Ron Paul and a Timeline of CIA Crimes and Atrocities
-
Well, maybe you should take the spotlight here. There are approximately 350 people that read this forum, 150-200 daily. Take it.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
But this forum screeches to a dead halt, and readers disperse if I do not post here. You should just go ahead and take over.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're assuming that all of the violence over there is BECAUSE we're there, and that it wouldn't be otherwise. How do you know that's the case?
Circular logic, but how do you know it's not?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Russia hasn't been worth attacking since the USSR broke up, plain and simple. Switzerland is neutral, and that works because they're not worth attacking. We are.
Say you were president of a country, a moderately sized one. Nothing is attacking you, or threatening you. And, let's say you WANT to attack someone, for the purpose of spreading your own power and jurisdiction. Would you go after someone smaller than you, or larger than you? Would you really go after someone with more wealth and military than your own? That is total nonsense. Come on. Plus: we're on a completely different continent, with only two neighbors (that is, the continental united states).
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And no matter how much defense we build, what's to stop someone from sneaking a nuke in through one of our ports? Or even sailing a freighter into New York Harbor with a nuke on board?
I think you're making my point for me on this one. No matter how much "security" we have, shit still happens. Nevermind what actually happened on Christmas Day that you never hear about on the news: http://politicallore.com/blog/?p=888[] http://www.prisonplanet.com/bomber-had-no-passport-helped-to-board-plane-by-sharp-dressed-man.html[] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6968560.ece[]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The way the world is now, nobody with working nukes gets invaded, plain and simple.
We've never been invaded, except during the war of 1812. Plain and simple.
josda1000 wrote:
Say you were president of a country, a moderately sized one. Nothing is attacking you, or threatening you. And, let's say you WANT to attack someone, for the purpose of spreading your own power and jurisdiction. Would you go after someone smaller than you, or larger than you? Would you really go after someone with more wealth and military than your own? That is total nonsense. Come on. Plus: we're on a completely different continent, with only two neighbors (that is, the continental united states).
Again, not talking about military invasions... Talking about terrorism and guerrilla warfare.
josda1000 wrote:
I think you're making my point for me on this one. No matter how much "security" we have, sh*t still happens. Nevermind what actually happened on Christmas Day that you never hear about on the news:
The point I'm making is that the CIA/NSA is the first line of defense. Soldiers at the ports won't help, but the covert guys can keep watch for these things and intercept them before they reach us. Can't do that if we confine ourselves to our own country.
josda1000 wrote:
We've never been invaded, except during the war of 1812. Plain and simple.
Yet again... Not talking about invasions, but about non-military attacks.
josda1000 wrote:
I completely disagree with this as well. You have to dig. Just as I'd said before with CSS. They're there... Search for them. This is why "conspiracy theories" are struck down so easily... people don't want to look at the truth, whether presented a logical argument or not. The truth is not opinionated. It is what it is... so look for it.
Sorry, should have been more specific... By "this", I meant that particular topic... Whether the CIA is actually infiltrating groups and stopping attacks before we even hear anything, or whether they're being useless. The trick with covert ops organizations is that if we hear about it, it means they screwed up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
But this forum screeches to a dead halt, and readers disperse if I do not post here. You should just go ahead and take over.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
Say you were president of a country, a moderately sized one. Nothing is attacking you, or threatening you. And, let's say you WANT to attack someone, for the purpose of spreading your own power and jurisdiction. Would you go after someone smaller than you, or larger than you? Would you really go after someone with more wealth and military than your own? That is total nonsense. Come on. Plus: we're on a completely different continent, with only two neighbors (that is, the continental united states).
Again, not talking about military invasions... Talking about terrorism and guerrilla warfare.
josda1000 wrote:
I think you're making my point for me on this one. No matter how much "security" we have, sh*t still happens. Nevermind what actually happened on Christmas Day that you never hear about on the news:
The point I'm making is that the CIA/NSA is the first line of defense. Soldiers at the ports won't help, but the covert guys can keep watch for these things and intercept them before they reach us. Can't do that if we confine ourselves to our own country.
josda1000 wrote:
We've never been invaded, except during the war of 1812. Plain and simple.
Yet again... Not talking about invasions, but about non-military attacks.
josda1000 wrote:
I completely disagree with this as well. You have to dig. Just as I'd said before with CSS. They're there... Search for them. This is why "conspiracy theories" are struck down so easily... people don't want to look at the truth, whether presented a logical argument or not. The truth is not opinionated. It is what it is... so look for it.
Sorry, should have been more specific... By "this", I meant that particular topic... Whether the CIA is actually infiltrating groups and stopping attacks before we even hear anything, or whether they're being useless. The trick with covert ops organizations is that if we hear about it, it means they screwed up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again, not talking about military invasions... Talking about terrorism and guerrilla warfare.
No, I was actually talking covert ops. Think about it: if you're a terrorist, it doesn't matter who you go after. You just want to terrorize. I should have toned down my scenario a bit then: even if you were a terrorist, all you want to do is destroy. In general, you're not on a suicide mission, you're just out to destroy. So why in the hell would you go after the biggest military giant in the world?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yet again... Not talking about invasions, but about non-military attacks.
OK, continue with the logic. Go back to your original post. You did say that "nobody with nukes gets invaded, plain and simple". Sooooo... why were we then? This is precisely why it's abundantly clear to anyone with any kind of common sense that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, or at least, the executive branch knew that it would happen. We have no accountability on it, there are so many holes in the 9/11 commission report, and we went STRAIGHT into Iraq and Afghanistan, and we STILL HAVEN'T GOT OSAMA BIN LADEN!! HAHAHAH!! Look... bring everyone home. Think about the ramifications of that... people would actually live without the United States of America for a while (which is becoming more of a nation-state than a nation now), and see themselves resolve their own problems. WE create the problems.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The trick with covert ops organizations is that if we hear about it, it means they screwed up.
I couldn't agree more. Which scares the living daylights out of me.
-
woah woah woah... now you're not going to post forum topics, you mean? that's a little like overkill.
Well, I don't think I can ever leave. I've been here since 05 or 06.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again, not talking about military invasions... Talking about terrorism and guerrilla warfare.
No, I was actually talking covert ops. Think about it: if you're a terrorist, it doesn't matter who you go after. You just want to terrorize. I should have toned down my scenario a bit then: even if you were a terrorist, all you want to do is destroy. In general, you're not on a suicide mission, you're just out to destroy. So why in the hell would you go after the biggest military giant in the world?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yet again... Not talking about invasions, but about non-military attacks.
OK, continue with the logic. Go back to your original post. You did say that "nobody with nukes gets invaded, plain and simple". Sooooo... why were we then? This is precisely why it's abundantly clear to anyone with any kind of common sense that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, or at least, the executive branch knew that it would happen. We have no accountability on it, there are so many holes in the 9/11 commission report, and we went STRAIGHT into Iraq and Afghanistan, and we STILL HAVEN'T GOT OSAMA BIN LADEN!! HAHAHAH!! Look... bring everyone home. Think about the ramifications of that... people would actually live without the United States of America for a while (which is becoming more of a nation-state than a nation now), and see themselves resolve their own problems. WE create the problems.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The trick with covert ops organizations is that if we hear about it, it means they screwed up.
I couldn't agree more. Which scares the living daylights out of me.
josda1000 wrote:
So why in the hell would you go after the biggest military giant in the world?
Because when it comes to covert ops, our military is irrelevant, and hitting the supposedly-invincible giant would scare the living crap out of EVERYONE.
josda1000 wrote:
OK, continue with the logic. Go back to your original post. You did say that "nobody with nukes gets invaded, plain and simple". Sooooo... why were we then?
We weren't invaded... It wasn't a military invasion, it was a terrorist attack... Come on, josda... This is an easy concept... A military invasion and a terrorist covert attack are COMPLETELY different things. Sure, we can protect ourselves from a military invasion by going all defensive... But that won't save us from covert attacks. That's where the CIA/NSA come in.
josda1000 wrote:
This is precisely why it's abundantly clear to anyone with any kind of common sense that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, or at least, the executive branch knew that it would happen.
Ah, there's the big controversy... Soon after it happened, I was considering that it might be an inside job... I was looking through all of the conspiracy movies... Loose Change, Zeitgeist, etc... But I also looked at the other side, and that was the one that made more sense. So I don't think it was an inside job. I DO think it could have been prevented, and that it's POSSIBLE that certain key individuals or groups saw the advantage of letting it happen, and looked the other way. I'm not saying I believe that's what happened... But I think it MAY have happened.
josda1000 wrote:
Look... bring everyone home. Think about the ramifications of that... people would actually live without the United States of America for a while (which is becoming more of a nation-state than a nation now), and see themselves resolve their own problems. WE create the problems.
Except of course for trade, tourism, all of the US-based businesses that operate abroad, our hosting of the United Nations... If you're talking just a military/covert-ops withdrawal, I don't think the developed countries would care, except that the piracy near Somalia would escalate, South Korea and the DPRK would start blowing each other away again, and China would invade Taiwan. That would of course affect us, as Korea and Ta
-
josda1000 wrote:
So why in the hell would you go after the biggest military giant in the world?
Because when it comes to covert ops, our military is irrelevant, and hitting the supposedly-invincible giant would scare the living crap out of EVERYONE.
josda1000 wrote:
OK, continue with the logic. Go back to your original post. You did say that "nobody with nukes gets invaded, plain and simple". Sooooo... why were we then?
We weren't invaded... It wasn't a military invasion, it was a terrorist attack... Come on, josda... This is an easy concept... A military invasion and a terrorist covert attack are COMPLETELY different things. Sure, we can protect ourselves from a military invasion by going all defensive... But that won't save us from covert attacks. That's where the CIA/NSA come in.
josda1000 wrote:
This is precisely why it's abundantly clear to anyone with any kind of common sense that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, or at least, the executive branch knew that it would happen.
Ah, there's the big controversy... Soon after it happened, I was considering that it might be an inside job... I was looking through all of the conspiracy movies... Loose Change, Zeitgeist, etc... But I also looked at the other side, and that was the one that made more sense. So I don't think it was an inside job. I DO think it could have been prevented, and that it's POSSIBLE that certain key individuals or groups saw the advantage of letting it happen, and looked the other way. I'm not saying I believe that's what happened... But I think it MAY have happened.
josda1000 wrote:
Look... bring everyone home. Think about the ramifications of that... people would actually live without the United States of America for a while (which is becoming more of a nation-state than a nation now), and see themselves resolve their own problems. WE create the problems.
Except of course for trade, tourism, all of the US-based businesses that operate abroad, our hosting of the United Nations... If you're talking just a military/covert-ops withdrawal, I don't think the developed countries would care, except that the piracy near Somalia would escalate, South Korea and the DPRK would start blowing each other away again, and China would invade Taiwan. That would of course affect us, as Korea and Ta
Ian, the CIA runs the drug trade, child kidnapping trade, starts wars, created & runs al'quada, ignites revolutions within countries, assassinates presidents and leaders home and abroad, tortures people, the list goes on and on. The CIA is the punching arm of the federal reserve.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
So why in the hell would you go after the biggest military giant in the world?
Because when it comes to covert ops, our military is irrelevant, and hitting the supposedly-invincible giant would scare the living crap out of EVERYONE.
josda1000 wrote:
OK, continue with the logic. Go back to your original post. You did say that "nobody with nukes gets invaded, plain and simple". Sooooo... why were we then?
We weren't invaded... It wasn't a military invasion, it was a terrorist attack... Come on, josda... This is an easy concept... A military invasion and a terrorist covert attack are COMPLETELY different things. Sure, we can protect ourselves from a military invasion by going all defensive... But that won't save us from covert attacks. That's where the CIA/NSA come in.
josda1000 wrote:
This is precisely why it's abundantly clear to anyone with any kind of common sense that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, or at least, the executive branch knew that it would happen.
Ah, there's the big controversy... Soon after it happened, I was considering that it might be an inside job... I was looking through all of the conspiracy movies... Loose Change, Zeitgeist, etc... But I also looked at the other side, and that was the one that made more sense. So I don't think it was an inside job. I DO think it could have been prevented, and that it's POSSIBLE that certain key individuals or groups saw the advantage of letting it happen, and looked the other way. I'm not saying I believe that's what happened... But I think it MAY have happened.
josda1000 wrote:
Look... bring everyone home. Think about the ramifications of that... people would actually live without the United States of America for a while (which is becoming more of a nation-state than a nation now), and see themselves resolve their own problems. WE create the problems.
Except of course for trade, tourism, all of the US-based businesses that operate abroad, our hosting of the United Nations... If you're talking just a military/covert-ops withdrawal, I don't think the developed countries would care, except that the piracy near Somalia would escalate, South Korea and the DPRK would start blowing each other away again, and China would invade Taiwan. That would of course affect us, as Korea and Ta
-
Ian, the CIA runs the drug trade, child kidnapping trade, starts wars, created & runs al'quada, ignites revolutions within countries, assassinates presidents and leaders home and abroad, tortures people, the list goes on and on. The CIA is the punching arm of the federal reserve.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Back in your cave, junior.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Yeah, man... I just wish he wasn't the only one saying such moronic things as to make the list.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Back in your cave, junior.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
josda1000 wrote:
So why in the hell would you go after the biggest military giant in the world?
Because when it comes to covert ops, our military is irrelevant, and hitting the supposedly-invincible giant would scare the living crap out of EVERYONE.
josda1000 wrote:
OK, continue with the logic. Go back to your original post. You did say that "nobody with nukes gets invaded, plain and simple". Sooooo... why were we then?
We weren't invaded... It wasn't a military invasion, it was a terrorist attack... Come on, josda... This is an easy concept... A military invasion and a terrorist covert attack are COMPLETELY different things. Sure, we can protect ourselves from a military invasion by going all defensive... But that won't save us from covert attacks. That's where the CIA/NSA come in.
josda1000 wrote:
This is precisely why it's abundantly clear to anyone with any kind of common sense that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, or at least, the executive branch knew that it would happen.
Ah, there's the big controversy... Soon after it happened, I was considering that it might be an inside job... I was looking through all of the conspiracy movies... Loose Change, Zeitgeist, etc... But I also looked at the other side, and that was the one that made more sense. So I don't think it was an inside job. I DO think it could have been prevented, and that it's POSSIBLE that certain key individuals or groups saw the advantage of letting it happen, and looked the other way. I'm not saying I believe that's what happened... But I think it MAY have happened.
josda1000 wrote:
Look... bring everyone home. Think about the ramifications of that... people would actually live without the United States of America for a while (which is becoming more of a nation-state than a nation now), and see themselves resolve their own problems. WE create the problems.
Except of course for trade, tourism, all of the US-based businesses that operate abroad, our hosting of the United Nations... If you're talking just a military/covert-ops withdrawal, I don't think the developed countries would care, except that the piracy near Somalia would escalate, South Korea and the DPRK would start blowing each other away again, and China would invade Taiwan. That would of course affect us, as Korea and Ta
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Because when it comes to covert ops, our military is irrelevant, and hitting the supposedly-invincible giant would scare the living crap out of EVERYONE.
It did. 9/11 happened. And with that fear that was created, "we" gave in and said, "let's go get those bastards!" And basically over the past 8 years, nothing's ever happened until the past two months. We're scared for nothing. Don't you see how stupid this looks from an objective standpoint?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Come on, josda... This is an easy concept... A military invasion and a terrorist covert attack are COMPLETELY different things.
I beg to differ. They are a use of force, whether under the radar or not. But that's not where I was going with it. Think about this: Whether it was done covertly or not, we have not had an attack on the continental United States ever since the War of 1812, until 2001. And this is supposedly the grand reason why we need more security, and more troops everywhere. This is insane. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable. And so, if he is a romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are. -- H L Mencken
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except of course for trade, tourism, all of the US-based businesses that operate abroad, our hosting of the United Nations.
Agreed. We need capitalism still. (Real capitalism, not corporatism.) Free trade with friends of any kind bears gifts. I won't debate the UN here.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't think the developed countries would care, except that the piracy near Somalia would escalate, South Korea and the DPRK would start blowing each other away again, and China would invade Taiwan.
And, that's our problem? Why is that? Since when? Since we're policemen now? WHO CARES?! Look, I do feel bad that other countries can't settle their differences. But that's precisely what it is: their diffences, not ours. We have no say in what they do, but we get in the way anyway. By getting in the way and siding with one side, we auto
-
josda1000 wrote:
So why in the hell would you go after the biggest military giant in the world?
Because when it comes to covert ops, our military is irrelevant, and hitting the supposedly-invincible giant would scare the living crap out of EVERYONE.
josda1000 wrote:
OK, continue with the logic. Go back to your original post. You did say that "nobody with nukes gets invaded, plain and simple". Sooooo... why were we then?
We weren't invaded... It wasn't a military invasion, it was a terrorist attack... Come on, josda... This is an easy concept... A military invasion and a terrorist covert attack are COMPLETELY different things. Sure, we can protect ourselves from a military invasion by going all defensive... But that won't save us from covert attacks. That's where the CIA/NSA come in.
josda1000 wrote:
This is precisely why it's abundantly clear to anyone with any kind of common sense that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, or at least, the executive branch knew that it would happen.
Ah, there's the big controversy... Soon after it happened, I was considering that it might be an inside job... I was looking through all of the conspiracy movies... Loose Change, Zeitgeist, etc... But I also looked at the other side, and that was the one that made more sense. So I don't think it was an inside job. I DO think it could have been prevented, and that it's POSSIBLE that certain key individuals or groups saw the advantage of letting it happen, and looked the other way. I'm not saying I believe that's what happened... But I think it MAY have happened.
josda1000 wrote:
Look... bring everyone home. Think about the ramifications of that... people would actually live without the United States of America for a while (which is becoming more of a nation-state than a nation now), and see themselves resolve their own problems. WE create the problems.
Except of course for trade, tourism, all of the US-based businesses that operate abroad, our hosting of the United Nations... If you're talking just a military/covert-ops withdrawal, I don't think the developed countries would care, except that the piracy near Somalia would escalate, South Korea and the DPRK would start blowing each other away again, and China would invade Taiwan. That would of course affect us, as Korea and Ta
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Because when it comes to covert ops, our military is irrelevant, and hitting the supposedly-invincible giant would scare the living crap out of EVERYONE.
It did. 9/11 happened. And with that fear that was created, "we" gave in and said, "let's go get those bastards!" And basically over the past 8 years, nothing's ever happened until the past two months. We're scared for nothing. Don't you see how stupid this looks from an objective standpoint?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Come on, josda... This is an easy concept... A military invasion and a terrorist covert attack are COMPLETELY different things.
I beg to differ. They are a use of force, whether under the radar or not. But that's not where I was going with it. Think about this: Whether it was done covertly or not, we have not had an attack on the continental United States ever since the War of 1812, until 2001. And this is supposedly the grand reason why we need more security, and more troops everywhere. This is insane. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable. And so, if he is a romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are. -- H L Mencken
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except of course for trade, tourism, all of the US-based businesses that operate abroad, our hosting of the United Nations.
Agreed. We need capitalism still. (Real capitalism, not corporatism.) Free trade with friends of any kind bears gifts. I won't debate the UN here.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't think the developed countries would care, except that the piracy near Somalia would escalate, South Korea and the DPRK would start blowing each other away again, and China would invade Taiwan.
And, that's our problem? Why is that? Since when? Since we're policemen now? WHO CARES?! Look, I do feel bad that other countries can't settle their differences. But that's precisely what it is: their diffences, not ours. We have no say in what they do, but we get in the way anyway. By getting in the way and siding with one side, we auto
josda1000 wrote:
It did. 9/11 happened. And with that fear that was created, "we" gave in and said, "let's go get those bastards!" And basically over the past 8 years, nothing's ever happened until the past two months. We're scared for nothing. Don't you see how stupid this looks from an objective standpoint?
You're mixing up your logic here... You're saying we're out there BECAUSE they attacked us... I thought you were arguing that it was the other way around?
josda1000 wrote:
I beg to differ. They are a use of force, whether under the radar or not. But that's not where I was going with it. Think about this: Whether it was done covertly or not, we have not had an attack on the continental United States ever since the War of 1812, until 2001. And this is supposedly the grand reason why we need more security, and more troops everywhere. This is insane.
They are a use of force, but they're still different. A military strike can be countered by having a good defensive military. A covert attack is specifically designed to BYPASS the military, so can only be stopped through better intelligence. Now, back in the old days, the CIA was basically fighting against the KGB... The KGB is gone, for the most part, but given all of the different countries out there, I have trouble believing they were the only threat. Again, one of my points is that it might be the case, that we hadn't been attacked (Until 9/11) because the CIA was protecting us. Nice H.L.Mencken quote (I do like the guy's quotations), but I hope you're not putting that forth as evidence... I mean, I'm an author too, but quoting me doesn't win any prizes :)
josda1000 wrote:
And, that's our problem? Why is that? Since when? Since we're policemen now? WHO CARES?! Look, I do feel bad that other countries can't settle their differences. But that's precisely what it is: their diffences, not ours. We have no say in what they do, but we get in the way anyway. By getting in the way and siding with one side, we automatically become the enemy of someone else. And that's where it goes wrong, and why we get strange "random" attacks, and why we escalate the conflict, and get another random attack, and escalate security, etc.
Three words.... World War Two. What would have happened if we hadn't intervened? Before Pearl Harbor, we were isolationists, and look what happened with
-
Everyone else gets bored? :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dECSYm5bSM[^] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYOVQezWaCY[^] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9VxnCBD9W4[^] Citations here[^] A video of Ron Paul calling out the CIA at the Campaign for Liberty Regional Conference in Atlanta, Georgia, earlier this week has gone viral on the internet. In the video, Paul declared the CIA “runs everything” and is the dark force behind illegal invasions and occupations around the world. He said we need to get rid of the agency. The CIA has committed thousands of illegal and immoral acts around the world, including almost unfathomable mass murder and countless acts of terrorism and torture. “The CIA and the big corporations were, in my experience, in step with each other,” writes former CIA agent John Stockwell. “the CIA had been running thousands of operations over the years… there have been about 3,000 major covert operations and over 10,000 minor operations… all designed to disrupt, destabilize, or modify the activities of other countries… But they are all illegal and they all disrupt the normal functioning, often the democratic functioning, of other societies.” The CIA recruited Nazi war criminals. It is not known as the “Cocaine Import Agency” for nothing (see video below). It has engaged in assassination and covert chemical and biological warfare. The late Steve Kangas (who allegedly committed suicide in a 39th floor bathroom at One Oxford Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, immediately outside the offices of foundations run by known CIA operative Richard Mellon Scaife) compiled in the 1990s the following disturbing list of CIA crimes around the world: 1929 The culture we lost — Secretary of State Henry Stimson refuses to endorse a code-breaking operation, saying, “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.” 1941 COI created — In preparation for World War II, Preside
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Australia — The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.
This one always pops up, fortunately the Governor General can't wake up one morning and decide "hmmm I'll dismiss the government today", there has to be a trigger and in this case it was the Liberal (right wing) opposition that controlled the senate and were blocking all the governments policies which ment the Labour (left wing) government was unable to do anything, the Liberal opposition was also putting pressure on the GG to dismiss the government and call a general election. Anyway Labour lost the general election that followed them being dismissed, so they were not as popular as they thought.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You want a country that is not seen as isolationist.
The purpose of boarders are to isolate. You want isolationism. Isolationism is good.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Yes, let's make those arbitrary separations between peoples! They're good, wonderful, let us form that wonderful us vs them mentality which brings so much good in the world.
Distind wrote:
Lets submit to China and Maoist principles.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Distind wrote:
Lets submit to China and Maoist principles.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
NOOOOOO! How dare I consider other people humans of an equal standard despite not living in the same country as me! The horror, I might even be liable to help my fellow humans! Someone, please stop me before I go completely out of control and start to consider those that I know friends!