion because he looks like a fool.

I don't know about that.
The shoe throwing is something that anybody all over the world can understand without any translation. And compared to other kinds of projectiles, is relatively harmless. Screaming out in Arabic limits his effective audience (would have been carried out anyway). So does using accented English that most people wouldn't understand.

Professor S

12-18-2008, 03:09 PM

I don't know about that.
The shoe throwing is something that anybody all over the world can understand without any translation. And compared to other kinds of projectiles, is relatively harmless. Screaming out in Arabic limits his effective audience (would have been carried out anyway). So does using accented English that most people wouldn't understand.

So if he had simply gotten up and started to angrily scream, his message wouldn't have been sent? The media wouldn't have covered it or translated his message? Really?

Throwing shoes is assault and is unacceptable under any circumstances, not to mention silly, regardless of the message intended. Something tells me that if some republican whack job had done the same to Obama, you'd be singing a different tune. And no, its not ok because it's Bush.

That said, I think it would be a big PR win if Bush pushed for this guy's release. It would show compassion and in the end shoe throwing is unacceptable but as mentioned, harmless barring some freak accident. The release would go a long way to show that Americans are understanding and magnanimous, a perception we have not cultivated in that region.

Nighthawk

12-18-2008, 03:58 PM

you guys are missing the point...

Shoe
< dodge > ---- < AFK > Maliki
Knockdown

Dylflon

12-18-2008, 04:11 PM

He should have thrown a pie.

Angrist

12-18-2008, 05:03 PM

Normal pies are ok, but sometimes they make a puke/manure pie, that's just sick.

Dylflon

12-18-2008, 08:29 PM

Well it would definitely have to be a banana cream pie.

Professor S

12-19-2008, 08:31 AM

Having thrown a pie before, I can assure you that while it would have been far more affective and hard to punish (how do you jail a pie thrower?), it never would have made it. Simple physics of pie aerodynamics, and that banana cream has a large surface area and low density so it can be manipulated by cross-winds quite easily. It would have ended up on the back of the head of some poor Iraqi reporter, and if the poor son of a bitch was Suni we would have had a jihad on our hands.

Thats how a good pie goes bad...

Dylflon

12-19-2008, 05:30 PM

He's in office for a few weeks yet.

There's still time!

Fox 6

12-19-2008, 07:24 PM

Just ask one of our former PMs :D

so sorry Jean

Seth

12-22-2008, 12:19 AM

Professor S

12-29-2008, 09:31 AM

I find it funny how this man has the so called freedom to express himself(stupidly...assault is a crime) without being cut up and given to his family in bags......and at the same time, Saddam would never have had the power or resources to perform such acts of cruelty and violence if it weren't for the military support given by none other than rumsfeld himself(1983)...those ra******* iranians just needed to die. Think it over for a while. Freedom loving country enables mad dictator to persecute for decades, only to turn and fully denounce, pursue, and eventually sentence him to death(yeah whatever it was an 'iraqi court')........wtf prof s I think you're living in an american dreamworld.

1) Racist comments are NOT tolerated and its not to happen again.

2) Seth, you make the common mistake of looking at the past through the lens of the present. Iraq was not our biggest concern in the 80's, it was the USSR and Iran was buddy-buddy with them. Add to that Russia's push into Afghanistan, and Iraq was one of the only forces at the time that was thought able to prevent a consolidation of power in the Middle East which would have given Russia incredible resources (oil) for continued expansion.

Now does that make what happened right? No, but it makes it more complicated than you portray. America had a completely different foreign policy strategy at the time (enemy of my enemy is my friend) that empowered other dictatorships as well, and that is unlike what we have now even when Rumsfeld was with Bush. The Bush doctrine is not the Reagan doctrine when it comes to foreign policy. The situations are different and the decisions are different.

Administrations change, strategies change, and many times we have to deal deal with the mistakes of the past today, just as Obama is going to have to deal with the mistakes made in Afghanistan by the Bush administration.

You seem to live in a world where there are no mis-judgements or imperfect solutions; only golden truth and despicable deviousness. That is a hard and unforgiving way to look at the world that only breeds anger and paranoia.

Seth

12-29-2008, 02:33 PM

Bond

12-29-2008, 02:47 PM

i mean it's a general concession that Bush Senior ran the show as VP under Reagan.
I don't think that's a general consensus, or true. Reagan's intelligence has been historically underrated. Take, for example, his 1964 speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt1fYSAChxs) in support of Barry Goldwater.

Professor S

12-29-2008, 02:49 PM

Well, i thought the racist comment was in context, obviously not meant to be taken literally, merely a representation of how they were viewed by the reagan administration in terms of value of life. You're right though, it's offensive.
And, the US sold arms to both sides. Iran and Iraq, so I don't know where shades of gray fit in. By the time they signed the armistice over a million from both sides had died, and I wouldn't say that Bush Senior and the Reagan admin were far apart....i mean it's a general concession that Bush Senior ran the show as VP under Reagan. The guy was an actor for f's sake. Jimmy Carter started a move towards independence from foreign oil. Reagan effectively ended that movement and instead fueled the industrial war complex to keep oil money flowing.

Your selective memory is astounding in your first sentence. Remember what was associated with the sale of weapons to Iran? The release of hostages? Remember that the weapons were initially sold to Iranians who were AGAINST THE AYATOLLAH??? Remember????? Once again the information you quote is missing important nuance and major facts.

The Iran-Contra affair was a political scandal which was revealed in November 1986 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration. It began as an operation to increase U.S.-Iranian relations, wherein Israel would ship weapons to a moderate, politically influential group of Iranians opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeini; the U.S. would reimburse Israel for those weapons and receive payment from Israel. The moderate Iranians agreed to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by Hezbollah. The plan eventually deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

The rest of your warrantless commentary isn't worth responding to on a serious level, IMO. You make groundless assumptions based on conspiracy theory fiction, as usual, and any statement that its "generally accepted" that Bush ran the Reagan whitehouse ignores any semblance of reality or knowledge of the conservative movement.

Correlation and absence of evidence to the contrary does not make evidence for your accusations. Until you can resource and quote some serious evidence for your claims, go crawl into a bunker, stockpile canned goods and arms and get ready for the New World Order to take over. I apologize for being so harsh but opinions like your are dangerous and if people are to read and believe they are true they damage themselves as conspiracy theories do more to crush ambition and create impotence than to reveal truth.

Seth

12-29-2008, 03:56 PM

Bond, according to wiki Reagan had no idea about the arms for hostages 'scandal'. So really, administrative members were acting without the president's approval. The guilty parties involved were later pardoned by Bush sr. I'd also conjecture that the reagan of 1964 wasn't under the same influences as when in office. Don't misunderstand my comment as insuniating Reagan wasn't intelligent. Anyone with high political ideals can be manipulated. Dick Cheney, VP, holds tons of power...in the way that he's basically a lobbyist in an elected position. Given the vast amount of wealth of the bush family, their ties with oil, well I'd say that's power. Believe that the nice talking Reagan was free to make the best decisions for the american people instead of looking out for the status quo. Same thing with Obama, he's a beacon of hope. He's also the highest funded presidential candidate in history....which, hahaha, ensures that he'll be representing the working class american.
Hey, they used a portion of the profits from the arms sales in iran to give weapons to the nicaragua anticommunist militias...and they got cocaine in exchange. cocaine which they smuggled into america....the CIA did this. Sure, this all happened within the intelligence community without presidential administrative knowledge. suuuure. Believe that if it helps you sleep. Hey, they also destroyed evidence about the iran-contra affair...they probably just burnt the info that had no relevence with accountability towards the american people. Go ahead and call me a CT because I believe that money moves politics. sure, whatever. I'm not into canned food and weapons...and especially underground bunkers. You're just another fratboy so of course your opinions have a collective merit.
Prof, what do you mean about my selective memory in context with my first sentence? I was using a derogatory, racist term to emphasize the lack of empathy towards human life in the whole iraq/iran/communist/democratic shitfest. Maybe you weren't referring to this? The same Ayatollah you mention was loved by the iranians. We both know that Iraqis and Iranians don't know what's best for them though. I'm not saying I believe Ayatollah was right, or even a good man. The western implanted Shah before him modernized Iran through oil money. He was pushing for more women's rights and non-muslim equality. Hey, prof s, since you brought up the nwo, do you believe in the abolition of sovereign states? Should we all share the same constitution? Because that is what the political move is heading towards, straight from the mouth of a US president, and many more political leaders. Sure, it's a CT and of course, as you've mentioned before, keeping an open mind towards evidence is ambition crushing...whatever man.

Bond

12-29-2008, 07:42 PM

Bond, according to wiki Reagan had no idea about the arms for hostages 'scandal'. So really, administrative members were acting without the president's approval. The guilty parties involved were later pardoned by Bush sr. I'd also conjecture that the reagan of 1964 wasn't under the same influences as when in office. Don't misunderstand my comment as insuniating Reagan wasn't intelligent. Anyone with high political ideals can be manipulated. Dick Cheney, VP, holds tons of power...in the way that he's basically a lobbyist in an elected position. Given the vast amount of wealth of the bush family, their ties with oil, well I'd say that's power. Believe that the nice talking Reagan was free to make the best decisions for the american people instead of looking out for the status quo. Same thing with Obama, he's a beacon of hope. He's also the highest funded presidential candidate in history....which, hahaha, ensures that he'll be representing the working class american.
Hey, they used a portion of the profits from the arms sales in iran to give weapons to the nicaragua anticommunist militias...and they got cocaine in exchange. cocaine which they smuggled into america....the CIA did this. Sure, this all happened within the intelligence community without presidential administrative knowledge. suuuure. Believe that if it helps you sleep. Hey, they also destroyed evidence about the iran-contra affair...they probably just burnt the info that had no relevence with accountability towards the american people. Go ahead and call me a CT because I believe that money moves politics. sure, whatever. I'm not into canned food and weapons...and especially underground bunkers. You're just another fratboy so of course your opinions have a collective merit.
My problem with conspiracy theories in general is that they are overly simplistic. The world is a complex string of economies, governments, cultures, religions, etc. One theory cannot and never will be able to explain the inner workings of all these combined elements.

You also have to take into account that America has been, and still is, the sole world power. This is a tremendous and complex responsibility, and cannot be oversimplified. Nixon wrote several great books on this issue.

Professor S

12-30-2008, 09:58 AM

Seth, you say you keep an open mind toward evidence... what evidence? What evidence do you have that Bush ran the Reagan whitehouse? What undebunked hard evidence do you have that 9/11 was an inside job? What real evidence do you have for any of this? Where are the documents? Where is the smoking gun? Nixon couldn't get away with a simple robbery without getting nailed... how is the world elite getting away with their nefarious schemes without producing a single verifiable shred of real evidence????

Evidemnce is not correlations or absence of contrarian data. Evidence is fact and is empirically viable. IMO, conspiracy theory is a mental dysfunction that relies on the lack of proof to validate wild logical leaps and imaginative explanations for our own feelings of powerlessness. Why aren't you a brilliant success? Who is keeping you back? Why is the world not perfect? Well, it must be a shadow government...

When it comes to the NWO, not only have you taken Presidential statements out of context, just as you previously took history out of context when talking about Iran and the arms deals (by the way, the Ayatollah was not "loved" by his people, at least not how you portray it. I personally know two families that RAN from the Ayatollah), but you still fail to post any evidence.

The greatest logical evidence that these crackpot theories are wrong is that Alex Jones is still alive. If the world is run by such a small collection of infinitely powerful people, why would they allow their "greatest nemesis" to live? They wouldn't.

Seth

12-30-2008, 12:35 PM

Good question prof s. Watergate was a media frenzy, distracting from the real issues. Unelected Gerald Ford became president as a result, he then used the 25th to appoint Nelson Rockefeller as VP. Ford didn't cleanse the hill of corruption. -Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, Chapter 7
What are your thoughts about the destroyed evidence in the Iran-Contra scandal? That's fact and it's right out of the same wiki article you posted. Because it was destroyed do you assume the evidence was irrevelent to holding accountable the people involved?
You're pushing it with the conspiracy theory impact on the whole of one's life. I don't blame other people or organizations for my shortcomings. I know that I won't come out with an MA if I don't study hard at my uni. I believe in taking charge of one's life fully, and that, until a political powered entity removes my rights to follow what I want, well, no one else is to blame. I believe that disproportionate taxing does little to help the working class and effectively enables the richest of the country to dodge paying taxes...i believe this has a relative influence on my life, but I don't point to a Rockefellar power cabal or anything as the men in charge. Prof, I feel like you stereotype me into a raving alex jones loving CTheorist which isn't at all what I am. I can't bear listening to jones' garbage. If anything he's a perpetuator of the system, leading astray people who feel like the corruption spans past an administrative body, and has it's roots more in money. Alex Jones doesn't represent the conspiracy theory culture. He's a vent that the average joe american can listen to and form conclusions. I'm not saying that everything he says is garbage, but a lot of it is merely speculation. I think he takes truths and renders them invalid. That's why he's alive. Plus, martyred people...with his profile, make people protest.

I remember the popular science article you posted which was supposedly an infallible refute of the other view. http://www.ae911truth.org/
have you read the evidence in that website? They're architects and engineers, finding faults with the official story. I'd say it's worth your time. It's a different website than 9/11truth.org
The majority of Iranians felt that Ayatollah was a good leader. Yes, he murdered and persecuted, but so did the shah before him. Heck, they'd rape virgins before executing them because it's law that a virgin can't be put to death.
What do you think of the Defense Authorization Act of 2007? It gives the president power to declare marshal law for the laughable reason of restoring public order. Do you see your country heading in a good direction? What do you think of publicly elected officials(clinton, harper) speaking at Bilderberg meetings? Is it ok for government elects to hold private meetings, barred from media scrutiny? Maybe you believe the public's to stupid to form a rational opinion based on openness and honesty.
I'd ask you to read the power elite playbook series of articles, but you'd probably decline, seeing as how they're on conspiracyarchive.com All the articles are heavily referenced. I'm open to any articles you have which back your opinion.
I've found that the Bible has a lot to say about end times. If you want true answers, it's all in that book. None of you guys believe in its validity I can assume. Don't go Dawkins on me, but I believe that fulfilled prophecy has proven the authenticity of the Bible.

Professor S

12-30-2008, 12:57 PM

Seth, beyond the Popular Science article I've posted, there are numerous photos, interviews and other organizations that have debunked the 9/11 myths you propogate, and for every myth that is debunked a new one will pop up in its place. Thats what happens with urban legends, and 9/11 truth is nothing more than that. I'm done going back and forth because there will always be a severe fringe minority voice that you will champion on the subject. Its pointless to argue religion, and to you this is honestly a religion.

As for covering up evidence for Iran Contra, that came out in the open during various hearings. No secret meetings... no clandestine shit... just the process at work and chickens coming home to roost.

...

So the scanadal of Nixon was to cover for Gerald Ford being sent in as President??? You mean Nixon's resignation as President and the orderly transfer of power to Ford, the Vice President as its written in the Constitution, was a conspiracy??? DO YOU READ TO YOUR OWN COMMENTS??? I guess Bush lost to Obama because the Rothchilds deemed that Obama/Anti-Christ must come to power and Bush only was so unpopular to bring Obama to power....

How can't you see how this type of thinking castrates you? EVERYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY! Why bother trying if you have no control?

The biggest problems with conspiracy is that its completely subjective. Everything that confirms your belief is truth, and everything in the contrary is simply part of the conspiracy. Its nuts.

I'm not arguing that there isn't corruption, but to transform selfish/arrogant people into super-intelligent megalomaniacs our for world domination and not simply out for their own personal betterment is fiction.

Seth

12-30-2008, 01:13 PM

Of course I'm not saying that the nixon scandal was a cover for Ford properly taking office. I just didn't add that it took public spotlight away from Kissinger and the whole vietnam fiasco. I'm not claiming a conspiracy. I just added the Ford/Rockefeller part to show that corruption didn't disappear with Nixon's demise from office. I was right though, you won't even look at a NEW website which has over a 130 professional architects and engineers who throw more evidence in. I know they had hearings for the iran contra scandal. What I'm saying is that they DESTROYED EVIDENCE. Fact. wiki. that's all i'm saying.

You wouldn't know the Biblically identified antichrist anyway. You obviously don't have an education in the field. Obama's just a corrupt politician. cool it luke. Again, you say believing in a conspiracy throws personal control of anything out the window. You're a funny guy. Anyway, you already seem to know me so this is it for this thread.

Professor S

12-30-2008, 01:45 PM

Seth, what makes you think I haven't already been to the site you posted? I defer to the vast majority of interviews and evidence from people who were actually there and saw it happen. I had a friend of mine who was in building 7 and can personally debunk that nonsense. Again, its pointless to argue with you. You see what you want and re-read what you already believe.

As for Iran-Contra, I KNOW EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED. It was in the damn HEARINGS. Jesus Christ! Do you read what I post?

And I never claimed that corruption doesn't exist, I simply deny that its a part of some rediculous NWO consiracy for world domination that fits into your particular apocalyptic religious beliefs, or I think thats what I'vbe gleaned from this conversation. Its very difficult to discuss this theories of yours as you seem to avoid your own arguments and refuse to make real declaritive statements regarding them. So here is an attempt at clarity:

Do you believe that the New World Order conspiracy theory, if true, is a step in the process that will bring about the apocalypse/revelation/etc.?

Seth

12-30-2008, 02:26 PM

In response to your question,
yes? Any worldwide governing body which undermines the rights and freedoms of individuals is a step towards what the Bible teaches as the end of times. I don't know why you care...except to clarify my obvious fanatical/apocalyptic beliefs. Clarity, so there it is. I'm curious as to where you're heading with that.

My point about destroyed evidence being that things aren't necessarily what they seem. The hearings did cover the fact that evidence was destroyed, but it didn't cover the material that was destroyed, so the facts available to the public in that manner aren't all there. I'm basically trying to point out that it doesn't matter how open and public a scandal becomes, if incriminating evidence was destroyed beforehand, then justice has been tampered and the whole story(entirety of recorded facts) will never reach the public.

edit: How does your friend debunk the building 7 allegations? What about all the other eyewitnesses who heard explosions? Please, post up some articles which shakedown the 9/11 conspiracy arguments. I've read some and I wouldn't mind reading more. What did your friends have to say?

Professor S

12-30-2008, 02:57 PM

Denis Praeger always says that in leiu of agreement you can have clarity. I simply wanted to clarify your opinions, as you are rarely clear when it comes to making declarative statements. Even you affirmative answer has a question mark after it.

As for building 7, she witnessed how the building was in terrible shape and was listing in parts prior to the collapse. She was in the basement for a time after the attack. Here is a site with related materials:

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

As for explosions, and witnesses to their sounds, I doubt the witnesses have that trained of ears to recognize controlled demo from blowing air pockets and failing structural supports. To say that people heard explosions that day is to state the obvious, and it doesn't prove any sort of theory. Its just more ambiguous correlative observation that has no tie to any form of conspiracy except for the one our active minds wish to invent.

Also, it takes WEEKS of preparation to set up the implosions you claim, including cutting into structural supports, stripping most of the internal facade, etc. Kind of hard to hide work like this, although I'm sure there are many explanations of mysteriously dressed anonymous workers in the building prior who worked quickly and PERFECTLY never raising any questions or alarms. There always are.

Now if there were tremendous explosions below the impact of the planes, I could see it and it could be easier to hide ina large building, but to orchestrate a controlled implosion would be impossible under the circumstances of their environment.

And steel does not melt at the temperature of jet fuel and hot fires... it loses half its structutural integrity which is more than enought to collapse a weakened structure, but I'm sure you've already read all of this and have some kind of answer for it as theorists always scramble to pick up the peices after being debunked. There always is.

This is a remarkable site for 9/11 myths:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/debrislocation.html

As for the Pentagon...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YTNRkb7AaQk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YTNRkb7AaQk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Question 2: What do you believe the end goal of the New World Order is, if they were ever to achieve their ambitions, and how would they achieve it?

Seth

12-30-2008, 03:54 PM

What do you believe the end goal of the New World Order is, if they were ever to achieve their ambitions, and how would they achieve it?

Of course, you know the answer. Reduced population. Genetic refinement. It dates back to the eugenics movement, very popular in the United States prior to the third reich. The Henry Fords and Prescott Bush's of the world are the guys who believe in this shit. You do know Prescott's banking firm was shut down because of the Trading with the Enemy Act? A lot of the Bush fortune was made on financing the Nazi military movement?
Reduced population(especially in third world countries) would free up the better part of humanity to take care of this planet, creating a better, more sustainable future for the generations to come. How would they impose this? Well, what would you call economic 'sanctions' imposed by the IMF? Have you found out how IMF policies towards debt relief and adopted policies work in countries...like in subsaharan africa? Do you believe that monsanto crops are safe for consumption? I suppose you believe that perpetuating a medical system whose doctrine only moderately includes preventative measures as opposed to prescribing pharmaceuticals is the way to go? We have Bill C-51 here in Canada which effectively shuts down holistic/alternative medicinal products. The Bush pre-emptive strike doctrine is one tiny example of military ideology being used despite scientific outcries over the repercussions. There's a reason why cancer rates are so high in north america. It's ok to feed kids happy meals on a day to day basis(lots of families can't afford better) yet you'll get a jail sentence for simple possession of weed. There's a lot of ways to achieve tighter control. It's not just population reduction, that's merely one step in 'their' ambitions. An EU style of world government is the most effective way to stifle discent. I'm saying that the reality around us is largely constructed to keep money with the rich and reduce the power of the people to spur actual change. I suppose you believe your dentist when he says fluoride is a must to prevent cavities. You know Toronto's had fluoride for years in the city water yet their cavities/per person is way higher than Vancouver which doesn't add fluoride. Joseph Goebbels had some interesting things to say about adding the chemical to the populations drinking water in order to placate the people and extinguish free thinking. Instead of asking me this, how about you read the power elite playbook series of articles from that website i mentioned. I think there's something like 19 in total now, so there's a bit of reading.

another example, what gave the US the right to use chemical warfare in Cambodia and Vietnam? The idea was to destroy the ability to grow food. and I mention the US because they dropped the most agent orange(supplied by monsanto) than any other country. A majority of food in your local supermarkets is GMO. Churchill was still all for using chemical weapons even after WW1. Do you think it's beyond 'them' to use chemical warfare as a means to reduce populations? blah, yeah I believe that there is little regard for human life within the inner workings of governments throughout the world, either enemy life or that of the nation's peoples. They condembed Japan for it's brutality and disregard for the Geneva Code, yet the west can act with a double standard. better stop here.

Bond

12-30-2008, 04:05 PM

Why are we limiting ourselves to American conspiracy theories? What about Russia? China? India? Pakistan? Great Britain? Canada?

Edit: And on the Bible front, it can't be forgotten that the Bible was a text written for its time, and written for one (transforming into two) people. Its moral lessons can be extrapolated to today, but its historical implications cannot.

Seth

12-30-2008, 04:24 PM

Bond, what's been mentioned in this thread is only a slice of the big picture. It has nothing to do with America 'solely'. It's a world conspiracy and you should read up on it more, if only to familiarize yourself with what's being 'exposed'.

Bond, I don't think you're all that acquainted with the Bible. The Tora(old testament) was written for the nation of Israel, but it holds relevance today. The Tora is needed to understand the New Testament. Both of which have very much to do with world events, happening on a chronologically through history. I don't want to come off as flippant, I'm only pointing out that the Bible is mainly concerned in awareness of the past, present, and future. If you begin to read the New Testament you'll find that it wasn't written for 'one people' but for the whole world. "jews and gentiles alike" Once you get past the discrediting theories(they've been thoroughly refuted) which suggest Jesus is merely a collaboration of combined cultural folklore, or the theories that suggest he didn't exist at all, you'll find that it fits perfectly within a historical context of world events. In actuality, the Bible is the biggest conspiracy theory out there. Even with all the world religions(and conflicting beliefs within 'christendom') it still makes complete and utter sense. Most people know about religion through popular culture, or even through sunday sermons, which more often than not distorts the truth and only serves as a discredit to the validity of what is actually found within the Bible. I picked a Bible up about a year ago(for the first time in a long long time) and it changed my life completely. I've never been in this state of continual joy until I found the answers I was looking for in the Bible. It's all a highly sensitive subject so, well, I don't want to offend anyone. If you want to know why the early followers of Christ were persecuted in the Colloseum and then why Constantine created a church state, well it's all predicted within the Bible, and it continues to explain the world we're living in now.

Bond

12-30-2008, 04:35 PM

Bond, I don't think you're all that acquainted with the Bible. The Tora(old testament) was written for the nation of Israel, but it holds relevance today. The Tora is needed to understand the New Testament. Both of which have very much to do with world events, happening on a chronologically through history. I don't want to come off as flippant, I'm only pointing out that the Bible is mainly concerned in awareness of the past, present, and future. If you begin to read the New Testament you'll find that it wasn't written for 'one people' but for the whole world. "jews and gentiles alike" Once you get past the discrediting theories(they've been thoroughly refuted) which suggest Jesus is merely a collaboration of combined cultural folklore, or the theories that suggest he didn't exist at all, you'll find that it fits perfectly within a historical context of world events. In actuality, the Bible is the biggest conspiracy theory out there. Even with all the world religions(and conflicting beliefs within 'christendom') it still makes complete and utter sense. Most people know about religion through popular culture, or even through sunday sermons, which more often than not distorts the truth and only serves as a discredit to the validity of what is actually found within the Bible. I picked a Bible up about a year ago(for the first time in a long long time) and it changed my life completely. I've never been in this state of continual joy until I found the answers I was looking for in the Bible. It's all a highly sensitive subject so, well, I don't want to offend anyone. If you want to know why the early followers of Christ were persecuted in the Colloseum and then why Constantine created a church state, well it's all predicted within the Bible, and it continues to explain the world we're living in now.
Actually, I am. In fact, I've studied religion since my freshman year in high school, and continue to in college.

It's interesting that you've accused myself and Professor of not being "acquainted" with the Bible, but we have never accused you of this.

I'm not even going to touch this discussion with a ten foot pole.

Seth

12-30-2008, 05:05 PM

Why I threw that at Prof was because of his Obama/antichrist thing.
And I said the same about you because you said it's historical implications can't be applied to today. How much time have you spent actually reading the Bible?
You're right though, that was rude of me and based solely on one post of yours.
If you'll explain to me what you mean when you say the Bible doesn't have historical implications then I promise to be less accusatory and ignorant with my comments.

Professor S

12-30-2008, 05:47 PM

Why I threw that at Prof was because of his Obama/antichrist thing.

Its called sarcasm, or are sarcastic responses a part of the conspiracy? :hmm:

Once again you quote series of questionable statements and "facts" that even if true have not been proven to be related to one another. MORE CORRELATION, ZERO PROOF OF CONSPIRACY.

And Seth, I think you apply far reaching clandestine operations to situations that are more a result of needing to pander to get re-elected or simply profiteering.

You statements about healthcare are an excellent example: There is no profit it preventative medicine, at least not as much profit as in pharmacy. Add to that incredible overhead for preventative medicine caused by malpractice law (more profiterring and political pandering to the lawyers) and you have a shortage of doctors in many western states, much less thrid world nations.

Also, people don't like going to the doctor, and they like drugs and quick fixes. Healthy diets and excercise would solve most of the problems, and there is plenty of pushing for these within the government, but people would rather take a pill.

Also, its far CHEAPER and HEALTHIER to cook meals for your family than to buy fast food. Its not about cost, its about time and knowledge. You could make an argument that the weakening of the traditional family and gender roles after the Great Depression had a role in this, but instead its a vast conspiracy, right?

Please explain flouride's effect on the populace. You made a statement about drugging a populace, how does flouride drug us? Specifically, what are its effects? Also, when water began to be flouridated, were those who made the decision aware of these ill effects? We used to use DDT, too. Are there any historical studies that prove the harmful nature of flouride?

Couldn't all of these statements helping to back your theory be better explained through simpler means based on human nature and not some convoluted and unlikely cabal of world elites?

[b]Question 3: Who makes up the global elite that are heading up this vast conspiracy? Please be specific. How do they orchestrate this massive conspiracy so quietly and speedily?

Seth

12-30-2008, 07:00 PM

I just assumed you were using sarcasm in replace of any biblical knowledge pertaining to the subject.

In response to your pharmaceutical statements, of course it's profit driven, my point being, if they'll pass legislation on cocaine, marijuana, etc, but still push amphetamines over the counter, where's the concern for general health. People will always self destruct through diet and shitty lifestyle. I'm saying that doctors give out drugs that kill people more than car accidents. ... profiteering runs a lot of the show, hands down yes. I just don't believe it ends in the balance books. As far as cooking food being cheaper, well a lot of single moms work two/three jobs and don't have the time/education. If it's store bought food being cooked then chances are it's been processed, effectively killing the beneficial enzymes and nutrients which help keep the body's pH at a proper level. If it's fresh veggies, well organic is expensive...and many families just can't afford it. The alternative to fresh organic produce? You're right, it is time and awareness. It's GMO(the most heavily sprayed food) so most think they're giving their kids healthy carrots and cucumbers but really it isn't.The more research about what is actually healthy, you'll find that unless one is growing their own food or has the resources to buy organic, it doesn't matter how many saunas and exercise sessions one does, the body will deteriorate badly. I know you said yeah, shaking down of traditional family unit...of course it's a conspiracy instead of...well Richard Rockefeller said it himself that one of the goals after feminism was to get kids into preschools at an earlier age. Give them a good shot of hitler youth experience. Sounds severe but institutionalization of children's upbringing is one and the same. I think we agree for the most part that a lot of the negative things in society, like malnutrition, poor education, breakup of the traditional family, is all rooted in profit and greed. I just believe that these are allowed to continue by the politicians that 'we' elect into power. 20 years ago the conservative government in Canada promised that they would eliminate child poverty. During that conservative lead parliament childhood poverty actually increased and it turns out they didn't do a thing as far as investment goes to fulfill their election promise. In fact, Mulroney was best known for consolidating more money with big corp. Canadians went liberal for a long time after. It goes farther then financial payouts to politicians. It's safety for them and the people they care about. Not just money.
How about you look up on fluoride, the scientific studies which draw a correlation between the chemical and nervous system damage. I did a quick search on google 'research that correlates fluoride with nervous system damage'. Here's the first link to pop up. It looks like it's sourcing studies.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/
You're right about DDT, asbestos, etc. Unfortunately, fluoride was being used in Nazi Germany, where the detrimental effects were first found...THEN it became popular in America to have it in the water supply.
\another similar quick search on google regarding a link between autism and vaccines,, http://www.autismwebsite.com/ARI/vaccine/thimerosalreferences.htm
It hurts to think that it's even a possibility but more evidence is suggesting that the ever increasing rate of autism has an origin in the ever increasing use of vaccines...especially as vaccines are becoming required by law in certain states.

Question 3 Who makes up the global elite that are heading up this vast conspiracy? Please be specific. How do they orchestrate this massive conspiracy so quietly and speedily?

my short short, somewhat specific answer: Refer to the stock market crash that followed immediately after Waterloo. Rothschilds bought out the market for hardly a thing and it rebounded after basically giving that family control of Britain. The reason the market crashed is because a Rothschild agent got the news to britain that Napoleon had won, when in fact the French got their asses handed to them. Central bank family's like the Rockefellers. Like i mentioned a long time ago, the federal reserve has only existed since 1913. Private banking firms owning, creating, manipulating the money which supposedly belongs to the tax payers. People with ties to monetary gain, to the point where their corporate holdings 'require' them to keep a majority of the third world in poverty. I've directed you to reading those articles and I'd prefer that, and have you bring up rebuttals cuz that's where the answers are to a lot of this.

to add, about it being a massive conspiracy happening quietly and speedily...well it's something that's been happening for a long long time. Up until now conditions haven't been in place for the dissolvement of national sovereignty, coupled with the level of technology only now available to this central power. But seriously, read those Power Elite Playbook articles, then do the socratic dialogue with me.

1 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Power_Elite_1.htm)
2 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Power_Elite_2.htm)
3 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Power_Elite_3.htm)
4 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Power_Elite_4.htm)
5 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Power_Elite_5.htm)
6 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Power_Elite_6.htm)
7 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Power_Elite_7.htm)
8 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Power_Elite_8.htm)
9 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Power_Elite_9.htm)
10 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Power_Elite_10.htm)
11 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Power_Elite_11.htm)
12 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Power_Elite_12.htm)
13 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Power_Elite_13.htm)
14 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Articles/Power_Elite_14.htm)
15 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Articles/Power_Elite_15.htm)
16 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Articles/Power_Elite_16.htm)
17 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Articles/Power_Elite_17.htm)
18 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Articles/Power_Elite_18.htm)
19 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Articles/Power_Elite_19.htm)
20 (http://conspiracyarchive.com/Articles/Power_Elite_20.htm)

Professor S

12-31-2008, 08:56 AM

Seth

01-01-2009, 11:40 PM

Seth, once again I'm not looking for your sources, I'm looking for clarity on your opinion. Certainly you don't believe all of the information on these conspiracy websites you cite. If so, you'd be guilty of the same type of carelessness you accuse skeptics of. I'm looking for YOUR opinion, not someone else's. CLARITY, not agreement. I'll use the quote just to keep it organized. You're right, I don't believe all the info on these(referring to the ones posted within this thread) conspiracy websites. A lot of it is a waste of cognitive thought. My opinion, clarity on the matter, will require a lot of dialogue, but i'm willing to give it a go....in just a bit.

As for flouride and vaccines, I agree they have detrimental effects, but you have not proven that any of their effects were intended or that they even have an affect that could be deemed advantageous for any organization, not matter how maleavolent. Sometimes actions have unintended results, like the vaccines and autism, which the argument (and I agree with it) is that autism rates are increased by a PRESERVATIVE in the vaccine to stabalize shelf life, which is no longer widely used and without preservatives they would never make to the third world before spoiling, and even more of these poor people would die. If the goal is to kill and/or control the third world/poor, why would we use preservatives in vaccines at all? Moreover, why would Pharma companies send billions of $ worth of vaccines to Africa at no charge (GloaxoSmithKline as an example)? I'll answer it for you: They wouldn't.Actually thimerosal is still being widely used. They've knocked it down to micrograms in children's vaccines. However, children are recieving upwards of 130 vaccinations during their childhood years now. Not 130 seperate shots, many are administered at the same time, but there is reason to believe that despite the decreased amount of mercury, the buildup caused by successive vaccinations is still dangerous. If one subscribes to my way of thinking then it wouldn't be farfetched to acknowledge the very real existence of nanotechnology and the ability to inject it in the context of a vaccine. Now, I wouldn't say that there's no reason to view vaccinations as maleavolent because, a)Thimerosal is not needed to control microbacterial growth. The chance that a vaccine will get tainted is still there, but it is a money saving measure first and foremost. There are different ways of packaging to reduce needle contamination(ie seperate vials per vaccination). Also, the majority of flu vaccines administered aren't even beneficial to the recipient. Scientific studies have shown that less than one percent are effective. Kids have died because of tainted vaccines, but the knowledge that mercury is harmful was there, in the 1970's. Now, I would suggest that during the 90's(when I was right in line to recieve vaccinations) there were 'crazies' warning about the dangers of the injections. At the time they were crazy, it was the 90's...the FDA didn't start doing anything until 1999. Before that, when there wasn't enough credible lobbying to make a change, vaccine 'warners' were treated as being nothing more than conspiracy theorists who had no backing to their claims. I remember this, I was there, still just a child, but the anti-vaccine voices were around but completely discredited. As far as vaccines for third world countries(and the need to preserve)...well pharmaceutical patents make it hard to develop cheap, effective alternatives.....much like the AIDS medication patents and the ongoing legal dilemma between countries like india, brazil, etc who have been producing their own generic brands which have saved many lives. If my memory serves correctly I believe Thailand is the only country which has passed laws allowing for patent 'infringement' in order to save lives in regards to AIDS treatment...i might be wrong on this but I'm pretty sure it was Thailand. Anyway, point being, it's a shelf life issue, making it a money issue, not a life saving issue for big pharma. oh, just remembered this to add, What about sunscreen. Here's an industry created out of thin air in the late 40's/50's that, in general, contains many unnapproved FDA chemicals which, by themselves wouldn't be a big concern, but the product is marketed as a preventative measure against cancer. HAHAHA. It blocks out the rays which the body needs to create vit D, which is one of the strongest cancer figting agents we know about(more recent awareness about the VITAL role vitamin D plays in preventing cancerous growth) I'll link you to many sites, doctors, etc if you want, but a google search will do just as good. Now, look at the political environment that allows for this type of lie to continue. Sure, exposed skin under the sun will cause free radicals to happen and melanoma might occur as a result..or whatever skin cancer it is. The best way to prevent sun damage is eat lots of tomatoes(fights the detrimental affects of the UV rays) and clothe properly under intense sunlight. It's common sense. You wouldn't play with a ball of mercury in your hand, because skin is permeable. Yet, mothers every where slather the sunscreen on their poor kids because doctors all over mainstream media tout the benefits. Want to know what the FDA says about sodium laurel sulphate? It's in pretty much every shampoo and body soap product you could find in a supermarket. Want to know how it affects children? Well, for some reason they won't talk about it on the evening news....just like they won't talk about how using sunscreen actually increases your chance of developing cancer as it effectively inhibits your body's ability to heal. Hey, check out skin cancer rates and find out just when it started becoming an epidemic in western cultures. You'll find the advent of sunscreen is creepily in line with that of dawning skin cancer rates. One example of disinformation being fed through mainstream corporate info hubs(CNN, Fox, Global). It's not so conspiracy'esque' once you find out more. I'd like to clarify that I don't view vaccines solely as a way to 'hurt' the population. I believe in the benefits of vaccines to save lives. I just don't trust pharmaceutical companies based on their past and present actions...and on their ability in the future to continue their lack of regard towards the general public's health.

You continue to state truths but then make the mistake of trying to tie them together with some vast intelligence behind them, but with no causative proof to back up these claims, just more heresay and correlation.

In the end this is pointless. You're a faithful believer, and I'm a skeptic. But I'll leave you with this last point:

You have stated that the goal of the conspiracy is obvious: reduced population and eugenics. You have also stated that it is old, over a hundred years if not longer (perhaps the Bavarian Illuminati?), and is run by incredibly powerful world elites that own/control virtually every major corporation, and even complete markets from your statements about the Rothchilds.

SO IF THEY ARE SO POWERFUL AND THE CONSPIRACY IS REAL, WHY HAVE THEY FAILED SO MISERABLY? The reason it's failed so miserably is because you believe that it could be otherwise...or that people are completely gullible. Point: American's would not have accepted the Patriot Acts unless 9/11 occured. FACT. it wouldn't have happened...why? Cuz there was no reason to take away the rights and freedoms until a terrorist attack like that of 9/11. What I'm saying is that, it takes generations of gradual change...removal of basic rights, before a population will accept a more 'complete removal' of our instituted rights and freedoms. This is scientifically backed. If you call a proposed law something like, The Patriot Act, instead of a more fitting title of say, Removal of Rights and Freedoms in Light of Possible Danger then, right there, a huge portion of the more gullible population won't ponder the ridiculousness of it all. Now, apply this type of 'maneuvering' to more aspects like, the UN, the EU, and etc. You see, free trade was fed to Canadians as a way of equalling trade, making trade easier. In fact, it's resulted in the breakup of our natural resources industries. Free trade is here in north america, but somehow(and despite numerous WTO court decisions) the united states has been allowed to put tarriffs on the softwood lumber industry. It basically set the crippling stage prior to the housing collapse in america. Whats left is a dwarfed industry, leaving retail jobs(created because of outsourcing) which keep people on the 'barely making enough to eat properly) range of demographics. illegal immigrants 'doing the jobs that americans don't want to'. Well, if it wasn't for politically enabled corporations delivering slave labour wages then Americans would be willing to work. There wouldn't have to be a black market. Do you believe outsourcing is in the best interests of American and Canadian workers? What about the possibility of a financial recession triggering a global meltdown of the system...gasp, it's happening. And guess what, China's laying off factory workers by the millions. Americans, no longer able to afford the plastic stream of crap coming in through the ocean ports(extenuating oil dependency and further damaging the planets environment) are left with shitty, $8/hour no-benefits labour. unskilled generation. This didn't have to happen. Governing bodies couldn't intervened, just as they're doing now to 'save' the economy. I won't start about the UN's hypocritical stance towards genocide, human rights, etc. There are think tanks working within the UN who do come up with great ways of righting all these wrongs. Don't get me mistaken, I acknowledge that there are countless people working within the system, trying to make a positive difference. What I'm saying is, that if you look at the origins of the CFR, you'll see that the decision making positions of such entities as the UN, ya, even UNESCO, well they're not made for the benefit of all those living in the world's nations. Sorry this is a bit of a rant, but it falls under what you said. If, for some unexplained reason, you don't believe that certain 'elite' families such as the Rockefellers and Rothschilds don't sway world markets for their own benefit, then well, I'm afraid we're living in different worlds. One small example: Standard Oil and GM buying out the rail car industry in america(and effectively ending it..illegally). Since then the market's been on the same course to benefit oil profiteers and automotive revenues, who cares about the environment. The biggest joke of it all is that now, in the last year or so of the Bush administration, they've turned around and it's all green this and green that. bullshit. You can accurately judge somebody based on their actions. I'm not even saying that the bush administration is geared towards environmentalism, or that it wasn't being preached by those in power(gore as VP) long before this recent 'awakening'. What I'm saying is that it suits a political purpose which I believe will receive more light as we move forward in time. I'm waiting to see what Obama's solution is going to be. Words are meaningless in the mouths of politicians. It's double speak and it's sad that wide populations of people have bought it up. The supposed green revolution underway is a farce. The Inconvenient Truth isn't all that truthful(do you want me to elaborate or have you seen Al Gore for what he is?) Hockey stick graphs showing the world on the verge of global warming armageddon. Paaaalease, there's a whole lot more involved, not saying that greenhouse gases aren't making a difference, but to initiate a carbon tax(residents of BC know very well) as the answer is a joke. It further removes the ability of lower income tax payers to maintain...well sanity. It's hard to function when the house is always on the verge of being repossessed....what's even more funny is that the main polluters can buy their dispicable behaviour, without changing. So, well, we're left with a crippled economy, because middle class america fuels the free market. They have the buying power. Why, after big oil, wallstreet, detroitwheels have made so much money off of hurting the environment, should the average taxpayer take the responsibility. It's a sad joke. It's even sadder that the bailout process is beint touted as the only way. It isn't. Just another step towards hyperenflation, and a destroyed american currency. I see it as a step towards a unified currency here in NA and eventually a cashless society, which would effectively create an easily controlled society where one has to obey or the ability to buy and sell is removed. It's a scary scenario but that's where this financial mess is headed. Great, all just a natural repercussion of the free market working as it should, free of political buyouts and scandal. I know you know that political moves are fueled by money. Have you read Confessions of a Corporate Hitman? I'm not saying there is no accountibility in polititcs. There is. That's why it's taken so long and why 'they've failed so miserably'. It's not failure. Things are right where they're supposed to be. When you have unprecedented foresite into the economic shifts on this globe, patience is easy. Market anaylysts(fringe wackos with no understanding of how the free market operates) were predicting the inevitable collapse of the current system, decades ago. Not something that bernanke saw a few years before the housing bubble burst. No. Decades. They weren't given a mainstream voice unfortunately so there was no public move to right the ongoing wrongs which we're only beginning to feel now. Do you really believe that if a cure for AIDS was around that they'd be sticking it in every brownskinned sick in Africa? Why would they? Did they send free vaccines to Africa out of the kindness of their hearts? or is it image management. The answer seems obvious to me.

The world population has SKYROCKETED in the last 100 years, and the world's standard of living and average quality and length of life have all increased. Economically, we've seen the birth of the middle class in the same time period, which only undermines the power of the global elites as they decentralize wealth. We are also a more diverse people than ever in the history of our planet, with previous racial prejuduces and religious barriers prohibiting this breaking down over time, and the rate of birth of mentally challenged is increasing going against the turn fo the century eugenic/Fabian beliefs. What I learned last year in my sociology classes is that wealth isn't moving in towards equality, but it is currently heading in the opposite direction, whether you live in a puppet gov run third world country or in the developed part of the world. Standards of living have improved, sure, unless you live in Africa. And let's be frank about a few things, minimum wage is slave labour. It isn't the american dream and min/wage isn't just for the unskilled ignoramous' who can't do anything else. It's what's left when your company goes under or the small business your family's been running for decades can no longer compete with wallyworld or target. You're right about skyrocketing world populations. It's viewed as a problem by the UN. A little fact, if America(and everyone else) gave up it's self indulgent, deadly diet of beef..meat in general, there'd be enough food for the entire world's population. There's an argument that the world can only sustain around 8 bill. some say 11, whatever. The truth is, the amount of plant protein that would be freed up if the meat industry shrank, would be more than adequate to keep people nourished. Not only nourished but fed healthy. Healthy=less disease outbreak. There's nothing healthy about red meat these days. Market meat is the reason why girls are hitting puberty at age 8 and 9. I've read sickenly hilarious articles which attribute the younger puberty mark as a development in the human species, making for a stronger population. ha. You know what they feed market livestock,? GMO and hormones. They know it's fucking with children but it's meat and it needs to be grown fast. I'm basically saying that increased population doesn't need to be the problem that it currently is. 20% consuming 80% of the wealth doesn't need to happen. It's perpetuated by the so called freely elected governments of the world's states. For fucks sake, america, the beacon of democracy, gave us the choice between Kerry and Bush in 2004. Think about that for a while and tell me we have fair representation. I'm not even blaming the 2 party system. I'm saying the electoral process as it's practiced AT THE PRESENT TIME is a farce. As much as I would love it if Obama was the guy that so many think he is, he isn't. He's perpetuator of the current wealth unbalance, and he'll continue to be. Look at his stance towards Israel and the current situation regarding Hamas combatants. Israel is right now bombing the shit out of gaza. Why, oh, because a few Hamas were firing into israel. They broke the treaty. That's their grounds for 'war'. It's ignorance of the facts that allows the Israel/Palestine conflict to continue. http://www.counterpunch.org/
Anyway, the market feeds demand right....so more beef for everyone...

This New World Order of your has done nothing but FAIL FAIL FAIL regarding every one of their goals!! Even if there is a conspiracy, why should we care? Its obviously run by incompetent morons who couldn't tie their shoes, much less control the world.

But I guess thats all part of the greater plan, huh?

None of this makes sense. These goals of the NWO you state are either unrelated or contrary to the actions you claim they've taken to achieve them! Even bioengineered foods and preservatives have done more to SAVE the lives of the poor by fighting starvation through abundance than to kill them slowly through poor nutrition!Bioengineered foods saving lives by fighting starvation. I'm sorry but that's a baseless argument. There wouldn't be the starvation to eliminate in the first place if it wasn't for the very same companies who generated the poverty lead starvation to begin with. I believe that, as western citizens we have a hard time understanding just how fucked up most of the world is because of the 'non-involvement' of western governments in the free market's rape of the third world,, the way we're constantly told how companies like monsanto are trying to create a better living climate for all,, you've seen the bogus shell commercials which always show the company as being some sort of hippy happy environment loving entity. It's like saying a company that just laid off half it's workforce for financial gain is nice and thoughtful because they gave the unemployed a years supply of kraft dinner. Also, I'd like to point to the studies which have shown GMO soy crops to actually produce less yield than heritage soy crops...i just don't have the time right now to find them. I'm in a bit of a bind as I need to keep busy making money for tuition and this month's rent. ...it really is a dilemma of mine lol. But I like discussing this with you prof cuz you are, for the most part civil. Now, if I'm going to really start clarifying my personal beliefs in regard to 'conspiracy theories' then we're gonna have to get real deep and serious here. It involves a lot of Bible theology that I would love to discuss with you if you want. it involves my awareness as to the real antichrist, it's role in world history up till this point, and how it all fits in with the religious and political movements that are happening in present day. It could be offensive to some as I do believe the Bible's very clear in it's symbolic interpretation of prophecy found throughout the Bible. The angle that I'd be coming from however is extremely doctrinal in that one would have to know much about the 'investigative judgement'(both the arguments for and against it's validity), hebrew language-interpretation, canotized scripture, church history, ecumenical movement between denominations, the basic differences between protestant and catholic belief structures(as well as how these same beliefs transcend pigeon denominational thinking and apply to world religions) the 'ingredients' for endtime events and all that. I'm interested in this stuff because it claims answers. Based more in historical fact than winks and nudges, sloppy correlation between what we know and what is speculation. If you want I'll discuss these with you. I find that when it comes to this, denominational differences are stereotyped and quickly dismissed as just another belief structure, differing in regards to inconsequential matters. I believe my stance is unique despite the religious environment we(in our society, nation and world) have been raised in. That's what everyone says about their religion right? ha so it might not work, but if you really want to know what I believe, painfully clarified, then I'll do my best in the following days to do it. It'll be more periodical than our previous discussion in this post because I'm coming up on some really busy times and I'll be lucky to have any spare moments for forums and the like.

Dylflon

01-02-2009, 06:25 AM

Professor S

01-02-2009, 08:51 AM

Holy moly I can't even keep up with this thread anymore.

Does anyone think that consequences for an illegal occupation are in the future? Will anyone even bother to talk war crimes involving this administration?

I'm actually keen on hearing opinions on this so don't just yell at me (Professor).

First I need to know what crimes you speak of. If its an illegal war, thats arguable on a world/UN level, but there is an argument. If its Guantanamo or breaking Geneva conventions during the war (they don't apply to illegal combatants), its baseless, and we've gone over that several times already.

***

Seth, there is too much rambling crazy in your post to cover, but I'll mention a few points:

On the bioengineered food front:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JX9Z4nkSMBE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JX9Z4nkSMBE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Minimum wage: Much better than the REAL slave wages of the turn of century tenements, that was well after you claim all of this began. Also, less than two percent of our population work for minimum wage, and most of them are part time. Also, if there is a conspiracy, why is minimum wage being raised over the next few years?

World population and quality of life: Ok, Africa is a mess... what about the rest of the world? Why do you ignore anything that discredits your argument? You still haven't done anything to disprove the OBVIOUS statements I've made.

If I'm "oblivious" to the truth, then why have you not been able to explain how this conspiracy has failed in terms of population and standard of living? You claim that wealth is not evening out, but thats information from the past decade... what about comparatively over the last 100 to 200 years? You claim this conspiracy is old, and I hold you to that. Once again, this conspiracy fails miserably. If anything, this New World Order would have better met their goals if they kept with the Old World Order.

Vaccines: I never said that the vaccines would develop bacteria, I said they would spoil, and they likely would. There are all kinds of chances for them to be contaminated. As for the preservative, its been removed from children's vaccines because thats the only group where there is EVIDENCE that there MIGHT be a detrimental effect. Persoanlly, I think there is a bad effect, but its yet to be PROVEN. As for vaccines no saving lives, thats absurd. I'll agree that hepatitis vaccines are not necessary for much of the DEVEOPED world, but in places like Africa and Mexico Hep A is a definitve threat and Hep B is 100+ times more communicable than AIDS.

But once again, if there is a conspiracy, how does any of this help achieve it? How does flouride help the NWO control people? How does the vaccine preservative? By creating autism (if true)? How does any of this achieve the goals you've said the NWO has?

And nano-technology? In vaccines? Really?

Sun screen was developed by THE MAN??? REALLY???? It couldn't been that in the 40's and 50's our standard of living grew, vacations became more common and with the development of the affordable CAR travel to BEACHES became more popular? It couldn't have been SUN BURN?????? As for Vitamin D, if its part of the conspiracy, WHY DO WE PUT IT IN MILK???? Or is that really nanobots?:drool:

For the record, my dad worked out in the sun with no sunscreen all his life, and at age sixty he started going to the dermatologist to have melanoma's removed every 6 months. He's done this every six months for the last 8 years. His skin is do thin in the exposed areas he'll often start bleeding fr no reason when the weather is dry. Please don't make anymore statements like these about sunscreen...

And Aids in Africa? Its a drop is the bucket is terms of causes of death. Water born illnesses have a far larger body count than Aids does, including Hep A that I talked about earlier.

ONCE AGAIN: WHARE IS THE SMOKING GUN? WHERE IS ANYTHING THAT TIES TOGETHER THIS CONSPIRACY YOU CLAIM EXISTS. YOU KEEP RAMBLING ON ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS, SOME VALID, MOST NONSENSICAL, BUT AT NO POINT DO YOU SUPPORT ANY OF YOUR CONSPIRACY CLAIMS.

If you want to keep responding to my questions, you're welcome to, but at some point I'd think you'd like to keep some of these beliefs tightly under wraps...

Professor S

01-02-2009, 02:01 PM

Dyflon, this is actually a pretty good run down of the legal issues with the Iraq war:

http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html

Bond

01-02-2009, 07:37 PM

Perhaps the scope of this discussion should be limited... it's gotten a little out-of-hand.

mickydaniels

01-02-2009, 07:51 PM

I just wish there were paragraphs in Seth's replies. And the posting of more conspiracies, particularly the biblical ones.

Dylflon

01-03-2009, 03:08 PM

Thanks for the link, Prof.

Though it doesn't seem to settle my concerns about the occupation. If I understand correctly, the US has "legal" right to force because Iraq didn't hold to a cease fire agreement set in 1991.

What concerns me however it the pretext under which US Forces went into the country. If I remember correctly there were a series of different excuses that changed as the conflict went on. I can't remember if it started with Iraqi ties to Al Quaeda or with the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Though both of these claims were used as the main excuse for invasion at different times. After both of them were proven to be baseless, the reason then became liberation of Iraqi people. I'm not saying that this was not an intention all along, more that it wasn't the main reason for occupation covered in the media. And even then the irony is that it's hard to feel liberated as a people when you have foreign occupants in your country.

Since it was not directly attacked by Iraq the United States did not have an obvious right to self-defense. The administration, though, argued that it had a right to defend itself preemptively against a future possible attack. In his speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, President Bush described Saddam Hussein's regime as "a grave and gathering danger," detailed that regime's persistent efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and spoke of an "outlaw regime" providing such weapons to terrorists.

If we're working under the idea of self defense then the argument is really in the vein of a "It's coming right for us" shoot first, ask later mentality. Because potentially you could label any country as a potential future threat but this should not be grounds for occupation.

And if I was going to talk about Guantanamo I wouldn't so much be concerned about the imprisonment of enemy combatants as I would be about the abduction and incarceration of people within your own country with no trial.

I've found nothing yet to sway me away from the feeling that the whole affair smacks of illegality. And what really concerns me is that as a super power, the US should be the country leading by example, not bending rules and operating wthin grey areas.

Bond

01-03-2009, 04:53 PM

I know this post was directed toward Professor, but I would like to jump in here with a few points. At the time of the invasion I was an ardent supporter. Since then, my support has waned, but I still do think a case can be made.

What concerns me however it the pretext under which US Forces went into the country. If I remember correctly there were a series of different excuses that changed as the conflict went on. I can't remember if it started with Iraqi ties to Al Quaeda or with the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The public reasoning that the Administration put forth during the lead-up to the Iraq war was, in retrospect, mostly inaccurate, yes. However, the intelligence agencies of France, Great Britain, and the United States, all believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. So, did the Administration "lie" to the American people? Perhaps. It is also possible they believed this intelligence (they had no reason not to), and that it was their primary motivation for going to war.

Personally, I don't think the threat of weapons of mass destruction was their primary motivation for war, but it was the easiest to sell to the American people. I find the primary motivations to go to war with Iraq were two-fold: 1) To establish greater long-term stability within the Middle East and 2) To secure oil.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, there were two democracies in the Middle East: Afghanistan and Israel. This kind of situation does not bread stability. The Middle East is a part of the world with a long and storied history of conflict and hatred. It is also a strategically important part of the globe. This is why it becomes America's interest to stabilize the region. Let's look at the map:

http://www.israelarabconflict.com/images/map_middle_east.gif

It is interesting to note that Iran is now sandwiched between two democracies.

Though both of these claims were used as the main excuse for invasion at different times. After both of them were proven to be baseless, the reason then became liberation of Iraqi people. I'm not saying that this was not an intention all along, more that it wasn't the main reason for occupation covered in the media. And even then the irony is that it's hard to feel liberated as a people when you have foreign occupants in your country.
For the accuracy of claims made pre-war, I would refer you to this document by the Council on Foreign Relations:

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?

Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.

Was Saddam involved in the September 11 attacks?

There is no hard evidence linking Saddam to the attacks, and Iraq denies involvement. Many commentators have noted that Baghdad failed to express sympathy for the United States after the attacks.

Does Iraq have ties with al-Qaeda?

The Bush administration insists that hatred of America has driven the two closer together, although many experts say there’s no solid proof of such links and argue that the Islamist al-Qaeda and Saddam’s secular dictatorship would be unlikely allies.

Has Iraq ever used weapons of mass destruction?

Yes. In the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi troops repeatedly used poison gas, including mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin, against Iranian soldiers. Iranian officials have also accused Iraq of dropping mustard-gas bombs on Iranian villages. Human Rights Watch reports that Iraq frequently used nerve agents and mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds living in the country’s north. In March 1988, Saddam’s forces reportedly killed thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja with chemical weapons.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/terrorism_havens.html)

If we're working under the idea of self defense then the argument is really in the vein of a "It's coming right for us" shoot first, ask later mentality. Because potentially you could label any country as a potential future threat but this should not be grounds for occupation.
Well, the war was certainly not fought for the short-term stability of the United States. Iraq posed no imminent threat to our country, although it may have posed an imminent threat to Israel (another issue). The war was in the interest of long-term stability in the Middle East, and in turn benefiting the long-term stability of the United States.

Seth

01-03-2009, 08:44 PM

Minimum wage: Much better than the REAL slave wages of the turn of century tenements, that was well after you claim all of this began. Also, less than two percent of our population work for minimum wage, and most of them are part time. Also, if there is a conspiracy, why is minimum wage being raised over the next few years? If you look at the industrial revolution, and how it restructured society, I think you'll find that the dawn of the 'middle class' is something unique to only a few decades as well as only a select few western countries. The more recent growth of the middle class in countries such as India and China can't be compared to that of the western world because the rise of the middle class in said countries has only been made possible by the further impoverishment of the majority of citizens. Broaden this outlook and you'll find that the middle class in America, Canada, Japan and Europe has been made possible by the increasing rate of poverty in most of the world. I'm saying that a ridiculously small percentage of the world's population has been able to live within the standards of the middle class while most have been kept in poverty. Minimum wage is being raised because of normal inflation rates. And, to say that minimum wage is increasing doesn't reflect what is occurring elsewhere. It wasn't too long ago that in BC they introduced a 6$/hour starting wage. Increased costs of living have required a basic minimum wage raise, but with the illegal immigrant influx into your country, minimum wage for non-citizens won't increase because they have no political 'merit'. They're illegal immigrants, taking the shitjobs which deliver an obscenely low wage.....and at the same time it's a rich wage if you compare it to the country just south of yours. And if you include the population that works for slightly higher than minimum wage, full time, you'd find that it includes a rather substantial percentage of workers in America. When you combine income tax(which in the united states fuels the war efforts more than anything else) to the already low wages available it helps establish an environment that isn't 'slavery' but it's pretty darn close. Over 500 000 jobs were lost this last November in America. Think about where this is heading in terms of quality of life, overall wage decreases, etc. Economic analysts are predicting upwards of a million lost jobs/month in this new year......

World population and quality of life: Ok, Africa is a mess... what about the rest of the world? Why do you ignore anything that discredits your argument? You still haven't done anything to disprove the OBVIOUS statements I've made. I shouldn't have to hold your hand and lead you along the train of thought which leads to...the rest of the world outside of Africa. MEXICO, which is right below you, is in a huge mess. There's no work. The money that could be made in agriculture isn't being distributed to local workers because most of the main crop production is now owned by big agri corporations. I just listened to an hour long special on CBC yesterday about how the quality of life continues to decline since the 1994 recession and the onslaught of 'free trade' legislation. Mexico does have a 'decent' middle class, but it's nowhere near the levels of a first world country such as Canada. If we were to travel farther south, you'd find that all the other Latin American countries are experiencing the same phenomenon only worse in most cases. Should we look at Asia? I shouldn't have to point out that just because life expectency is higher in the other continents, quality of life in general is nowhere near the levels that you seem to assume.

If I'm "oblivious" to the truth, then why have you not been able to explain how this conspiracy has failed in terms of population and standard of living? You claim that wealth is not evening out, but thats information from the past decade... what about comparatively over the last 100 to 200 years? You claim this conspiracy is old, and I hold you to that. Once again, this conspiracy fails miserably. If anything, this New World Order would have better met their goals if they kept with the Old World Order.
Again, I think you're ignoring the reality which resides outside your American border. Comparitively, the last 100-200 years has been an era of empires and colonialization which has only brought 'relative wealth' to a select few. We could take a look at the systematic destruction of native culture in every corner of the globe, but that wouldn't have anything to do with the topic of 'conspiracy theories' could it? or could it? and don't try to blame it solely on religious institutions. Religious groups(catholic and protestant alike) were allowed to abuse the native population here in Canada, with government knowledge. I'm not saying the hundreds, thousands of cases of abuse towards natives was completely known to elected officials, but the idealogy of reformed culture was what drove this movement...and this was going on less than 50 years ago! one small example of the new environment being handed out. This falls into the greater conspiracy which involves the religious powers of this world, which I'll elaborate on.

Vaccines: I never said that the vaccines would develop bacteria, I said they would spoil, and they likely would. There are all kinds of chances for them to be contaminated. As for the preservative, its been removed from children's vaccines because thats the only group where there is EVIDENCE that there MIGHT be a detrimental effect. Persoanlly, I think there is a bad effect, but its yet to be PROVEN. As for vaccines no saving lives, thats absurd. I'll agree that hepatitis vaccines are not necessary for much of the DEVEOPED world, but in places like Africa and Mexico Hep A is a definitve threat and Hep B is 100+ times more communicable than AIDS.I didn't say vaccines don't save lives. I'm talking about required flu vaccinations. This is being legislated in your country. And child vaccines do still contain trace amounts of thimerosal. Approximately 12 out of the 18 vaccine doses the average American child receives before the age of two contain Thimerosal. Cumulatively, that's more than 200 micrograms of mercury, which would fit on the head of a pin.
According to the EPA, dropping that pin-head of mercury into 23 gallons of water would make it unsafe for human consumption.
Dr. Jane Siegel is a professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern in Dallas. For the past five years, Siegel has sat on the government vaccine committee that decides which vaccines are mandatory for children.
"I believe there is no data thus far that's been looked at to prove that there's a connection - that there's a causitive relationship," Siegel said.
But just two years ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did conduct a study, which showed that three-month-old babies exposed to just 63 micrograms of mercury - less than half of the aforementioned pin top - were two-and-a-half times more likely to develop autism.
The study is stamped "Confidential" and "Do Not Copy or Release." Siegel says it was never made public because it was just a draft.

But once again, if there is a conspiracy, how does any of this help achieve it? How does flouride help the NWO control people? How does the vaccine preservative? By creating autism (if true)? How does any of this achieve the goals you've said the NWO has?
I just assumed that you'd make the connection between lowered IQ levels and the ability to manipulate people of reduced intellect. THAT'S HOW FLUORIDE PLAYS A ROLE. THE KNOWN EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE WERE KNOWN TO NAZI PROPAGANDA SCIENTISTS AND HAS BEEN CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AS A USEFUL AGENT IN COMPLACING A SOCIETY. If you damage the developing minds of the people, induced autism for example, then you're ridding the nation of freethinking individuals who have the capacity to stand up against lies and deceit.

And nano-technology? In vaccines? Really? You should read up on nanotechnology. Also, acquaint yourself with the verichip technology which is already in wide use as of today. It's on all the newly issued credit cards and passports. It can pinpoint the holder's geographic position within meters. Already some corporations in America are requiring implanted chips in their employees. I'm not drawing any correlation between this chip technology and the mark of the beast found within the Bible. I believe it's merely another technology that can be used to control the population. Nanotechnology has the potential to be used in an 'unhelpful' fashion. I believe there is substantial evidence to suggest that it isn't beyond legistlators to impose laws which jeopardize people's safety.

Sun screen was developed by THE MAN??? REALLY???? It couldn't been that in the 40's and 50's our standard of living grew, vacations became more common and with the development of the affordable CAR travel to BEACHES became more popular? It couldn't have been SUN BURN?????? As for Vitamin D, if its part of the conspiracy, WHY DO WE PUT IT IN MILK???? Or is that really nanobots?
For the record, my dad worked out in the sun with no sunscreen all his life, and at age sixty he started going to the dermatologist to have melanoma's removed every 6 months. He's done this every six months for the last 8 years. His skin is do thin in the exposed areas he'll often start bleeding fr no reason when the weather is dry. Please don't make anymore statements like these about sunscreen... First of all, I'm sorry to hear that about your dad. However, I don't see it as reason enough to not talk about the detrimental effects of sunscreen. If you read my previous statement you'd find that I'm not saying that prolonged exposure to harmful UV rays is without risk. What I'm saying is that an industry has been created which not only is unhealthy, it is a valid danger to those most vulnerable among us...children. What about prior to the 50's, before the influx of migration towards urban centers, when farmers did there thing day in and day out. Exposure to the sun has been around as long as us humans...duh. Fun days at the beach isn't the answer. Of course sunburns increase the chance of developing melanoma. But, when you directly inhibit the bodies ability to produce vitamin D then you are allowing cancer to spread more easily. IT'S A FACT. It's a fact that Canada has some of the highest cancer rates in the world. Did you know that well over 80% of canadians are vitamin D deficient in the winter months? There's a reason why I take vit D suppliments. And it has nothing to do with conspiracies, putting vit D in milk. The body needs vit D to assimulate calcium. Another example of harmful industries, look at the dairy industry. Over and over we've all seen the "be healthy, drink milk" adds funded by the dairy industry. Dairy milk(unless coming from non-gmo fed, non-hormone injected, organic cattle) then it is harmful and will certainly contribute to the overall inability of the body to fight cancer. I'll get into a health debate with you if you want, but I can pull sources all day that discredit the dairy industry's assertations that milk is actually a healthy source of calcium. All the calcium that anybody needs can be gained from eating a proper amount of green leafy vegetables. This brings me back to my point,,, the body needs certain levels of vitamin D to maintain a strong skeletal system. The body produces vit D naturally when sun exposure occurs. However, sunscreen effectively stops the bodies transfer of sunlight into vit D. This is a fact and I have no idea how you came up with your last sentence in regards to vit D being part of a conspiracy. It's just another example that I put forward to show that a healthy society, living long lives free of pharmaceutical intervention is hardly in the 'MAN's' interests. From what the most recent studies are showing, Vitamin D could be the single most easy way of decreasing the chances of one developing cancer. money money monnnnnay
Should I point out the inflated chemotherapy industry...which I would compare to the oil industry in that there's a purposefully inflated need. Did you know chemo treatments rake in huge profits? also, chemo treatment is becoming more and more expensive. If people went the holistic route of health, in the prevention AND treatment of cancer, then more would see chemotherapy for what it truly is, an industry created to treat an extenuated problem. Maybe if people would wake up to the detrimental affects of sunscreen then there would be a little less cancer in the world. NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD GO BAKE IN THE SUN ALL DAY! Common sense says not to slather on a bunch of harmful chemicals over my permeable skin..common sense also would have me cover up my skin with a light, breathable material as a way to avoid skin damage. And just to say, I have two uncles, two aunties, and a grandfather who developed skin cancer so it's not like I haven't been affected by the issue.

And Aids in Africa? Its a drop is the bucket is terms of causes of death. Water born illnesses have a far larger body count than Aids does, including Hep A that I talked about earlier. Yep, but there's no money to improve infrastructure to inhibit the spread of water born disease. Why is there no money for infrastructure improvement? You can, justifiably, point your finger at the IMF and it's continued use of debt relief policies which continue to cripple developing country's abilities to move forward in positive progress.

ONCE AGAIN: WHARE IS THE SMOKING GUN? WHERE IS ANYTHING THAT TIES TOGETHER THIS CONSPIRACY YOU CLAIM EXISTS. YOU KEEP RAMBLING ON ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS, SOME VALID, MOST NONSENSICAL, BUT AT NO POINT DO YOU SUPPORT ANY OF YOUR CONSPIRACY CLAIMS.

If you want to keep responding to my questions, you're welcome to, but at some point I'd think you'd like to keep some of these beliefs tightly under wraps... Are you looking for written evidence which would indict a group, or individual with ties to the NWO? Pretty hard to find documented evidence tying this all together, that's why it's a conspiracy and the majority of people aren't familiar with its claims. There's evidence all around of the power structure which controls political and economic movement in our world. You just have to open your eyes and identify the hypocrisy for what it is. I can't do that for you. I'd just like to add that I don't understand your last sentence. Why should I keep it under wraps?

mickydaniels:
I just wish there were paragraphs in Seth's replies. And the posting of more conspiracies, particularly the biblical ones. I'll work on the paragraph's.
Daniel and Revelation are the two primary books of the Bible dealing with end time prophecy. Basically, Daniel points out the four major kingdoms that have ruled up til now. Starting with Babylon, then Medo-Persia, Greece, and finally Pagan Rome. It identifies the Papal power and it's role in the end times. In Daniel a 2300 year prophecy is given which scholarly validates the truth of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, as well as tying it into a linear timeline which tells of the future events that will lead up to the return of God to this planet. The Book of Revelation further explains the end times and identifies the antichrist, the remnant of true believers, and what will happen to both. It's the biggest conspiracy you could ever imagine. I'll diverge further, I'll probably make another thread about it if there's enough interest. I guess it would be called a Bible study so if any of you are up for that then I'd love to.

Fox 6

01-03-2009, 09:15 PM

Round 2, huh.

Professor S

01-04-2009, 12:36 AM

The rise of the middle class: You're splitting hairs and making a diseingenous argument. You say that the middle class is smaller than I claim, when what I claimed was that in the last 100 - 150 years it went from ZERO in even westernized nations to a considerable economic force, millions in number. Why would this powerful organization (NWO) allow any of this? Isn't the severe disparity of wealth across the globe that was in place for thousands of years more advantageous than a growing middle class in China and India and an established on in most Westernized nations? I ask again: HOW DOES THE CREATION OF A MIDDLE CLASS HELP THE CONSPIRATORS? After all, it happened under their watch, and since they are so powerful, either it was their idea, OR THEY FAILED.

Flouride and Creating Menatlly Crippled Populace:
1) It was against almost all eugenics proponents at the turn of the century, which is part of the conspiracy you claim, to promote the care and support of the mentally rertarded. They supported euthenasia. The holocaust started with one mentally retarded baby being killed. The idea of creating a mass of the mentally handicapped is counter to most documented history concerning eugenics. Here is some interesting opinion from the leaders of the movement, and notice the repeated use of the word "sterilization":

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Biology/Eugenics.htm

2) Creating a mentally crippled populace doesn't help a conspiracy, it creates a populace that must be supported and is useless to a power elites goals. Have you ever noticed the resources needed to care for someone with autism? The skilled manpower? The money? Wow, maybe this is a part of a conspiracy to create more skilled middle class workers to care for them... whoops!

Once again: HOW DOES THIS HELP THEM? Thew elites need a compliant society, not one that can't function without aid.

Vitamin D: You asked how I included Vitmain D? YOU DID. In the post you made on Jan 1st. And on this point you seemed to ramble from Sunscreen to the dairy industry and I'm surprised cattle mutilations by Chupacabras didn't make it in there with the stream of consciousness word association you played in the entire section regarding sunscreen.

Also, if the argument is to create cancer, why did they go to such crazy ends to kill people by creating cancer in such expensive and complicated ways when disease created by malnutrition, poor healthcare and sanitary conditions is nnot only faster and cheaper but was commonplace a hundred years ago? Why allow anti-biotics to becomes cheap and mainstream? Why allow TOILETS to exist when people used to just throw chamber pots out in the street? Why allow for the creation of pesticides when these animals did more to spread death than anything in human history? Why allow medicare and Canadian healthcare systems that provide it for a minimal cost paid for by taxes by the very elites you claim are a part of this conspiracy?

Instead they invented sunscreen, which just happens to keep people FROM getting cancer, and they still put vitamin D as a supplement in Milk, which I'm sure you don't drink as it has nono-bots or some shit. Seth, you say you take a Vitamin D supplement, but what if they taint that with preservatives and binders as well. MAYBE YOU'RE ONE OF THE POD PEOPLE.... RUN!!

Vaccines: Way to back track. This is why having a discussion is so difficult with you. You quickly try and turn the suncreen discussion tot he dairy industry when that argument is discovered to lack any logical merit, and now you say you never said vaccines didn't save lives. This is a conceit.

1) Your argument is that part of the conspiracy is to reduce the population.

2) Vaccines are a part of the conspiracy in your own arguments.

Then you claim you never stated they don't save lives. So, either they are a part of the conspiracy and the conspracy has failed, or they haven't saved lives, which you already admit they have. So which one is it? If its to make a country of retards, please see my above reponse of how a society of mentally handicapped is against the eugenics/fabian movement and in the end would create a burden, not a boon, to any world power conspiracy. Either way, its bullshit.

And the reason why there are still traces of this preservative is for the same reason almost every candy bar states "may contain peanuts". Its the equipment, not the ingredients.

As for mercury, I agree thats its dangerous, so why did they allow this HUGE movement in the 50's and 60's to educate people about the dangers of mercury, a metal that children used to hold in their hands in science classes. If so many people touched it, why educate them on it when allowing to continue in the hat making (The Mad Hatter is based on this) and other proceses when allowing it to continue would serve them so much better?

But all of this brings us to our last section:

Evidence is hard to find No shit. This is a conspiracy that has run for hundreds of years, across generations, and there has never been a single document detailing it, not a single member of it that has defected (and lived!), and not a single shred of real evidence that ties any of the information you've posted together. Even with HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of true believers and reserachers desperately trying to prove the conspiracy and the two decades of information technology and flattened media access, NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE A DAMN THING. I wonder why that is?

Seth, all you've done is post various bits of history, selectively chosen, some junk and real science in close proximity to each other and said that its a conspiracy. I could continue with this discussion, but you've repeated this same trend three times now and there really is no point. I feel I've made my point sufficiently.

Many bad things have happened in the world, but the fact that they've happened doesn't mean that they're related, and you've done nothing to prove that the information you've posted (that which is valid) are anything more than unrelated incidences over hundreds of years with different individuals and political leaders involved. Your belief in this conspiracy is solely based on your own faith that it exists. It is a religion, and the really sad part is that it's a religion that assumes everyone is trying to screw you and good people are powerless before them.

Except for YOU though, as you're one of the few to see through all the logical arguments and lack of evidence to see the unseen TRUTH. Thats called narcissism, Seth.

And the reason why I suggested you not post any more of these ideas is because you're coming off a bit unhinged. You have to admit that your theories are not accepted by the majority of the populace on a serious level. They make a fun novel or movie, but when such fiction creeps into sopmeone's reality, it doesn't look good to say the least.

Fyacin

01-04-2009, 05:22 PM

Wow. :lolz: I think this has gotten a little bit off subject.

Dylflon

01-05-2009, 04:31 AM

Wow. :lolz: I think this has gotten a little bit off subject.

Stay on topic please, Fyacin.

This is the thread about New World Orders. I think they plan to do something with shoes.

Nighthawk

01-05-2009, 05:58 AM

Stay on topic please, Fyacin.

This is the thread about New World Orders. I think they plan to do something with shoes.

stink bombs?

Professor S

01-05-2009, 08:53 AM

Stay on topic please, Fyacin.

This is the thread about New World Orders. I think they plan to do something with shoes.

Well, the topic changed, as many topics do over time. Its nothing new.

Back to your point about the legality of the war:

War over WMD's - I do believe the government thought they would find WMD's in Iraq, the whole world did, but I don't think that was the reason they went to war. I believe the reason was 1) To remove Saddam, who was a true threat to world stability if only because he sat on a ton of oil and was agressive to others that did as well and 2) to establish a true democracy in the middle east.

Illegality - Bush was smart in his war declaration. You'll notice that WMD's were never formally a part of the decision to go to the war, not even in his speech, or maybe I missed it. They talked abotu them a lot, but they never made into the formal declaration to my knowledge. The formal reasons given were more general in terms.

War for Oil - Kind of. I don't think the US wants to take over the area and steal the oil, I think they want to stabalize the world oil supply. That was definitely one of the reasons we went into Iraq both times. Lets face it, everything runs on this shit, and while we're taking steps to try and wean ourselves from oil, just the logistics of our infrastructure and manufacturing alone its going to take decades to make any kind of transition. If much of the world oil supply were suddenly in the hands of someone who worshipped Stalin and Hitler, it could be disasterous on a world wide scale. I don't like the fact that we have to go to war to stabalize resources and I also agree that the western world has created the threat of islamic terror by relying on the politically unstable Middle East for so much of it's energy, but I understand why it has to be done. Call it reluctant acceptance.

My hope is that Iraq will truly become a stable democratic nation, able to stand on its own, and the idea of individual freedom spreads. It always has in history, just as the American Revolution spawned the French Revolution and democracy as whole spread all throughout the western world in a relatively short period of time. We'll have to wait and see, but quite honestly this is the bst chance that region has had to get out of the middle ages since the days before Mohammed.

Dylflon

01-05-2009, 06:51 PM

My main hope about the whole conflict is that we come to a place where we all feel that the end justifies the means.

At the same time, I hope in the future that no country will take it upon themselves to occupy a foreign nation without the backing of the UN.

I do feel that the conduct in that region and in your own country was only satisfactory at its best (by in your own country I mean incarceration of individuals without trial). But what's done is done and all we can do is make the best of it I guess.

Seth

01-05-2009, 07:44 PM

The US has blatantly lied before about it's reasons for going to war. WW1 and the Vietnam war were both sold to Americans on lies. I don't see what's changed.

edit: oh, and now we have suspended freedoms in light of the possible terror threat. Seems a bit nightmarish to me.