Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Icke's Lizards?
-
28-02-2007 8:55am#1
Comments
-
I havent seen that film, I hear its great. But the lizard thing goes back thousands of years across numerous cultures of the world and there are a hell of a lot more people than Icke writing about them.
Whether they are lizards, demons, shape shifting aliens or just plain old humans, one thing is for sure, this world is owned and controlled by some very very sick and evil beings and they have been “keeping it in the family” for hundreds if not thousands of years. Icke’s theory on that is that it has to do with maintaining the dna/bloodline through which they can continue to access this dimension - that may sound a bit too far fetched for some but you’d still have to wonder why they are so incessant about their inbreeding.
Bottom line as I see it, this world isn’t so evil and fcuked up just by chance. There are many mechanisms that have been used to covertly manipulate and keep us in bondage and slavery throughout the ages and to this day, the banking and usury systems of the world (owned for the most part entirely by the illuminati bloodlines) are central to this today.
My thruppence
0 -
Seriously, are you taking the piss?jessop1 wrote:I havent seen that film, I hear its great. But the lizard thing goes back thousands of years across numerous cultures of the world and there are a hell of a lot more people than Icke writing about them.
Whether they are lizards, demons, shape shifting aliens or just plain old humans, one thing is for sure, this world is owned and controlled by some very very sick and evil beings and they have been “keeping it in the family” for hundreds if not thousands of years. Icke’s theory on that is that it has to do with maintaining the dna/bloodline through which they can continue to access this dimension - that may sound a bit too far fetched for some but you’d still have to wonder why they are so incessant about their inbreeding.
Bottom line as I see it, this world isn’t so evil and fcuked up just by chance. There are many mechanisms that have been used to covertly manipulate and keep us in bondage and slavery throughout the ages and to this day, the banking and usury systems of the world (owned for the most part entirely by the illuminati bloodlines) are central to this today.
My thruppence0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:I would - I just don't know what to call it nor where to put it!
BOS, perhaps the spirituality forum? or humanities... I'm not sure whats most appropriate... either way, its an interesting topic which I'd like to discuss further with you..if you do decide to start a new thread, please post a link from here
cheers 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
bonkey wrote:I know this is continuing off-topic. Maybe we should move this to a seperate thread...but in the meantime...
Well, i dont mean to be a prat to the OP, and this is just my opionion, but i dont think anyone who could take this icke guy seriously, even if its a case that he has been "right" in a few of his pre-diddly ictions.Bonkey wrote:Did they?
I'm unconvinced.
Taken from here.By contrast, today’s research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending. And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons. Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge on future battlefields.
Research and development has gone up in recent times. Got what they wanted there, thats if the wiki entry is correct.
Indeed they do. And indeed it was a long term plan, in the budget context im using, that time has been dramatically shortened. While i do not advocate the line that the PNAC were responsible for 9/11, their ideas certainly benifited.Bonkey wrote:The PNAC report sets out a long term plan. As well as setting it out, it explains why it has to be long term. One of the most reasons offered is that barring a major, unforseeable, catalytic event, these things take time.Bonkey wrote:Now...if we assume that the authors wanted a short-term plan (whether or not they had anything to do with 9/11), then why didn't they cover their bases a bit better? Why didn't they stress that their plan could work in the short-term just as well as the long term, rather than strressing that this plan was looking only at the long term because thats all it had to do and that with all of these issues, timing was crucial, as were the various transition phases.
Maybe it was only looking at the long term because thats all it was able to to do.Bonkey wrote:I don't understand how one can read a document which says "here's our long-term plan, which will take decades to do right" and conclude that what's really being said is "here's what we'd like to as quickly as possible but we'd need a Pearl Harbour to do that so unfortunately its going to take longer".Wiki wrote:
PNAC report: Rebuilding America's Defenses
In September 2000, the PNAC issued a 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For A New Century,[8] proceeding "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." The report has been the subject of much analysis and criticism.
The group states that when diplomacy or sanctions fail, the United States must be prepared to take military action. PNAC argues that the current Cold War deployment of forces is obsolete. Defense spending and force deployment must reflect the post-Cold War duties that US forces are obligated to perform. Constabulary duties such as peacekeeping in the Balkans and the enforcement of the No Fly Zones in Iraq have put a strain upon, and reduced the readiness of US forces.
The PNAC recommends the forward redeployment of US forces at new strategically placed permanent military bases in Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia. Permanent bases ease the strain on US forces, allowing readiness to be maintained and the carrier fleet to be reduced.
Furthermore, PNAC advocates that the US-globalized military should be enlarged, equipped and restructured for the "constabulary" roles associated with shaping the security in critical regions of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac
"The group states that when diplomacy or sanctions fail, the United States must be prepared to take military action"
What? So basically when any country disagrees with or argues against America, they enforce sanctions on them.
When this fails, military action.
Now, what have we seen with Iraq? Sanctions long imposed, disagreeing dictatorship, sanctions dont work on the diplomatic side of things.
Now, these sanctions are set by the UN.Wiki PNAC wrote:
Position on the Iraq invasion and occupation:
In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power.
The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.
PNAC, or some of its radical members and founders, doesnt think American policy should continue to follow or be a part of the UN.Wiki Iraq War wrote:On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Prior to the Iraq war it was said that Saddam had ties to Al-Queda, the public were at-odds on this information and the stench of bullshít filled the air.
Some would say the "WMD" idea came from Neocon thinking, as most of the members were in the Bush Administration at the time. However misguided and unverified this information was they still shat it down your throat.
Nevermind the music, listen to what they say. This isnt a conspiricy video BTW.Wiki PNAC wrote:The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning. The report states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region"
One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;" After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan because Osama bin Laden had taken refuge there and the administration held him responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks. In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq citing multiple grounds.
Lets hope the next term isn't held by one of these wackjobs.Bonkey wrote:Not one sentence (that I'm aware of) in the document suggests that the PNAC-advocated transformational strategy can work if implemented in a rush. If anything, it goes out of its way time and time again to stress how the change must be carefully implemented, over time, in order to avoid causing the very type of problem that its trying to avoid.
If one of the core missions is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars", they are achieving this, in my opionion, with outright lies and information subversion.
All that document needs to be at this stage is a draft plan, the playing field is a lot different these days.On May 1, 2003, President Bush staged a dramatic visit to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln while the ship was a few miles west of San Diego. The Lincoln was on its way home to Everett, Washington from a long deployment which had included service in the Persian Gulf. The visit climaxed at sunset with his now well-known "Mission Accomplished" speech.
Well really, using neocon reasoning he should have said "one of many to come ....core missions accomplished"! Thats if the current Administrations members, ideals and powers remain.Bonkey wrote:To me, the Pearl Harbour comment should be more read along the lines of "This is the strategy we should follow over the comind decades, barring an event which completely changes the playing field, in which case all bets are off".
It doesn't seem that way now.
Neocon Strategy/Plan Gains since the event:- Dominant Military Budget, in general and in R&D. In fact the second highest general military budget in 2006 was held by the Peoples Republic of China with $62.5BN, the United States spends $69.5BN in R&D alone in 2006. Link as above.
- Iraq and Afghanistan as potential permanent military bases.
- Iran:"Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".
- Defiance of the UN: They know now what they can and cannot get away with. Who in their right mind would challenge the US in its current state? All the UN can do is send an angwy letter or, as Kofi did, do a little speech detailing the "suppossed" illegalities.
Heres a gem.Wiki PNAC wrote:Critics will often quote another excerpt from the document, "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool", as evidence of a violently racist lean since certain populations (i.e. Iranian Muslims vs. Saudi Arabs) will carry higher frequencies of a certain genotype, a biological weapon that is only active in that particular genotype will target one race over another.
This occurs via "race-specific elicitors" produced by the pathogen which are only operational in certain host genotypes. Both Israel and South Africa before the end of apartheid also researched such race-specific biological weapons, without success.Bonkey wrote:Besides...if anything, 9/11 itself isn't a Pearl Harbour. If there is one thing which will have a major effect on US miltiary structure in coming decades, its not that someone managed to put planes into buildings in September 2001, but rather that an ill-equipped collection of guerilla forces were able to hold their own against the US army by changing the rules of warfare.
Yes, 9/11 was the trigger that ultimately brought the US there, but I find it hard to believe that the PNAC wanted to ensure a continuing American dominance by getting into a war they knew they would lose, in order to quickly implement a transformation they said themselves would take decades to do right.
So like I asked at the top...did they really get what they wanted?
Yes! You may dispute this, but i think they really did. Again i do not advocate the Neocons having something to do with 9/11 thing. But the "process of transformation" is taking large, large strides.
Edit: Im sorry if i did not answer your questions directly, i just want you to know where im coming from. Regardless of what i think of this thread topic, i dont want to drag it off topic (anymore).
The point i am trying to make is that it would seem that neocon thinking has come a long way, as has thier ideals. And lot of people are on their side. Corporate media included.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nick_oliveri wrote:
Indeed they do. And indeed it was a long term plan, in the budget context im using, that time has been dramatically shortened. While i do not advocate the line that the PNAC were responsible for 9/11, their ideas certainly benifited.
Again cynically I could point out they would have been benefiting naturally from being involved with the current US administration.Maybe it was only looking at the long term because thats all it was able to to do.
Speculative.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac
"The group states that when diplomacy or sanctions fail, the United States must be prepared to take military action"
What? So basically when any country disagrees with or argues against America, they enforce sanctions on them.
When this fails, military action.
What do you mean by disagree. I think they are saying that they would us military as a last resort.Now, what have we seen with Iraq? Sanctions long imposed, disagreeing dictatorship, sanctions dont work on the diplomatic side of things.
Now, these sanctions are set by the UN.
So?PNAC, or some of its radical members and founders, doesnt think American policy should continue to follow or be a part of the UN.
Who?Prior to the Iraq war it was said that Saddam had ties to Al-Queda, the public were at-odds on this information and the stench of bullshít filled the air.
Some would say the "WMD" idea came from Neocon thinking, as most of the members were in the Bush Administration at the time. However misguided and unverified this information was they still shat it down your throat.
Nevermind the music, listen to what they say. This isnt a conspiricy video BTW.
So Nick, I hate to break it to you were are aware they lied in the run up to the war.Lets hope the next term isn't held by one of these wackjobs.
Yes.If one of the core missions is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars", they are achieving this, in my opionion, with outright lies and information subversion.
How? Seriously? How, two years on the Taliban are uprising and Iraq is a state? Who's lying, and how is this working?
It doesn't seem that way now.
Neocon Strategy/Plan Gains since the event:- Dominant Military Budget, in general and in R&D. In fact the second highest general military budget in 2006 was held by the Peoples Republic of China with $62.5BN, the United States spends $69.5BN in R&D alone in 2006. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Nick. THe United States has consistently had the largest military budget, for over 70 years.Military_budget_of_the_United_States"]Link[/URL] as above.- Iraq and Afghanistan as potential permanent military bases.
Because the current ventures are just going tip top at the mo?Yes! You may dispute this, but i think they really did. Again i do not advocate the Neocons having something to do with 9/11 thing. But the "process of transformation" is taking large, large strides.
Yes they took advantage? So. What does this prove?The point i am trying to make is that it would seem that neocon thinking has come a long way, as has thier ideals. And lot of people are on their side. Corporate media included.
Aside from Fox?0 -
I say disagree as in the whole WMD thing.Diogenes wrote:What do you mean by disagree. I think they are saying that they would us military as a last resort.
Please read the post. And the quote underneath that bit you are questioning.So?In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power.
The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.
Again, read the post,Diogenes wrote:Who?
members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul WolfowitzDiogenes wrote:So Nick, I hate to break it to you were are aware they lied in the run up to the war.
Yeah, that seems to be common knowledge, but it is the way they do it and who is involved with the obvious scaremongering. And whose ideas it benefits.
Im talking about the lying done in the run up to the war. And in terms of fight and win, it is not working, but they still have the bases and the strategic locations for whatever else they want to get involved in.Diogenes wrote:How? Seriously? How, two years on the Taliban are uprising and Iraq is a state? Who's lying, and how is this working?
And, the rhetoric has not stopped. The US are still there, and Bush will Veto a resolution that pulls the US forces out of there within next year. He doesn't give a fúck about the Iraqi people, he/they care about the location and long term economic benefits of being there. And of course the billions involved in developing and maintaing the military.Nick. THe United States has consistently had the largest military budget, for over 70 years.
Yes, but its getting out of hand now.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budgetWiki Military Budget wrote:While the United States now spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined, some people argue that it's necessary to promote democracy around the world. Other groups, such as the Borgen Project have pointed out that much of that spending is wasted by contractors. The organization also points out that the U.S. gives more to its largest military contractor (Lockheed $22 billion a year) than is needed to end world hunger (World Bank estimates $19 billion a year).
Sorry for quoting so many wiki sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_budgetThe recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are funded outside the Federal Budget (through supplementary spending bills), so they are not included in the military budget figures listed above.[8] In addition, the United States has black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Other military-related items, like maintenance of the nuclear arsenal and the money spent by the Veterans Affairs Department, are not included in the official budget. Thus, the total amount spent by the United States on military spending is significantly higher, if one considers these other expenses to be military spendingDiogenes wrote:Yes they took advantage? So. What does this prove?
I was originally suggesting that by the "Pearl Harbour" quote was inspired by the times military spending on information technology and R&D.
In this context it would seem that prediction turned out to be right.diogenes wrote:Aside from Fox?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_MurdochWiki Rupert Murdoch wrote:Murdoch's publications worldwide tend to adopt conservative views. During the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialized in favor of the war. [11] Murdoch also served on the board of directors of the libertarian Cato Institute.
On May 9, 2006, the Financial Times reported that Murdoch would be hosting a fundraiser for Senator Hillary Clinton's Senate reelection campaign. Murdoch's New York Post newspaper opposed Hillary's Senate run in 2000.0 -
Nick_oliveri wrote:
Yeah, that seems to be common knowledge, but it is the way they do it and who is involved with the obvious scaremongering. And whose ideas it benefits.
Nick as often I'm utterly baffled as to what exact point you are trying to make, and often think your posts would be more suitable to politics.
The traditional CT claim is that the PNAC is "proof" they planned this. You're arguing (I think) that they've benefited from this. Not to be funny but seeing as many members of the current US administration helped draft the PNAC, they were always going to benefit from Bush's administration. 911 or not. They got to draft policy and decide how budgets are drawn up, they would have got to done so, whether 911 happened or not.Im talking about the lying done in the run up to the war.
Again nick I'm really struggling to see your point. How is this relevant to the PNAC?And in terms of fight and win, it is not working, but they still have the bases and the strategic locations for whatever else they want to get involved in.
Yeah I'm just reminded of the footage of the current secretary general cowering after a motar strike in Iraq.
These bases are under siege. This weekend, I was talking to a journalist just back from Iraq. All transport between bases, is done at night. By helicopter. Thats not a strategy location. You cannot use something like this to launch or base anything.And, the rhetoric has not stopped. The US are still there, and Bush will Veto a resolution that pulls the US forces out of there within next year. He doesn't give a fúck about the Iraqi people, he/they care about the location and long term economic benefits of being there. And of course the billions involved in developing and maintaing the military.
And he gets to do this for another what? 18 months?Yes, but its getting out of hand now.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget
Sorry for quoting so many wiki sources.
But its always been this bad. The thing thats missing from your stats is the USSR. Which evenly matched the US's spending for decades. Theres no one to match it now. On no wait there's china.
The simple fact is you need to see the size and GNP of the other 17.I was originally suggesting that by the "Pearl Harbour" quote was inspired by the times military spending on information technology and R&D.
In this context it would seem that prediction turned out to be right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
Okay again Nick whats your point? That the PNAC, used the events of 911 to justify impelmenting their policy?
How is this a conspiracy?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNws6IG696M
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement