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
Conspiracy to fact
-
12-04-2010 2:30am#1Conspiracy to fact.
Recently I wondered to myself, are there many big "conspiracy theories" in history that have become actual fact ? . Well I knew there must be some, then I thought of the obvious.... The wars of America.
Every major war America has ever been involved in has been proven to be false flag wars. Each one at the time surrounded with conspiracy theories which have now become fact.
Does anyone else find this strange in the slightest ? I think it's laughable to expect anything less than lies, deceipt, corruption, murder, betrayel, genocide (i could go on) from an American governmnt. And it seems that after each betrayel the public simply forget, like pressing a reset switch.
(False Flag - False flag operations are covert operations which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.)
List of Wars
http://911review.com/articles/anon/false_flag_perations.html
EDIT ; oh yeah. This would be a good place to post other CT's that have become fact
Alternative sources.
Spanish-American war 1998
The Spanish American War began in 1898 as a direct result of an incident that occurred in Havana harbor. On February 15, 1898, an explosion occurred on the USS Maine that caused the deaths of over 250 American sailors. Even though later investigations have shown that the explosion was an accident in the boiler room of the ship, public furor arose and pushed the country to war because of what was believed at the time to be Spanish sabotage. Here are the essentials of the war that ensued.
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/...erican-war.htm
The U.S.-Mexican War—(1846-1848)
The Mexican-American War was the first major conflict driven by the idea of "Manifest Destiny"; the belief that America had a God-given right, or destiny, to expand the country's borders from 'sea to shining sea'. This belief would eventually cause a great deal of suffering for many Mexicans, Native Americans and United States citizens. Following the earlier Texas War of Independence from Mexico, tensions between the two largest independent nations on the North American continent grew as Texas eventually became a U.S. state. Disputes over the border lines sparked military confrontation, helped by the fact that President Polk eagerly sought a war in order to seize large tracts of land from Mexico.
http://www.historyguy.com/Mexican-American_War.html
World War 1 1914-1918
The Plan to Involve America in World War 1
Norman Dodd, former director of the Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified that the Committee was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the Committee's investigation. The Committee stated: "The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question. If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war.... They discussed this question... for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war. This is in 1909."
So the decision was made to involve the United States in a war so that the "life of the entire people could be altered." This was the conclusion of a foundation supposedly committed to "peace."
http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-1/ww1.htm
Also
In 1918, an arm of the American government in order to assure continued public support for the war effort published the Official Reasons why American chose to enter the World War. The organization responsible for distributing this information was called the Committee for Public Information which played a number of roles for the American government including serving as a propaganda ministry. Below is a clearly states list of reasons for America declaring war overlain with some florid language of the propagandist. Nevertheless, this clearly summarizes what the citizenry told about why their nation was fighting a war.
1. The renewal by Germany of her submarine warfare.
2. Imperial Germany was running amuck as an international desperado
3. Prussian Militancy and autocracy let loose in the world disturbed the balance of power and threatened to destroy the international equilibrium.
4. The conflict [had gradually shaped] into a war between the democratic nations on one hand and autocratic on the other.
5. [America's] tradition of isolation had grown out warn and could no longer be maintained in the age of growing interdependency.
6. Because of the menace to the Monroe Doctrine and to [America's] independence.
http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/reasons.htm
World War 2, 1939-1945
The Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate is a dispute over what, if any, advance knowledge American officials had of Japan's December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.
Ever since the Japanese attack there has been debate as to how and why the United States had been caught off guard and how much and when American officials knew of Japanese plans for an attack.
Several writers, including journalist Robert Stinnett[1] and former United States Navy Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald[2], have argued that various parties high in the U.S. and British governments knew of the attack in advance and may even have let it happen or encouraged it in order to force America into war via the "back door."[3] Evidence supporting this view is taken from quotations and source documents from the time[4] and the release of newer materials.
Examination of information released since the War has revealed there was intelligence information available to U.S. and other nations' officials. Rather than attribute the lack of preparedness at the base to failure-to-process, some have argued that the U.S. must have had some degree of advanced knowledge of the attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate
ALSO
Following the inspiration of William Appleman Williams, the author argues that the Nazi threat to the American vision of an open economic international system was the central reason the United States went to war. Following different assumptions, other historians have made an equally strong case for the primacy of strategic military concerns. The two points of view, however, may represent a distinction without a fundamental difference.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...o-world-war-ii
Vietnam war
This research paper discusses and analyzes the reasons why the United States became involved in the Vietnam War and the consequences of that war on American society then and later.
From the late 1940s and until the fall of Saigon in 1975 American policy toward Vietnam was dictated by Cold War considerations --i.e. the imperative need as perceived by the American national security establishment to contain communist expansion in French Indochina, and, after 1954, to prevent a communist takeover in South Vietnam. The United States moved from indirect to direct involvement in combat operations in Vietnam in the mid-1960s because the administration of Lyndon Johnson concluded that the South Vietnamese Government was incapable of defending itself.
http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1702073.html
ALSO
Most American wars have obvious starting points or precipitating causes: the Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775, the capture of Fort Sumter in 1861, the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and the North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950, for example. But there was no fixed beginning for the U.S. war in Vietnam. The United States entered that war incrementally, in a series of steps between 1950 and 1965. In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam. When the Vietnamese Nationalist (and Communist-led) Vietminh army defeated French forces at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French were compelled to accede to the creation of a Communist Vietnam north of the 17th parallel while leaving a non-Communist entity south of that line. The United States refused to accept the arrangement. The administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower undertook instead to build a nation from the spurious political entity that was South Vietnam by fabricating a government there, taking over control from the French, dispatching military advisers to train a South Vietnamese army, and unleashing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct psychological warfare against the North.
http://www.english.illinois.edu/MAPS/vietnam/causes.htm
The Granada Invasion
It has been exactly twenty years since the U.S. forces invaded Grenada, ending that Caribbean island nation's four-year socialist experiment. An island nation no bigger than Martha's Vineyard, with a population that could barely fill the Rose Bowl, was defeated with relatively few American casualties. President Ronald Reagan's decision to occupy the country and replace the government with one more to his liking proved to be quite popular in the United States, with polls indicating that 63% of the public supported the invasion.
On this anniversary, it would be worth looking back at the Grenadan revolution, the U.S. invasion and its aftermath, and the important precedent it set for "regime change" through U.S. military intervention.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/componen...155/25966.html
The war on drugs
The War on Drugs is Completely Misunderstood by Most Americans Who Believe It's Actually About Eradicating Drugs. In Fact, It's a War Against the People.
Some people believe the American drug war needs to be fixed. The idea of fixing the War on Drugs is like fixing something such as child abuse. How do you fix an act that is plain wrong to begin with? The drug war is wrong, simple as that, and we must learn why.
This false 'War' has nothing to do with eradicating drugs. It has everything to do with stomping all over the rights we thought we were guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. 'It is a fundamental truth that every man is the rightful owner of his own body.' - Frederick Douglass, 1852.
http://www.truth-it.net/war_on_drugs.html
Panama Invasion
The Panama Deception is a documentary film that won the 1992 Academy Award for Documentary Feature.[1] The film is critical of the actions of the US military during the 1989 invasion of Panama by the United States, covering the conflicting reasons for the invasion and the depicting of the US media as biased. It was directed by Barbara Trent of the Empowerment Project and was narrated by actress Elizabeth Montgomery.
The film asserts that the U.S. government invaded Panama primarily to renegotiate the Torrijos–Carter Treaties. Another allegation made by the film is that the United States tested some form of laser or energy weapon during the invasion. The film also includes footage of mass graves uncovered after the US troops had withdrawn, and depicts some of the 20,000 refugees who fled the invasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Panama_Deception
ALSO
Media Coverage of Invasion
The U.S.. media again performed a masterful job of being the unofficial official news organ for the U.S. government and its policies. No matter how illegal, barbaric, arrogant, irrational, or psychotic the policies, they are reported with enthusiasm, almost gleefully, and with little or no critical commentary. The media was excellent in serving the official public relations function for the invasion. The U.S. government provided the information and controlled virtually all images in order to marshal public, Congressional, and local media support for the invasion.
http://www.brianwillson.com/the-case-of-panama-u-s-continues-its-bully-ways-as-international-outlaw/
US-Israeli sponsored war between Iraq and Iran, 1980-1988:
The United States supported Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. This support included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]
Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives, although the public and news media paid little attention. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted – and frequently encouraged – the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war
ALSO
The US has built power bases in the Middle East in Iran starting with the CIA-organised coup 1953, where Iranian prime minister Mossadeq was replaced with the Shah of Iran Reza Pahlavi and he by his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iran was equipped with the best western military equipment, including the American F-14 fighters with Phoenix missiles and the British Chieftain MBTs. Unfortunately there was in 1979 a coup of ayatollah Khomeini replacing the Shah and founding an Islamite nation.
After this, the US warmed up relations with their good Iraqi friend Saddam Hussein, and started to build a nation capable of challenging the Iran. Iraq acquired large numbers of effective weapons including factories able to produce older versions of gas warfare agents. These would later be called WMDs, which of course they were not, being the WW1-vintage weapons.
The war broke out and was fought to exhaustion because third-party powers, especially Israel, were carefully monitoring the power balance supplying more weapons to the side which seemed to be loosing. "Too bad they both cannot loose" is how Kissinger evaluated this situation.
http://911review.com/articles/anon/f...perations.html
Desert Storm (First Gulf war), 1991)
Fifteen-year old Nayirah, who gave testimony anonymously, testified before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus in October 1990 that she was a refugee volunteering in the maternity ward of Al Adan hospital in Kuwait City, and that during the Iraqi occupation she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing Kuwaiti infants in an incubator room: “They took the babies out of the incubator, took the incubators, and left the babies to die on the cold floor,” she testified.[3] The testimony came at a crucial time for the Bush administration, which was pressing for military action to eject Iraq from Kuwait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Nayirah
ALSO
The United States and the United Nations gave several public justifications for involvement in the conflict, the most prominent being the Iraqi violation of Kuwaiti territorial integrity. In addition, the United States moved to support its ally Saudi Arabia, whose importance in the region, and as a key supplier of oil, made it of considerable geopolitical importance. During a speech in a special joint session of the U.S. Congress given on 11 September 1990, U.S. President George H.W. Bush summed up the reasons with the following remarks: "Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression."[32]
The Pentagon claimed that satellite photos showing a buildup of Iraqi forces along the border were the source of this information, but this was later shown to be false. A reporter for the Saint Petersburg Times acquired commercial satellite images made at the time in question, which showed nothing but empty desert.[33]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
War on Terror
Im sure there is no need to go into detail regarding this false flag war.
Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan invasion), 7.10.2001
ya ya ya Bin Laden Bull
Enduring Justice (Second Gulf war), 20.3.2003
Bla Bla weapons of mass destruction my ass.6
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Undergod (nice nick by the way), I just wanted to chime in with your take on false-flag ops. False flag doesnt have to always be premeditated in the way in which an incident starts - there have been a lto of false flags planned out and binned, planned out and implemented...but there have also been false-flags by way of using an accident or an ocurrence as an opportunity. The Maine would probably be the best example from the OP of a false flag of chance.
This was proven to be possibly a quick decision to capitalise rather than a flase flag op in the strictest sense, but then when you consider that at the time the US was very much bent on forming its own 'empire' it isnt such a stretch to imagine they grasped this opportunity as a means to their own ends. So, false flag can also refer to this sort of thing. They didnt lie I guess.... they simply didnt wait until the public found out the truth.
Secondly, I dont think the OP was inferring the US shouldnt have went to war against the Nazis, not at all... but it is largely accepted that the US was making no moves whatsoever to get involved. They did initiate the lend lease scheme with the UK at huge cost (hell that repayment was only finished in 2006 i believe). Who knows what policy shifts happened between the UK and the US changing prime ministers and presidents both, but somehow the US managed to get dragged in when it really didnt look like it was going to - When the US joined it basically allowed the liberation of Europe to commence and the undoing of all that had taken place in the previous 2 years. Who is to say what the US regimes preference might have been - might they have been apathetic toward Europe, might they have preferred one regime in the third reich as opposed to many? Possibly, possibly not. I think there was enough procrastination on their part to allow me to believe that the British probably had some intel on Pearl Harbour happening.
They were able to track and destroy the Bismark, the Graf Spey, the Turpitz etc... they probably would have known the entire Japanese fleet was heading to Hawaii
This post is too long but i like this topic so ill probably post my own thoughts later.
Good work OP...fingers crossed for a good convo!0 -
Well here you're wrong, the American public changed massively during the 70s, as a result of Vietnam war backlash and reaction to the Watergate scandal.
It still prevails. You may wish to see otherwise, but meh.
Sure it is. Why do you think JFK even was against it. Then taken out.So not a false flag then.
lmao...
:rolleyes:So a war was actively encouraged. Not a false flag.
Like saying porridge is not porridge because there is no sugar in it.
NOT porridge ha!...erm... ya.
Five and Six seem pretty reasonable. Again, they may indeed have been looking for a reason to go to war. Not a false flag.
You do know to have wars it usually starts because of false flag operations OR because its a false flag operation.Are you seriously suggesting that America should not have entered into a war with Nazi Germany?
That war was financed, sure the Bushes financed Hitler. They allowed Germany to rise, but they didn't like Nazi Germany becoming to strong, so they took them out. The 13 most powerful families alongside the highest councils, Freemason and biliderburgers etc decide wars.
Oh so shocking (screams)Okay, so there is dispute as to what degree of prior knowledge the US had regarding Pearl Harbour. Now dispute is the important word here - it's not proven, and it certainly wasn't a false flag.
Lol..
.It's a fundamental truth that cocaine barons are horrible people. Drugs trade directly finances terrorism and conflict in Afghanistan, Colombia, SE Asia, and North Africa. It finances violent and organised crime in every nation. I don't believe that the War on Drugs is the correct way to deal with this problem, nor do I believe that the US has the moral authority to fight drugs on those grounds, and I understand that it's probably very corrupt, but I'm not sure what your point is here. The War on Drugs isn't an active armed engagement the same way that the others you've listed are.
Shakes head, people in power CREATE problems, then we REACT, they come up with a solution and SAVE THE DAY. This has never changed. The US government make money of drug trade and other forms of terrorism and trafficAgain, the war in Afghanistan has been largely morally justified in my eyes. They have brought a degree of democracy to a formerly oppressed nation. I have my reservations about Western support of a government that legalizes rape, but the Western military is there to enable the country to run, it's not answerable for the decisions that the government makes. The insurgents are the ones causing civilian deaths and destabilizing the nation. I'm personally unconvinced that 9/11 was a false flag.
Oh we know your not convinced on 9/11...
But if you feel war is justified you sir go out and fight it. We will see how you scuabble out of that one. I just love how people (type from a computer or a conference) and say this war should be justified or we should fight this war,
But don't actually go and fight it, they persuade others to fight it.
The war in Afghanistan was not justified. War is not acceptable. These wars are done for power reasons. America/UK taking over countries and creating their own hegomony and wealth from it.Saddam did at some point have WMDs (the Americans gave them to him) but again, our bloodthirsty dictator needed to be taken out of power. What was the false flag? I'm not sure I support the war entirely, but they went there and have a responsibility to stabilize the country before they leave.
They didn't go there to stablize the country thats false. They bombed the shiit out of it. They took Saddam out of it a long time ago now, so the WMD idea is just ludricous. USA has WMDs so don't start this bull please. It's pathetic and farce.
They want there because Saddam found Pre flood technology, that was a stargate in SE Iraq. The ruling elites, Royality and illuminati in the west panicked and needed to cmoe up with a false flag quickley to persuade the West for a full massive scale war on Iraq, Iran etc. Sure enough thats what happened and what Bush was in office for. You see while we all type from this and argue over spilt milk alot of the advanced technology the US government have, is because of alien technology or finding old technology in places that have buried deep under the earth since before 6000 years ago.
99 Saddam dropped the dollar and was a threat to the power of the illuminati not "freedom" or "us". Saddam was made to look twice as bad as he was made in the MSM. From a logical point of view from a middle ground, Saddam was obiously standing to his own and saying up yours to the NWO and West.
The UN and American sanctions alone killed 400,000 people. The American Government killed well over 1 million (still counting) since they took Saddam out.
The weapons Saddam had, says made in America. Saddam did good things too. It's just hard for people to understand that because people in the west have been so conditioned thinking people in the Mideast are just not humane or ethical by any means. Saddam even protected his country from other black ops and western sponsored terrrorism around Iraq.
I just love truth. 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »how do you know this?
Iraq sits on an ancient empire and pre ice age civilization. It is also the area where fallen beings the "Annunaki" came to settle.
The powers of be don't go pick wars "for some candy ass reason like lets get joe the terrorist" This is a distraction. You may have been distracted by what these people set the game for. There are intedimensional wars and time loop wars going on right now that we can't even see.
I'm just not fooled by the conditioning most are falling for. I know and simply accept that our planet has been inhabitated for a very long time and we are not the only ones running around on this planet. There is plenty of evidence of races coming to earth and interchanging with with the ancients of our world for thousands of years. I know many of you find it hard to understand, because you don't see it in front of your eyes but only on moies. But you should ask yourself have you ever taken any interest into finding out if these "crazy sci fi" things are true? The American government, NASA, The Vatican and Crown in London have been financing and waging wars for the last 2,000 years and all linked all the way back to Atlantis. They know whats going on because they are the ones who control everything this planet is and what we see and learn. They decide what we know. But its becoming impossible for them to control and keep the truth away from us. So thats why I'm talking
We live on a physical world in which only see's physical things. The ancients were able to transcend into higher dimensions. The secret of this were using or lying on energy points that were gateways to other worlds.
You will find that a lot of ancient castles and building were built on ley lines eyc. The Earth grid lines are all oer the planet, most noticeble earth portals are western Afrrica, Giza, Bermuda Triangle. Iraq, Iran, South Of Japan are a few to name.
Sure enough when Saddam found it,
A movie came out on the stargate. It's all real. To trick us into thinking its not real and not look for it, is to put it on movies to condition our subconscious.
The Stargate find in Iraq isn't old news, its just scary news to people who run the 9 to 5 jobs who are not interested and only hear these things on movies. It's been known to many for a long time. let's face it, it's the easiest thing to do is to hide the truth from the masses. just put on X factor and you have millions distracted while the government carry on their stuff behind scenes.0 -
mysterious wrote: »It still prevails. You may wish to see otherwise, but meh.
Sure it is. Why do you think JFK even was against it. Then taken out.
lmao...
JFK was against the spanish american war? How? He wasn't even born for another 19 years.mysterious wrote: »:rolleyes:
Like saying porridge is not porridge because there is no sugar in it.
NOT porridge ha!...erm... ya.
No, I'm saying it's not a false flag because it wasn't a covert operation designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operation appeared as though it was being carried out by other entities.TalkieWalkie wrote: »(False Flag - False flag operations are covert operations which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.)
They allowed border disputes to turn into war, this does not fit under the given definition of false flag.mysterious wrote: »You do know to have wars it usually starts because of false flag operations OR because its a false flag operation.
What do you mean by this? It reads like you just say the same thing twice.
So tell me, what false flag was used to start world war one?mysterious wrote: »That war was financed, sure the Bushes financed Hitler. They allowed Germany to rise, but they didn't like Nazi Germany becoming to strong, so they took them out. The 13 most powerful families alongside the highest councils, Freemason and biliderburgers etc decide wars.
Oh so shocking (screams)
Well if that's the case, why bang on about America being to blame, if it's actually the NWO?mysterious wrote: »Lol..
Please, if you're going to bother replying, could you at least engage in some discussion?mysterious wrote: »Shakes head, people in power CREATE problems, then we REACT, they come up with a solution and SAVE THE DAY. This has never changed.
What do you mean? The problem of drugs trade was there long before the War on Drugs, and before authorities started trying to get involved so seriously (and messing up spectacularly in the process). The main point I was making is that the War on Drugs isn't even a war the way the others are, and seems a bit out of place in the list.mysterious wrote: »The US government make money of drug trade and other forms of terrorism and traffic
I acknowledged this in my post.mysterious wrote: »Oh we know your not convinced on 9/11...
But if you feel war is justified you sir go out and fight it. We will see how you scuabble out of that one. I just love how people (type from a computer or a conference) and say this war should be justified or we should fight this war,
But don't actually go and fight it, they persuade others to fight it.
Eh, I'm a musician. I leave the fighting to the professional soldiers who signed up to do that job. I'd be a pretty terrible soldier, anyway. And I doubt anyone has ever been convinced to go join the Coalition forces by me.mysterious wrote: »The war in Afghanistan was not justified. War is not acceptable. These wars are done for power reasons. America/UK taking over countries and creating their own hegomony and wealth from it.
Be that as it may, they still took out the Taliban, who are some of the most evil bastards to hold power into the 21st century. The list of human rights atrocities we can lay on the Taliban is awful. No, I'm not saying that the Coalition are pearly-white (Guantanamo etc.) but they never forbade half of their own citizens from speaking out loud in public, or forced them to wear certain kinds of clothing, or functionally denied them healthcare. Did the United States of ever cut off a woman's thumb because she wore nail varnish?
That is why it is justified. War is definitely justified, if an ultimate result is restoring liberty to an oppressed peoples.mysterious wrote: »They didn't go there to stablize the country thats false. They bombed the shiit out of it. They took Saddam out of it a long time ago now, so the WMD idea is just ludricous. USA has WMDs so don't start this bull please. It's pathetic and farce.
I wasn't clear in my first point. When I said "at some point" I was referring to the First Gulf War- Saddam certainly had WMDs then. He used chemical weapons against his own citizens. I don't think he had them when America re-invaded, all the evidence seems to suggest that was lies. So we agree on that much.
Yes, America has WMDs. I'd rather have them in the arsenals of America than under the control of a genocidal dictator.mysterious wrote: »They want there because Saddam found Pre flood technology, that was a stargate in SE Iraq. The ruling elites, Royality and illuminati in the west panicked and needed to cmoe up with a false flag quickley to persuade the West for a full massive scale war on Iraq, Iran etc. Sure enough thats what happened and what Bush was in office for. You see while we all type from this and argue over spilt milk alot of the advanced technology the US government have, is because of alien technology or finding old technology in places that have buried deep under the earth since before 6000 years ago.
Link? I am unconvinced by this theory.mysterious wrote: »99 Saddam dropped the dollar and was a threat to the power of the illuminati not "freedom" or "us". Saddam was made to look twice as bad as he was made in the MSM. From a logical point of view from a middle ground, Saddam was obiously standing to his own and saying up yours to the NWO and West.
While gassing Kurds and pointing SCUDs at Tel-Aviv...mysterious wrote: »The UN and American sanctions alone killed 400,000 people. The American Government killed well over 1 million (still counting) since they took Saddam out.
Try a tenth of that: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/mysterious wrote: »The weapons Saddam had, says made in America. Saddam did good things too. It's just hard for people to understand that because people in the west have been so conditioned thinking people in the Mideast are just not humane or ethical by any means. Saddam even protected his country from other black ops and western sponsored terrrorism around Iraq.
I just love truth.
Just as Pol Pot and Stalin did good things. What's that got to do with it? He had a history of killing his own civillians, yeah he protected his military from Western terrorism, so he was free to pursue some nice government endorsed domestic terrorism against religious and ethnic minorities.
General idea of the last half of my post: America may be **** but they're better than Saddam or the Taliban.0 -
-
-
EXCELLENT THREAD OPSo tell me, what false flag was used to start world war one?
The assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Freemasons.
Pg 429 & 430 here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13014581/2-Faces-Freemasonry-John-Daniel-06
It reminds me of the Baby Incubator Fraud, Where an American PR firm hired by the US government coached a 15 year-old-girl, who happened to be the Kuwaiti ambassadors daughter lied before a filmed US congressional committee and all teary eyed falsely claimed that Iraqi soliders were taking babies from Kuwaiti incubators and killing them.
Here she is in this short clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ib6wL55EoM&feature=PlayList&p=65FE8A67D8CEE4EA&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=260 -
Because America does not use WMDs against its own citizens, America has protocols in place to deal with abuses of power, there is a system of culpability and responsibility.
Hang on! The US is the only state in history to use nuclear weapons against a people. killing 200,000 innocents instantly and God knows how many more after through radiation.
Where was the system of responsibility then?They can brainwash people to kill innocents but not to stop them talking about it afterwards? The NWO sound more and more like the cast of a Carry On movie with every post.
Try telling me these ****ers aren't brainwashed! And these are the PG shots.
Both these wars involve Henry Kissinger as an adviser btw.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
TalkieWalkie wrote: »They were all conspiracies, they are now fact. People denied them, much the same as they deny today's theories, but were eventually proven wrong.
Hence the name - conspiracy to fact
Did you research them yourself or did you just copy paste from this site?
http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx
Looking down the list there are plenty that haven't been proven as fact and most can be disputed.0 -
-
-
-
thecommander wrote: »I believe their are conspiracys, but what Im asking is were these theories before they were fact. Did people discuss as a theory and then one day it came out that they were true. For instance, The Mafia. I don't think anyone ever doubted that they were real, so where was the theory before fact.
Also, The New World Order. There are plenty of theories but its not accepted that this is fact. Maybe it is by a small few but its not fact.
It's like the saying "keep sticking your head in the sand if you don't want to see the world for what it is"
The NWO is a fact. Oh dear god.:D Are you actually for real on this? Shudders.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
mysterious wrote: »
It's like the saying "keep sticking your head in the sand if you don't want to see the world for what it is"
The NWO is a fact. Oh dear god.:D Are you actually for real on this? Shudders.
I would say it's more the case of, one being born with one's in the sand or placed in the sand soon after birth. And when people shout down to them, "take your head out of the sand, there is a better view from up here!!", they reply, "no I'm quite comfortable here thanks, whats a "view" anyway ? actually, I don't wanna know"
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement