WAR....Huh, What Is It Good For.....(Is War inherently Evil?)


Chemtrail and Company IV ... War and Religion ...... WAR....Huh, What Is It Good For.....(Is War inherently Evil?)

Login \| Register	Page 1

Author

Comment

Swedishoo
Admin

Posts: 690
(3/27/2004 11:23:45 PM)

WAR....Huh, What Is It Good For.....(Is War inherently Evil?)

WAR....Huh, What Is It Good For.....(Is War inherently Evil?)

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
WAR....Huh, What Is It Good For.....(Is War inherently Evil?)	Posted 2-27-2004 20:33
I've been struggling with some deep philosophical thoughts lately, and I thought this might be a good topic to tie ALL issues and political/spiritual philosophies together. Al has accused me of being a chicken hawk (to which I disagree). All on this board, basically have come to the conclusions (for some reason incomprehensible to me) that the war in Iraq was unnecessary and the terrorist threat is non-existent and manufactured. But let's put those specific disagreements aside for a moment in this thread. Forget Iraq or Afghanistan for a moment, and let's just talk about the concept of war in general. There are a great many paradoxes associated with war that I struggle with. I do believe I would have made a terrible soldier, by the way, because with my stubbornness and inability to follow orders, I probably would have gone AWOL by boot camp. Philosophically speaking, I don't believe I'm mentally capable at taking life, either unless I`m mortally threatened....yet at the same time, paradoxically, I'm thankful for the service of the men (and some women) who have had to do so to keep America free. In the same sense I`m thankful to Jesus for giving his life for the salvation of humanity from it`s sins, I`m thankful to soldiers for bravely giving their lives and putting there lives at risk for the freedom I now enjoy. In this sense, I see the missions of Jesus and US soldiers as paradoxically similar. When I saw the infamous DEC 9th Apache gun footage video at Mav's, (which I'll produce later when I get the time), I found myself philosophically conflicted. It was a terrible and physically sickening thing to witness human beings actually being coldly vaporized. It struck me as an evil act at first, and part of the reason, ironically, that I reacted in this way was because it was done in such a gruesome way and so coldly and efficiently without apparent emotion. But then when I thought about it, I realized this emotion seemed illogical in me because I thought; What is the purpose of war, if not to kill the enemy? In context of the actual situation, these Iraqis had just engaged American guys in a heated battle, but due to the political and philosophical agendas of those promoting the footage, we never received this context. All we saw was the cold act itself, illuminated by that eerie green IR camera glow. Thinking about it logically....what did I want? Did I want our soldiers to react emotionally in some way to this act of killing, as part of their required duty? No....I guess I didn't, because in order to be a soldier, you have to be able to separate the emotional act of firing against a human "target" from the act of doing your job, in order to get the job done. It requires an emotional separation.....and when I thought about it logically, it seems a more ethical state of mind to be in. After all, what's more spiritually ethical...when a man commits murder out of rage and hate, or when a man kills another in an act of war out of a sense of doing his duty in for a greater good?... These are tough questions, but undoubtedly, all who've served in the military have had to deal with them. Al (JAK) is an example of a person who has dealt with these conflicts in one way, (to be disgusted with the whole idea of war) which we can pretty much predict....but I've talked to ex-Vietnam vets who have gone to the other extreme and say they have no problem with killing the enemy, even women and children if they are attacking. So, in light of the fact that I'm just now going to see a movie dealing with Jesus, how would Jesus deal with the issue of war? Would he recommend complete pacifism (as the Buddhists practice) and just lay down before an advancing evil? Or would he fight evil with bullets and bombs (assuming he lacked more supernatural methods)? I find myself conflicted in these tough questions...but I bring the subject up because it's one that I feel everyone can have a legitimate viewpoint with, without being completely right or wrong. Is war inherently evil? If so....Is it a necessary evil? If not INHERINTLY evil, then does it depend on it's purpose? I'll go into more depth with these thoughts and provide the Apache gun footage video I'm referencing, when I get back from the movie.

JAK from Chemtrail and Company III
Warfare	Posted 2-29-2004 12:35
War is neither inherently either good or evil. All depends upon the purpose for which it is conducted. Like fire, it can do great good or harm beyond measure- one needs to be sure before the trigger is squeezed or the button pushed and the rounds go down range that it isn't yourself who is the "bad guy" in the given situation. Allen

JAK from Chemtrail and Company III
Word of Joshua	Posted 2-29-2004 12:59
"If a man has no sword, then let him sell his cloak and buy one". Allen

JAK from Chemtrail and Company III
Context	Posted 2-29-2004 14:01
"In context of the actual situation, these Iraqis had just engaged American guys in a heated battle, but due to the political and philosophical agendas of those promoting the footage, we never received this context. All we saw was the cold act itself, illuminated by that eerie green IR camera glow." The only problem with that is that it isn't accurate. There isn't any evidence that was in fact the case. On the other side of the coin, the most likely explanation is that these men were engaged in an agricultural activity in low light level conditions when hit by the Apache. If they had been attacking it, they wouldn't have been standing around out in the open to get zapped by return fire. None of the US helicopters downed so far have shown anything like similar characteristics. All were hit by insurgents who were well placed, knew the flight patterns of the aircraft and knew how to use cover and concealment and how to disengage properly. In the Middle East, it is pretty common for farmers to work their fields at night because it gets so blasted hot not long after the sun comes up. They do it here in Texas too. Allen PS: "these Iraqis had just engaged American guys in a heated battle," Then where are the heat signatures of their weapons on the film? An AKM or PKM on full auto gets hot enough in one or two five or six round bursts to inflict 3rd degree burns on you hand if you touch the barrel. An RPG-7 uses a booster charge to launch the rocket from the tube and then it's motor ignites and it is on it's way. A SAM uses an ejector motor in much the same way. ALL these weapons get HOT upon firing. They don't cool instantly. On IR, they stand out from the background like an orange traffic cone in a school zone- so do muzzle flashes. Where are the heat signatures of the weapons it is claimed the Iraqis fired at the AH-64 first??? The real truth is likely that the Apache crew simply got nervous and trigger happy at the same time.

Swedishoo
Admin

Posts: 690
(3/27/2004 11:26:08 PM)

Re: WAR....Huh, What Is It Good For.....(Is War inherently Evil?)

whitemajikman from Chemtrail and Company III
what is war........	Posted 3-3-2004 02:56
What is war and what is its definition. The student of war needs to be careful in examining definitions of war, for like any social phenomena, definitions are varied, and often the proposed definition masks a particular political or philosophical stance paraded by the author. This is as true of dictionary definitions as well as of articles on military or political history. Cicero defines war broadly as "a contention by force"; Hugo Grotius adds that "war is the state of contending parties, considered as such"; Thomas Hobbes notes that war is also an attitude: "By war is meant a state of affairs, which may exist even while its operations are not continued"; Denis Diderot comments that war is "a convulsive and violent disease of the body politic;" for Karl von Clausewitz, "war is the continuation of politics by other means", and so on. Each definition has its strengths and weaknesses, but often is the culmination of the writer's broader philosophical positions. For example, the notion that wars only involve states-as Clausewitz implies-belies a strong political theory that assumes politics can only involve states and that war is in some manner or form a reflection of political activity. 'War' defined by Webster's Dictionary is a state of open and declared, hostile armed conflict between states or nations, or a period of such conflict. This captures a particularly political-rationalistic account of war and warfare, i.e., that war needs to be explicitly declared and to be between states to be a war. We find Rousseau arguing this position: "War is constituted by a relation between things, and not between persons...War then is a relation, not between man and man, but between State and State..." (The Social Contract). The military historian, John Keegan offers a useful characterization of the political-rationalist theory of war in his A History of War. It is assumed to be an orderly affair in which states are involved, in which there are declared beginnings and expected ends, easily identifiable combatants, and high levels of obedience by subordinates. The form of rational war is narrowly defined, as distinguished by the expectation of sieges, pitched battles, skirmishes, raids, reconnaissance, patrol and outpost duties, with each possessing their own conventions. As such, Keegan notes the rationalist theory does not deal well with pre-state or non-state peoples and their warfare. There are other schools of thought on war's nature other than the political-rationalist account, and the student of war must be careful, as noted above, not to incorporate a too narrow or normative account of war. If war is defined as something that occurs only between states, then wars between nomadic groups should not be mentioned, nor would hostilities on the part of a displaced, non-state group against a state be considered war. An alternative definition of war is that it is an all-pervasive phenomenon of the universe. Accordingly, battles are mere symptoms of the underlying belligerent nature of the universe; such a description corresponds with a Heraclitean or Hegelian philosophy in which change (physical, social, political, economical, etc) can only arise out of war or violent conflict. Heraclitus decries that "war is the father of all things," and Hegel echoes his sentiments. Interestingly, even Voltaire, the embodiment of the Enlightenment, followed this line: "Famine, plague, and war are the three most famous ingredients of this wretched world...All animals are perpetually at war with each other...Air, earth and water are arenas of destruction." (From Pocket Philosophical Dictionary). Alternatively, the Oxford Dictionary expands the definition to include "any active hostility or struggle between living beings; a conflict between opposing forces or principles." This avoids the narrowness of a political-rationalist conception by admitting the possibility of metaphorical, non-violent clashes between systems of thought, such as of religious doctrines or of trading companies. This perhaps indicates a too broad definition, for trade is certainly a different kind of activity than war, although trade occurs in war, and trade often motivates wars. The OED definition also seems to echo a Heraclitean metaphysics, in which opposing forces act on each other to generate change and in which war is the product of such a metaphysics. So from two popular and influential dictionaries, we have definitions that connote particular philosophical positions. The plasticity and history of the English language also mean that commonly used definitions of war may incorporate and subsume meanings borrowed and derived from other, older languages: the relevant root systems being Germanic, Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit. Such descriptions may linger in oral and literary depictions of war, for we read of war in poems, stories, anecdotes and histories that may encompass older conceptions of war. Nonetheless, war's descriptions residing in the literature left by various writers and orators often possess similarities to modern conceptions. The differences arise from the writer's, poet's, or orator's judgement of war, which would suggest that an Ancient Greek conception of war is not so different from our own. Both could recognize the presence or absence of war. However, etymologically war's definition does refer to conceptions of war that have either been discarded or been imputed to the present definition, and a cursory review of the roots of the word war provides the philosopher with a glimpse into its conceptual status within communities and over time. For example, the root of the English word 'war', werra, is Frankish-German, meaning confusion, discord, or strife, and the verb werran meaning to confuse or perplex. War certainly generates confusion, as Clausewitz noted calling it the "fog of war", but that does not discredit the notion that war is organized to begin with. The Latin root of bellum gives us the word belligerent, and duel, an archaic form of bellum; the Greek root of war is polemos, which gives us polemical, implying an aggressive controversy. The Frankish-Germanic definition hints at a vague enterprise, a confusion or strife, which could equally apply to many social problems besetting a group; arguably it is of a lower order sociological concept than the Greek, which draws the mind's attention to suggestions of violence and conflict, or the Latin, which captures the possibility of two sides doing the fighting. The present employment of 'war' may imply the clash and confusion embedded in early definitions and roots, but it may also, as we have noted, unwittingly incorporate conceptions derived from particular political schools. An alternative definition that the author has worked on is that war is a state of organized, open-ended collective conflict or hostility. This is derived from contextual common denominators, that is elements that are common to all wars, and which provide a useful and robust definition of the concept. This working definition has the benefit of permitting more flexibility than the OED version, a flexibility that is crucial if we are to examine war not just as a conflict between states (i.e., the rationalist position), but also a conflict between non-state peoples, non-declared actions, and highly organized, politically controlled wars as well as culturally evolved, ritualistic wars and guerrilla uprisings, that appear to have no centrally controlling body and may perhaps be described as emerging spontaneously. The political issue of defining war poses the first philosophical problem, but once that is acknowledged, a definition that captures the clash of arms, the state of mutual tension and threat of violence between groups, the authorized declaration by a sovereign body, and so on can be drawn upon to distinguish wars from riots and rebellions, collective violence from personal violence, metaphorical clashes of values from actual or threatened clashes of arms.So in closing, Cy what is your definition of War..........?

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
My purpose is not to define war....	Posted 3-3-2004 03:47
Did you cut and paste this WMM? I mean, you've never used paragraphs before.....And where did all those lovely dots go? (I will get into this subject, but I just had to know if you wrote all that first)....

Yaak from Chemtrail and Company III
Who wrote that?	Posted 3-3-2004 04:03
Now I know who WMM really is: Julian Penrod; and how I know this is by her misuse of the word phenomena instead of phenomenon in this post and in her post about the camera conspiracy at CTC.

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
Hmmmmmm	Posted 3-3-2004 05:11
So you are saying WMM is Julian Penrod??? And you're saying WMM is a female???? I don't think WMM even wrote that. How can you tell?

Yaak from Chemtrail and Company III
Aw, come on	Posted 3-3-2004 05:31
I thought that that was such an outrageous statement that you would have to know it was an attempt at humor. Well....my failure. Apologies to any and all who might have been offended.

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
Julian Penrod	Posted 3-3-2004 05:53
I guess I'm not familiar enough with the stylings of Julian Penrod to know it was a joke. WMM has been hinting he's someone from the past but I don't know if he has said yet.

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
Aha	Posted 3-3-2004 07:09
Now that I read some of Julian Penrod's stuff though...I can see the humor now! You velly funny guy Yaak!

Swedishoo
Admin

Posts: 690
(3/27/2004 11:28:37 PM)

Re: WAR....Huh, What Is It Good For.....(Is War inherently Evil?)

whitemajikman from Chemtrail and Company III
War......What causes it...........?	Posted 3-4-2004 02:34
Cy,Please pay close attention to this next part. Various sub-disciplines have grappled with war's etiology, but each in turn, as with definitions of war, often reflects a tacit or explicit acceptance of broader philosophical issues on the nature of determinism and freedom. For example, if it is claimed that man is not free to choose his actions (strong determinism) then war becomes a fated fact of the universe, one that humanity has no power to challenge. Again, the range of opinions under this banner is broad, from those who claim war to be a necessary and ineluctable event, one that man can never shirk from, to those who, while accepting war's inevitability, claim that man has the power to minimize its ravages, just as prescriptive medicines may minimize the risk of disease or lightning rods the risk of storm damage. The implication is that man is not responsible for his actions and hence not responsible for war. Wherein lies its cause then becomes the intellectual quest: in the medieval understanding of the universe, the stars, planets and combinations of the four substances (earth, air, water, fire) were understood as providing the key to examining human acts and dispositions. While the modern mind has increased the complexity of the nature of the university, many still refer to the universe's material nature or its laws for examining why war arises. Some seek more complicated versions of the astrological vision of the medieval mind (e.g., Kondratieff cycle theories), whereas others delve into the newer sciences of molecular and genetic biology for explanations. In a weaker form of determinism, theorists claim that man is a product of his environment-however that is defined-but he also possesses the power to change that environment. Arguments from this perspective become quite intricate, for they often presume that 'mankind' as a whole is subject to inexorable forces that prompt him to wage war, but that some people's acts-those of the observers, philosophers, scientists-are not as determined, for they possess the intellectual ability to perceive what changes are required to alter man's martial predispositions. Again, the paradoxes and intricacies of opinions here are curiously intriguing, for it may be asked what permits some to stand outside the laws that everybody else is subject to? Others, who emphasize man's freedom to choose, claim that war is a product of his choice and hence is completely his responsibility. But thinkers here spread out into various schools of thought on the nature of choice and responsibility. By its very collective nature, considerations of war's causation must encroach into political philosophy and into discussions on a citizen's and a government's responsibility for a war. Such concerns obviously trip into moral issues (to what extent is the citizen morally responsible for war?), but with regards war's causation, if man is responsible for the actual initiation of war it must be asked on whose authority is war enacted? Descriptive and normative problems arise here, for one may inquire who is the legal authority to declare war, then move to issues of whether that authority has or should have legitimacy. For example, one may consider whether that authority reflects what 'the people' want (or should want), or whether the authority informs them of what they want (or should want). Are the masses easily swayed by the ideas of the élite, or do the élite ultimately pursue what the majority seeks? Here, some blame aristocracies for war (e.g., Nietzsche, who actually extols their virtues in this regard) and others blame the masses for inciting a reluctant aristocracy to fight (cf. Vico, New Science, sect. 87). Those who thus emphasize war as a product of man's choices bring to the fore his political and ethical nature, but once the broad philosophical territory of metaphysics has been addressed other particular causes of war can be noted. These may be divided into three main groupings: those who seek war's causation in man's biology, those that seek it in his culture, and those who seek it in his faculty of reason. Some claim war to be a product of man's inherited biology, with disagreements raging on the ensuing determinist implications. Example theories include those that claim man to be naturally aggressive or naturally territorial, more complex analyses incorporate game theory and genetic evolution to explain the occurrence of violence and war (cf. Richard Dawkins for interesting comments on this area). Within this broad school of thought, some accept that man's belligerent drives can be channeled into more peaceful pursuits (William James), some worry about man's lack of inherited inhibitions to fight with increasingly dangerous weapons (Konrad Lorenz), and others claim the natural process of evolution will sustain peaceful modes of behavior over violent (Richard Dawkins). Rejecting biological determinism, culturalists seek to explain war's causation in terms of particular cultural institutions. Again determinism is implied when proponents claim that war is solely a product of man's culture or society, with different opinions arising as to the nature or possibility of cultural change. For example, can the 'soft morality' of trade that engages increasing numbers in peaceful intercourse counteract and even abolish bellicose cultural tendencies (as Kant believes), or are cultures subject to an inertia, in which the imposition of external penalties or a supra-national state may be the only means to peace? The problem leads to questions of an empirical and a normative nature on the manner in which some societies have foregone war and on the extent to which similar programs may be deployed in other communities. For example, what generated peace between the warring tribes of England and what denies the people of Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia that same peace? Rationalists are those who emphasize the efficacy of man's reason in human affairs, and accordingly proclaim war to be a product of reason (or lack of). To some this is a lament-if man did not possess reason, he might not seek the advantages he does in war and he would be a more peaceful beast. To others reason is the means to transcend culturally relative differences and concomitant sources of friction, and its abandonment is the primary cause of war (cf. John Locke, Second Treatise, sect. 172). Proponents of the mutual benefits of universal reason have a long and distinguished lineage reaching back to the Stoics and echoing throughout the Natural Law philosophies of the medieval and later scholars and jurists. It finds its best advocate in Immanuel Kant and his famous pamphlet on Perpetual Peace. Many who explain war's origins in man's abandonment of reason also derive their thoughts from Plato, who argues that "wars and revolutions and battles are due simply and solely to the body and its desires." That is, man's appetite sometimes or perpetually overwhelms his reasoning capacity, which results in moral and political degeneration. Echoes of Plato's theories abound in Western thought, resurfacing for example, in Freud's cogitation on war ("Why War") in which he sees war's origins in the death instinct, or in Dostoyevsky's comments on man's inherent barbarity: "It's just their defenselessness that tempts the tormentor, just the angelic confidence of the child who has no refuge and no appeal, that sets his vile blood on fire. In every man, of course, a beast lies hidden-the beast of rage, the beast of lustful heat at the screams of the tortured victim, the beast of lawlessness let off the chain, the beast of diseases that follow on vice, gout, kidney disease, and so on." (Brothers Karamazov, ii.V.4, "Rebellion") The problem with focusing on one single aspect of man's nature is that while the explanation of war's causation may be simplified, the simplification ignores cogent explanations put forward by competing theories. For example, an emphasis on man's reason as the cause of war is apt to ignore deep cultural structures that may perpetuate war in the face of the universal appeal to peace, and similarly may ignore inherited pugnacity in some individuals or even in some groups. Similarly, an emphasis on the biological etiology of war can ignore man's intellectual capacity to control, or his will to go against, his predispositions. In other words, human biology can affect thinking (what is thought, how, for what duration and intensity), and can accordingly affect cultural developments, and in turn cultural institutions can affect biological and rational developments (e.g., how strangers are welcomed affects a group's isolation or integration and hence its reproductive gene pool). The examination of war's causation triggers the need for elaboration on many sub-topics, regardless of the internal logical validity of a proposed explanation. Students of war thus need to explore beyond proffered definitions and explanations to consider the broader philosophical problems that they often conceal. TO BE CONTINUED...........

Yaak from Chemtrail and Company III
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy	Posted 3-4-2004 04:19
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/w/war.htm The Philosophy of War Table of Contents What causes war? Human Nature and War War and Political and Moral Philosophy Summary

Swedishoo from Chemtrail and Company III
Philosophically Speaking	Posted 3-5-2004 00:54
Well, you got your Kant, and your Hobbes & Locke, and your Cicero and don't forget Plato, you can't leave out Plato, and Augustine too...then throw in a bit of Voltaire and viloa your got yourself a great college term paper. Damn, that would please any professor. However, Dr. Alex Moseley left out the underlining human cause and nature of war: Greed, Power and Control. Christy

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
Let's consider another motivation....	Posted 3-5-2004 01:52
Is defending your country against a threat that could kill millions a legitimate reason for war in your mind Christy?

Swedishoo from Chemtrail and Company III
Defending	Posted 3-5-2004 02:07
Absolutely. However, we aren't defending our counrty now are we? (don't bother replying with the pro Bush-Gestapo anti-terrorist crap, I'm not biting) Christy

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
Yes we are defending our country.....	Posted 3-5-2004 02:10
If you don't believe we are defending our country, then this implies that you don't believe terrorism is a legitimate threat. Is this true, Christy?

JAK from Chemtrail and Company III
No we are not...	Posted 3-5-2004 03:21
"Yes we are defending our country..... If you don't believe we are defending our country, then this implies that you don't believe terrorism is a legitimate threat. Is this true, Christy?" Oh the "terrorists" are quite real alright- and the largest single hive of them concentrated on the planet is located within the 10 square mile confines of Washington D.C. If the American people had any sense at all, they'd march down there and clean the whole filthy nest out before it really destroys all life on this orb. Allen

JAK from Chemtrail and Company III
No we are not...	Posted 3-5-2004 03:21
"Yes we are defending our country..... If you don't believe we are defending our country, then this implies that you don't believe terrorism is a legitimate threat. Is this true, Christy?" Oh the "terrorists" are quite real alright- and the largest single hive of them concentrated on the planet is located within the 10 square mile confines of Washington D.C. If the American people had any sense at all, they'd march down there and clean the whole filthy nest out before it really destroys all life on this orb. Allen

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
Speaking to Christy...	Posted 3-5-2004 03:39
This conversation is with you Christy. Al, is your name Christy?

Swedishoo from Chemtrail and Company III
The Orchestra	Posted 3-5-2004 04:05
Knock it off Cy, Al or anyone can post anything at anytime at any thread whenever they want. Gosh, you are such a control freak. How in the heck are you ever going to find yourself a girlfriend if you don't mellow out? "then this implies that you don't believe terrorism is a legitimate threat" I believe that terrorism in general can be a threat at any time - past, present or future. However, I certainly do not buy into the 9-11 terrorist ploy that they (Bush/Cheney) desperately needed the public to believe in. Just like an orchestra. It's all in the timing. Christy

Swedishoo
Admin

Posts: 690
(3/27/2004 11:31:07 PM)

Re: WAR....Huh, What Is It Good For.....(Is War inherently Evil?)

whitemajikman from Chemtrail and Company III
If you don't believe we are defending our country, then this implies that you don't believe terrorism is a legitimate threat. Is this true, Christy?	Posted 3-5-2004 04:30
Is terrorism a legitimate threat?...... YES.Is it worth going to war for?.....NO,absolutely Not.The U.S. government,in its infinite wisdom,could have ousted Saddam anytime they wished,thru more surgical means,but chose to create a muslim terrorist threat headed by osama who during the late 70s - early 80s was trained by the CIA and was deployed to afghanistan to help fight the russians and to create the taliban who would later become very important as an extreme muslim offshoot for the relatively peaceful muslim world,all CIA backed and funded,the tragedy here is their is ample proof of a conspiracy that goes back as far as carter and gulfwar1 was a prelude to the present Illegal occupation and Ransacking of a nation on the pretense of a self imposed threat like the good ole U.S of A who invented the art of "Modern Deception" During vietnam and who still controls the "golden triangle".What you fail to recognize or will even entertain is that everything happening worldwide is now tied into terrorism and its threat,as is all of civilization all because an event,a catalyst if you will that was sparked by 9/11 and the "mock terrorist threat",courtesy of the C.I.A ,and the U.S. shadow government whom since the fall of the oss and more importantly the berlin wall have decided to take it upon themselves to rule the world thru terror and retaliation with the co-operation of other shadow governments thru-out the world for politics is a deception in-itself the world is one big game of risk now between factions of the very elite and powerful whom rule by deception . p.s.......Christy we are conditioned since birth to go out in the world and to attain Greed,Power and CONTROL it is the basis of modern society.....and Yaak ,your not very good with a computer ,huh...?why you little.....lol

Swedishoo from Chemtrail and Company III
Osama Frozen Bars at your local grocer	Posted 3-5-2004 05:09
BushyBone's buddy Osama bin Laden owned the construction company that was commissioned to "rebuild" Iraq after the Cold War. It's funny how Bonesman #2 Cheney now seems to be the CEO of the construction company commission to go to Iraq and rebuild this time. Just like fighting brothers..."hey, you got it last time...dad said I get to have it this time..so there pppthhh". Christy

JAK from Chemtrail and Company III
Flocks with socks	Posted 3-5-2004 05:24
Oh Christy, he's just in a snit because the Jaybird is mad at me. I think it has something to do with the mind link they share... Al

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
Uh huh	Posted 3-5-2004 05:28
Uh Christy...who says I don't (or more accurately.... didn't) have a girl friend? I don't get personal with YOU, do I? BUT if you must know about my personal ambitions, the reason I'm living in an RV right now is ironically, so I can eventually have a normal life and relationships. The goal was to find some land and then establish a permanent spot, so I can get me a chick (big hooters preferred)...who`s a good cook of course, then get her barefoot and pregnant and send her to the kitchen for a beer when I want one..I mean what more could I ask for in life? And WMM, that HAS to be the longest run on sentence I've ever seen. My god man...let your fingers breathe! It's funny what you are saying though. One wonders, if you think terrorism is not worth going to war over...then what is? I mean was, Hitler's aggression in Europe worth going to war over? Was the bombing of Pearl Harbor worth going to war over? (Pssssst...more people were killed in 9/11 than the Pearl Harbor attack, and the people killed in the twin towers, were innocent civilians not military personal trained for combat). And for the little event in Pearl Harbor. we dropped two really big bombs on the Japanese! That seemed to turn their thinking around. If we had the attitude today that we did then, the whole Middle East would be a smoking hole right now! Afghanistan would be radio-active for the next 100 years. I think GW Bush has shown remarkable restraint, all things considered. And if you say We Created the Muslim Terrorist Threat....where do I start with that one? I mean, that's such a crazy statement, I think it debunks itself....The rest is just well....not really based in truth. I'll be honest with you WMM, I find it REALLY difficult to concentrate on what you are saying, because your "style" is just so difficult to read. Not to do a Chickie Deb impersonation or anything, but I just need paragraphs and punctuation in my life..(It's a personal preference). My purpose of this thread was more to get into a more philosophical discussion on war, really....not all those left wing, anti-Bush conspiracy theories, designed by leftists to get Democrats back in power, which are REALLY loosely based on bits and pieces of unrelated events. Maybe if you wanted to talk about the CIA's roll in Ossama Bin Laden's rise to power, you could make one thread about that one, and provide documents and evidence to make your case, so it's easier to focus on. Again, you just threw so much un-documented and debatable subjects out there, that you've made a respectful and intellectually honest response difficult if not impossible. The reason I wanted to stick to the more philosophical is because you don't need to document a logical or philosophical discussion. My purpose here was more to discuss philosophical approaches towards the subject of war and how to logically deal with the associated dilemmas, not really to debate, a thousand un backed conspiracies.

JAK from Chemtrail and Company III
Flocks a flyin'	Posted 3-5-2004 05:42
What I want to know is how come "Jay Reynolds" pops out of one place and then you pop up in another? Allen

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
In Answer to Al's question....	Posted 3-5-2004 05:53
Because I'm Jay Reynolds, Al! I had an argument with myself to get me kicked off Mav's board and be publicly humiliated with a picture of myself in my underwear, to which I made insulting and demeaning comments about myself. There....are you satisfied?

Swedishoo [guest] from Chemtrail and Company III
I See Paris, I See France	Posted 3-5-2004 06:40
"with a picture of myself in my underwear" Ya see how ya are? Ya show Jay your bare legs and chest, but won't show us. I double dare ya to post it here. :-) Christy

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
Picture	Posted 3-5-2004 06:47
I AM Jay...I thought Terry sent you a picture like she (apparently) sent to everyone else.

Swedishoo from Chemtrail and Company III
snort	Posted 3-5-2004 22:07
Now would I do that? But you are more than welcome to post it. wink wink snort snort LOL Christy

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
I didn't realize you had it Christy....	Posted 3-5-2004 23:02
I don't even have that picture any more Christy....but PULEEEEZE don't pull a "ChickieDeb" on me and post that thing! It was intended as a private humorous thing between myself and Terry.....something I did because she asked me and because I said I would....and because I wanted to be honest with her about what I really looked like, so she wouldn't have false impressions. She really destroyed alot of my faith in human nature when she betrayed a private trust like she did in giving that photo to others. I still haven't shared her video clip with anyone on Earth because I don't do that do other people.

Swedishoo
Admin

Posts: 690
(3/27/2004 11:37:27 PM)

Re: WAR....Huh, What Is It Good For.....(Is War inherently Evil?)

Swedishoo from Chemtrail and Company III
BVDs	Posted 3-6-2004 03:05
How confusing. You wanted to avoid false impression, yet you gave her a picture of yourself in just underwear. gee, where are those smiley faces with the wavey mouth and rolling eyes when ya need em. Christy

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
Underoos	Posted 3-6-2004 03:39
She dared me to do it....DUMB DUMB DUMB...I must have been insane.....ack ack ack.....It was probably the dumbest thing I've done in my entire life.....No, I take that back. It was THE dumbest thing I've ever done in my whole life!!!! And the scary thing was, I wasn't even drunk. But I still don't get your meaning. Seems like that would be a good way to be revealing!

Yaak from Chemtrail and Company III
Comments	Posted 3-6-2004 04:19
Whitemajikman, I'm glad to see your sense of humor is still intact. Your run-un sentence made sense to me, and I agree with every word of it. So, Jason, have you given any thought to the fact that you are a minority of one concerning Bush/Iraq/NWO? Does it not puzzle you why your views are so different from those of me, garflorida, Christy, Allen and Whitemajikman (not to mention most of the rest of the world)?

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
No matter how many people believe in a lie, no matter how often it's repeated it's still a lie....	Posted 3-6-2004 05:06
Lol...there's an obvious easy explanation for my differing views on this board, Ed. Reason; It's BECAUSE of the differing views that I sought this board out! I wouldn't expect anything else. As far as the world outside internet message boards goes, I'd say you are in the minority though. Remember, this is not to say you are wrong or right. Many people believed in Hitler, but that doesn't mean they were right. The truth exists independently of belief or numbers of people who believe, and a un-truth does not become any more true, no matter how often it's repeated. Bush will be re-elected by a majority of people who do not believe as you do. Still, no case has been presented here as of yet to support any beliefs or statements.

Yaak from Chemtrail and Company III
A very civil answer	Posted 3-6-2004 05:31
to the vicious stab I took at you. LOL I don't agree with you, and I could post a bunch of URL's and other peoples opinions, but where would that get us? I think you and everybody else here have already been through that. Some good areas of discussion and debate might be: vote fraud (which I don't feel is being given enough attention by anybody) and Bushes domestic policies.

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
Bush policies	Posted 3-6-2004 05:47
Well...those weren't vicious stabs at all! And I'm perfectly willing to go into any conspiracy you want. It's just that WMM threw all that stuff out at once. I think it's more useful to just take one subject at a time or else you can't really explore it. You're right about the worry about vote fraud and Bush's domestic policies, as far as being some possible points of agreement though. I KNOW we'll find some common ground there. In fact, those were some subjects I was thinking about to test if Christy knew what things are really hotbeds of controversy and contention with conservatives about Bush policies.

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
Conspiracy theory	Posted 3-6-2004 09:20
Hey Ed, You mentioned URLs you could provide. I know I said I was hoping this thread could be more of a philosophical discussion on war, but I see this belief system of yours and those here is based on a belief in certain conspiracy theories, rather than strict personal philosophy. You seem to think that I've heard or discussed these things with people here, but I haven't. In four years, there really hasn't been a common ground discussion on what data people are using to arrive at their conclusions. So on second thought, maybe it would be of use to bring me "up to speed" with what you think you know and provide the URLs. For example, WMM mentioned the "Golden Triangle". Now that's the first time I've ever heard that term. Was he talking about this?; http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg94214.html Look at it this way; In order to believe for example, that America is the evil entity behind every dictator and terrorist act world wide, you have to dismiss alot of things.... things like the true nature of Islam, for example. That's why I felt that was an important discussion which I've obviously attempted to have on other boards. On the internet, it's hard to know what is truth and what is not, and there are thousands of conspiracy theories that contradict each other. Some are based loosely on random facts. Some are completely manufactured out of whole cloth for whatever attention or satisfaction the author might think he/she may gain from it. How do you know which one to believe? Well, I think there's a way to know truth, above all. It's by using basic logic and reasoning, and to juxtapose those conspiracy theories against what you already know is true of human nature and a thousand other indisputable events. This is why I reasoned that a good place to start is to understand the true nature of Islam, because, by understanding that, you can understand why terrorism is real and why it is a real threat to the world. Once this truth is understood, you can look at other conspiracy theories related to Israel and the Middle east, and judge them against what you know to be true. For example, here's a purely logical train of thought; If the true nature of Islam and Mohammed is as I said it is (on other boards) then Ossama was really just using pre-existing hatred and Muslim belief to motivate others to perform their attacks. Same is true with Arafat, and Palestinians. In order to accept the conspiracy theories WMM expressed, you have to dismiss the true nature of Islam and assume the US is the real demon of the world. This is contrary to what we can readily see is true in the Quran, and the other books of Islam. You have to ignore this evidence that goes towards the true nature of Islam in order to accept the premise that the US is behind these attacks. You have to ignore the motivations behind hundreds of Islamic terrorist attacks world wide including the hundreds of attacks by so-called Palestinians on Jews, to dismiss the true nature of Islam and accuse the US as being the evil puppet master.... So again, we need to start in the beginnings, because your understanding of some conspiracy theory may not be known to me or others, even though you think you might agree. Maybe we should start a thread on some of these conspiracy theories that have led WMM to his conclusions. Your own theories, ED may even be different than WMM's and I'll just bet you that there are strong differences in understanding between you, Al, Christy, Gar and everyone here. I believe these conflicting conspiracies can be countered by common sense and logical reasoning.

JAK from Chemtrail and Company III
A great deal of theory is really fact unrecognized by the masses...	Posted 3-6-2004 14:32
The mother of all conspiricy theories is that there are NO conspiricies. Allen

Swedishoo from Chemtrail and Company III
Theories of conspiracies	Posted 3-6-2004 17:44
Exactly. If the conspiracies weren't put into effect by others to begin with, then there wouldn't be any theories. Sure, some conspiracy theroies are bogus but I beleive on the most part conspiracies/shady doings by others are the basis of other's wanting to get to the bottom of it. For example, a "conservative republican" may say that Bush's people had nothing to do with the voting fiasco last election. Recount after recount, mysterious boxes showing up with mostly Bush votes etc etc Christy

whitemajikman from Chemtrail and Company III
In order to accept the conspiracy theories WMM expressed, you have to dismiss the true nature of Islam and assume the US is the real demon of the world. This is contrary to what we can readily see is true in the Quran, and the other books of Islam. Y	Posted 3-6-2004 19:08
People have used hatred as a weapon since the dawn of time, to attain their goals, as is the case of every war,revolution,or crusade that has ever been faught.There is no denying that Islamic extremism runs rampant and is hate filled. I have not dismissed the terrorist threat that Islam poses because there is a threat,what I am claiming is that the U.S and other governments have used this fanatical hatred as a weapon,as is the case of Islam,The current crisis in Palestine,South Africa,Bosnia,The korea's,The Philipines,Vietnam,Iraq,Iran and now Haiti. The U.S its Allies and the U.N are the REAL demons of this world they are in the business of CONTROL and DECEPTION and have been since the end of world war 2.Do you remember the hatred every american felt for Hitler...?and how that hatred was superimposed on Russia(communism and the nuclear threat) right after the war.To say it was not deliberate CY is to totally dismiss the ad campaigns and the commie witch hunts led by Cohn that became the starting point of the cold war,a war that was self imposed by both parties not because of nuclear weapons but because of a difference in philosophy and the failing economies of both countries after ww2. The U.S intelligence service learned a great deal from Hitler even giving political asylum to 3/4 of the nazi scientists who were working on means of controling mass populations...........this Cy is our starting point.....this is where the U.S government and more importantly the O.S.S discovered that it is a lot easier to have some form of control over its masses thru deception and started nurturing their current plot for world domination. They created the U.N another U.S backed deception which created a global feeling of peace and an outward deception of countries being soveriegn.The U.N now dictates what your children learn,and what history is accurate,yes the U.N has come a long way. The U.S government and their allies after de-briefing these nazi scientists and learning as much about psychological warfare and subversion and more importantly HATE as they could from these nazi's needed to test these newly acquired talents....so off to Korea they went to start their first war based soley on hatred for communism...they had the catalyst but did little to show true success. Shortly after The O.S.S was disbanded and the C.I.A took over,now here is where it gets really nasty.The former O.S.S ELITE decides that they were not given a suitable chance by congress to realize their goals of mass psychological deception thru HATRED and decides to go it alone without government backing,in other words become a Rogue global organization all pumped with piss and vinegar,except for one small problem......Funding.......... Now the former elite of the O.S.S were still very powerful individuals with many contacts with-in the U.S government not to mention they had a dossier on everyone at the time,because of their former endeavours,Dossiers that could ruin many a politician. Since the failure of korea they needed to prove to themselves that all those wasted years were not wasted,They needed a another test country but a country that could indirectly and directly provide funding for their little misplaced patriotic shadow government.....well folks VIETNAM provided the funding, so did Laos and Thailand and later on Colombia,Peru,Afghanistan.But Vietnam showed this shadow government that the corruption of humanity would be their funds.......HEROIN AND OPIUM. The former Elite of the O.S.S took control of the "Golden triangle".....a 1.8 trillion dollar enterpise world-wide and successfully to this day own,operate and control the largest drug cartel the world has ever known......THEY now control The world monetary system not to mention most if not all the terrorist groups in the world....presidents and kings the world over know of their existence and run scared,for you CY to totally dismiss what i am saying here is to deny basic fact,Islam is not the problem ,the puppet masters are the problem and even you in some form or another have been subverted intellectually into placing blame not on the real culprits but on a religion based upon hatred.When the elite used Islam for their scapegoat,they chose wisely. Look with-in, Cy and try and rationalize how you have come to your conclusions regarding Islam and The current "Mock" Crisis in Iraq.Hatred is a double-edged sword where nobody is immune and that we are all subjected to daily doses of in equal measure,so I ask you CY are you 100% sure that you yourself have not been subverted.......? Before you answer take into consideration all that you have come to know since your quest for truth began,you love to argue a good point even sometimes playing devil's advocate so please dont do this...I want a Truthful Response that goes into detail .....have you been subverted......?

Swedishoo
Admin

Posts: 690
(3/27/2004 11:39:52 PM)

Re: WAR....Huh, What Is It Good For.....(Is War inherently Evil?)

JAK from Chemtrail and Company III
Conspiricies and hoaxes	Posted 3-6-2004 19:12
Yep! This is like the bit with the "trails"- if there were nothing at all different about them than the garden variety contrails that people have seen for years, then nobody would have ever paid any attention to (the claimed one guy) starting a "hoax" over them bit. The idea is absurd and false on it's face. The only reason any of this got any attention at all to begin with is because there IS something changed or odd going on here, and that caught the attention of enough people who do know better to start looking into things. It is as if one morning you walked out your front door and there is a 12 foot tall purple unicorn standing there munching in your flower bed. You might tend to think there is something a bit off key going on- especially when your next door neighbor yells out "What the BLEEP is that!"... Allen

JAK from Chemtrail and Company III
Ringknockers	Posted 3-6-2004 20:05
"Islam is not the problem ,the puppet masters are the problem and even you in some form or another have been subverted intellectually into placing blame not on the real culprits but on a religion based upon hatred.When the elite used Islam for their scapegoat,they chose wisely." Islam isn't based upon hatered any more than any other religion is. It is the priests and their brother politicians who manipulate the beliefs of the masses to turn them to their designs. The Muslims just happen [unfortunately for them] to be the proud current owners of something that the X -group desperately wants and desires- and it AIN'T oil. They can't buy it, so the only way to get to it is to demonize the Muslims, invade their countries one by one until they get to the last game piece- and take it by force of arms. The hypocrisy of the US is absolutely mind boggling. Take a look at Haiti or Venezuela- in the former, it is pretty well common knowledge around the world that it was a US backed coup that ousted Aristede. Now there are noises being made about "Baby Doc" Duvalier returning from exile. He makes Saddam look like a Sunday school preacher in comparison and I will bet you that Uncle Satan won't lift a finger to stop his return to power if he comes back. In Venezuela, Chavez is still fighting Uncle's tentacles- watch how fast the price of gasoline shoots thru the roof if he shuts off the oil to the US as he has promised to do as a last resort... Allen

whitemajikman from Chemtrail and Company III
Hi Al	Posted 3-6-2004 20:06
I agree AL when will occam's razor be used as it was intended and when will common sense and decency be the order of the day? Something has changed significantly in the last 20 years,it has left no country or government morally unscathed it is Greed and Control and the notion of Absolute power which now drives this world. We are all from birth educated to take part in our own quest of Absolute power,we are taught there are no religious or ethnic boundaries or soveriegn countries that money cannot transcend.....make huge amounts of money and the rules of modern society do not apply to you......this is corruption in its most refined form......corruption of the spirit of humanity by monetary means ......politicians,presidents,kings do not control anything but the people.....the money Controls the governments and the now global shadow government controls the money.....Absolute power corrupts Absolutely,It is like a trickle effect,a virus as you will, Absolute power Corrupts everything and everyone it touches which at this present moment means everything and everyone.

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
Long response to WMM...(and reasons these things never really get discussed in detail....because response is incredibly TIME CONSUMING!)	Posted 3-6-2004 23:04
First of all, let me just say, It's amazing how much easier your stuff is to read Shawn when you just throw in some paragraphs, punctuation and capital letters at the beginnings of sentences like that. I know you loose your style.....but....Thanks,all the same, for doing that! I don't know if I'm any closer to understanding your reasoning though. Shawn says; "Do you remember the hatred every american felt for Hitler...?and how that hatred was superimposed on Russia(communism and the nuclear threat) right after the war.To say it was not deliberate CY is to totally dismiss the ad campaigns and the commie witch hunts led by Cohn that became the starting point of the cold war,a war that was self imposed by both parties not because of nuclear weapons but because of a difference in philosophy and the failing economies of both countries after ww2." Look at what you are essentially saying here; What you are saying is that the hatred and fear of Russia was a drummed up media campaign. You see, I have to stop you there. You are assuming I accept this premise....and then you move on with a hundred other conspiracies before I have a chance to counter it. It's like I said; In order to demonize America, (the motives of it's past leadership) you have to either ignore the validity of the threat or redefine some other reality. In the case of Islamic terrorism, you have to ignore the true nature of Islam, and blame it on American brainwashing. In the case of the communist nuclear threat, you have to ignore the nature of communism and the true nuclear threat. For example, there is not really hatred for the Russian people or the people of communist governments by Americans, as you suggest. There is however, a REAL threat by communist aggression and nuclear power and other WMDs in the control of such a government. This threat was NOT manufactured by the media or some ad campaign by this guy Cohn, as you claim. These threats were and still are REAL. Therein lies your faulty premise. Shawn Says; "The U.S intelligence service learned a great deal from Hitler even giving political asylum to 3/4 of the nazi scientists who were working on means of controling mass populations...........this Cy is our starting point.....this is where the U.S government and more importantly the O.S.S discovered that it is a lot easier to have some form of control over its masses thru deception and started nurturing their current plot for world domination." Here I think you are attempting to combine some conspiracies such as "Operation Paperclip" to reach a conclusion that is not known or proven to be valid at all, the conclusion being that "the U.S government..... . discovered that it is a lot easier to have some form of control over its masses thru deception and started nurturing their current plot for world domination". You've reached your own conclusion without proven fact as your basis. Do you think you can provide links to your sources that allowed you to arrive at this conclusion? This is important to prove valid first because you use this statement as your foundation of your argument. If this is proven invalid then it is a high probably that all your later conclusions based on this statement will also be invalid. Shawn says; "They created the U.N another U.S backed deception which created a global feeling of peace and an outward deception of countries being soveriegn.The U.N now dictates what your children learn,and what history is accurate,yes the U.N has come a long way. " Actually, after WWII, the UN seemed like a good idea, to have a body of world nations that prevented another "Hitler" from ever gaining power again. Unfortunately, the UN has since grown corrupt and socialist/communistic in its philosophy due largely to the corrupt nations that make up the UN body. The UN has become a leach in American pocket books, and only a front organization for siphoning off US tax payer dollars towards the corrupt dictatorial leaders of authoritarian governments, rather than the populations it was designed to protect and help. The UN has become a body seeking global control (as evidenced by it's own charter and the numerous treaties it has attempted to compel the us to sign). The UN has become a body of corrupt nations which attempts to usurp the sovereignty of the very nation that feeds it, The United States. This is why the Democratic party is "the enemy within" the US and that's why it is very dangerous that Democrat liberals regain power at this time. The US Democratic party and liberals want to give this power over many areas of US soveriegnty to the UN body. Gore would have done so by signing the Kyoto protocols and placing a UN world court above the jurisdiction of the US Supreme court. GW Bush is the saving grace that prevented that from happening. GW Bush has been anti-UN since he was elected. (Remember if you will, Democrat liberals were screaming the loudest to get GW Bush to obtain authorization from the UN before starting the war). In fact there is now strong talk among US conservatives and Republicans about taking the US out of the UN and kicking them out of New York, in Bush's next term. Conservatives REALLY do want this. Liberals/leftists do not. Just ask Kerry and anyone else (except maybe Lieberman) who is running for power in the leftist party known as the Democratic party (or enemy within) the United States. Shawn says: "The U.S government and their allies after de-briefing these nazi scientists and learning as much about psychological warfare and subversion and more importantly HATE as they could from these nazi's needed to test these newly acquired talents....so off to Korea they went to start their first war based soley on hatred for communism...they had the catalyst but did little to show true success." Again here you are basing this on your faulty premise we just discussed. The US was defending South Korea against communist aggression. To this day, North Korea is a convenient third party puppet of communist China, and will likely be used to make the first attacks if China feels it is strong enough to take on the US nuclear power. It should even be more evident to you NOW what a threat a nuclear bomb in the hands of an insane communist dictator who rules by absolute oppression and atrocities upon his own people, is. Bush is working with the Chinese government right now, to reign in it's N. Korean puppet, Kim Jung Il, under threat of what happened to Iraq...COULD happen to N. Korea. Here again you see the power of deterrence that Bush so brilliantly applied. We haven't heard so much saber rattling from Mr, Kim Jung, the mentally Il lately now have we? This is because the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have taught terrorist nations around the planet who thought they could intimidate or walk all over the US, that to do so could mean the end of their existence as they know it. It has been cleary shown that appeasement towards aggressor doesn't work in dettering aggression....and in fact, encourages it. N. Korea is now a nuclear power, PRECISELY because the Klintoon administration, gave them their nuclear material! Appeasing them made them the threat they are today. With Bush, the message is the exact opposite. Bush is saying, "see what happened in Iraq??" If you commie boys don't want this happening in a neighborhood near you, then listen up, and do what we ask.... THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF DETTERENCE.....THE DEMONSTRATED WILLINGNESS TO USE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FORCE!!!!!!!! The fact that a liberal, if elected, will continue with the policy of appeasement to dictators and communist governments (as embodied by the life's work of Senator Kerry) should demonstrate to you, what a threat liberalism is to the world at this critical point in time. (PS......9/11 happened because terrorists were emboldened to attack because they felt after 8 years of the Clinton administration, the US was afraid to retaliate and too weakened by liberalism to impose any consequences upon their countries of origin. If Gore had been president...the terrorists would have been right, and Ossama would have still been running his terrorist training camps, and Saddam would have still been chopping the heads off dissidents and putting his citizens through shredders in Iraq. They know better now. Bush is not someone they want to mess with because Bush is determined to destroy terrorist organizations and threats to the US wear they live, rather than on US soil! You don't think governments such as those currently controlling Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and China got this message? Think again! They, more desperately than anyone else, except perhaps, the "enemy within" want Bush out of power. Shawn Says: "Shortly after The O.S.S was disbanded and the C.I.A took over,now here is where it gets really nasty.The former O.S.S ELITE decides that they were not given a suitable chance by congress to realize their goals of mass psychological deception thru HATRED and decides to go it alone without government backing,in other words become a Rogue global organization all pumped with piss and vinegar,except for one small problem......Funding.......... Now the former elite of the O.S.S were still very powerful individuals with many contacts with-in the U.S government not to mention they had a dossier on everyone at the time,because of their former endeavours,Dossiers that could ruin many a politician." Ok....and what is your source of information for these claims? Let's see your sources. These claims fly in the face of other realities such as those I've just mentioned. Shawn says; " Since the failure of korea they needed to prove to themselves that all those wasted years were not wasted,They needed a another test country but a country that could indirectly and directly provide funding for their little misplaced patriotic shadow government.....well folks VIETNAM provided the funding, so did Laos and Thailand and later on Colombia,Peru,Afghanistan.But Vietnam showed this shadow government that the corruption of humanity would be their funds.......HEROIN AND OPIUM. " Actually in today's world, heroin and opium funds Islamic terrorist groups like Al-Qaida. One complication however, is that in simply wiping out the poppy fields of Afghanistan, we 1. Destroy the ONLY income for most of the population....and more importantly 2. We loose a valuable money trail that can lead us directly to terrorist cells. We need some of the financial links intact so we can covertly locate the terrorist organizations and methodically take out their leaders. To this date, up to 80% of the leadership of Al-Qaida has been "taken out". Shawn says: "The former Elite of the O.S.S took control of the "Golden triangle".....a 1.8 trillion dollar enterpise world-wide and successfully to this day own,operate and control the largest drug cartel the world has ever known......THEY now control The world monetary system not to mention most if not all the terrorist groups in the world....presidents and kings the world over know of their existence and run scared,for you CY to totally dismiss what i am saying here is to deny basic fact,Islam is not the problem ,the puppet masters are the problem and even you in some form or another have been subverted intellectually into placing blame not on the real culprits but on a religion based upon hatred.When the elite used Islam for their scapegoat,they chose wisely." Nice conspiracy theory but the whole thing is based on a faulty premise, as yet unproven to be valid. It ignores the true teachings of Islam, and the nature of communism. Again, provide your sources, and let's examine the political agendas behind the authors of your sources of information. I think you will find there is a political agenda behind these conspiracies that is inline with the liberal and communist agenda in this country. Remember, deception and propaganda are tools openly used by those who practice the Marxist doctrine of "ends justify the means" and the Joseph Goebels methods of spreading lies to change mass psychology. Conspiracy theories are one such method of planting the seeds of doubt in the minds of people to turn them against governments that they want to over throw. And this is one such very good conspiracy. But again, in order for it to be believable, you've got throw out everything you know about the true nature of communism, the atrocities of Hitler, and dictatorship controlled governments. You have to ignore the books of Islam and the true nature of Mohammed. In order to believe the conspiracy theory, you have to dismiss everything your lying eyes are telling you, and EVERYTHING written in the history books. You'd have to ignore other aspects of the US monetary system, the nature of capitalistic markets, free enterprise and the objectives of major corporations to believe this "OSS" controls everything in the money markets. You'd have to ignore the actions of millions of investors and speculators and the mass psychology of the stock, commodity and real-estate markets. .......You have to basically ignore EVERYTHING conventionally believed to be true in order to believe your conspiracy theory.... NOW....Come on. USE basic logic to believe which thing is true....your conspiracy theory, or EVERYTHING else you've been taught and you know about reality. If your conspiracy theory is true, then Islamic terrorism isn't caused by what's written in the Quran, the Sirahs and the Hadith. You have to ignore what these terrorists are actually saying they believe. You have to ignore what has been written down for thousands of years and the true life and legacy of Mohammed...in order to deny the true motivating force of terrorism. Then you have to ignore the effects of terrorism, and you have to believe these OSS puppet masters, as you call them are attempting to destroy the VERY ECONOMIES and MONEY SYSTEMS you say the control!!!!! Right there, by that statement alone, your conspiracy theory comes crumbling down. It may be a harsh awakening when you realize that you were the victim of the very deception you claim you are attempting to unveil!!!! Shawn says; " Look with-in, Cy and try and rationalize how you have come to your conclusions regarding Islam and The current "Mock" Crisis in Iraq." Yep..I've done this in great detail....Conclusions about Islam are arrived at simply by reading the "holy" (if I can use the word holy) books of Islam themselves. Read and understand the words. The true history of Mohammed will not be denied by his believers....but it will be ignored. The crisis in Iraq was anything but mock. The battle of Iraq happened in the war on terrorism, because an evil dictator violated 16 UN resolutions and gave GW Bush a legal opening; The strategic reasons behind the scenes for regime change are ENORMOUS. I've gone into this in great detail, but nobody here has been willing to have this conversation. Someone like Al will usually shut all such attempts at conversation down.... Shawn says; "Hatred is a double-edged sword where nobody is immune and that we are all subjected to daily doses of in equal measure,so I ask you CY are you 100% sure that you yourself have not been subverted.......?" Subverted by hatred? I keep telling you people, I do not have any hatred. I see a threat for a threat. I see a truth for what it is. Hatred is not my motivation. A true and accurate analysis of a real threat IS my motivation..... Shawn says; " Before you answer take into consideration all that you have come to know since your quest for truth began,you love to argue a good point even sometimes playing devil's advocate so please dont do this...I want a Truthful Response that goes into detail .....have you been subverted......?" Look above...You see a truthful response. I always try to debate in as truthful a way as possible, not to merely win the argument but because I truly believe in the point I`m arguing for. Nobody is playing the devil's advocate here. I believe I'm advocating on the part of the good guys and on the part of truth and logic.....If anyone has been subverted by anything, I truly believe it has been you, due to your unqualified belief in conspiracy theories put "out there" by people with agendas. Let's look at this logically. IF (and I say IF) what you believe is based on false information, then what do you suppose the agenda or goal someone would have for manufacturing such a conspiracy theory? HMMMMM?...I'll let you play with that thought for awhile.

Swedishoo
Admin

Posts: 690
(3/27/2004 11:44:35 PM)

Re: WAR....Huh, What Is It Good For.....(Is War inherently Evil?)

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
Whoops	Posted 3-6-2004 22:13
Let me just say..I'm sorry that the above response to WMM was unpolished and not proof read. I just didn't have the energy! But I think, if you read beyond the errors, you'll get my meaning.

JAK from Chemtrail and Company III
Good grief...	Posted 3-7-2004 00:07
If you lie down with dogs, you are going to get fleas... The CIA's drug running operations are very well documented from several sources and guess what? Nobody is going to do a darn thing about it- too much $s involved. The USA propped up and supplied Stalin and his thugs both before and during WW-2. It wasn't until FDR kicked off in 1944 that that began to change a bit. The "ex" nazis formed the core of our post-war intelligence and scientific programs. I suspect strongly that what has happened in light of current events is that instead of assimilating them and using their knowledge, they actually infected and subverted us. The same thing probably is true of the Russians. There is a little fiction book called "Serpent's Walk" that came out a couple decades ago- supposedly written by the same man that did the infamous "Turner Diaries". The Turner Diaries were actually written by the Company for use as a subversion tool- I suspect "Serpent's Walk" is a little crowing on their part over their achievements. To give a thumbnail sketch: it deals with the Nazi SS going underground at the end of WW-2 and continuing to exist and waiting behind the scenes while they manipulated their former enemies through various means into destroying themselves at which point they emerged again a century later [in 2050] to take control. It is an interesting concept and one I feel comes very near the truth. Allen [ This message was edited by: JAK on: 3-7-2004 00:03 ]

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III
I do believe we are making progress!	Posted 3-7-2004 00:23
You have just admitted Al, that this is your THEORY. It must therefore be treated as a theory and not be stated as fact. At least, with this post, you are attempting that more honest approach. Congratulations!

Swedishoo from Chemtrail and Company III
Shawn	Posted 3-7-2004 04:32
Whitemajikman, your name is Shawn? That's cool. I really like knowing people's names. Feels more human ya know. By the way, I really enjoy reading your posts without those ellipses that you used to put in over at Gregg's board. Much easier to read. Christy

Yaak from Chemtrail and Company III
Necessary Knowledge	Posted 3-7-2004 04:38
Quote: "Look at what you are essentially saying here; What you are saying is that the hatred and fear of Russia was a drummed up media campaign. You see, I have to stop you there." No, Jason, I have to stop YOU right here. I am 56 years old and lived through that "drummed up media campaign". Yes, that's just what it was. Not only that, but technology was fed to the USSR continually throughout the cold war just to keep the cold war going. Ever heard of the Rosenburgs, Gary Powers and the U2 shoot-down? We were conditioned to hate Russia and anything Russian. Then one day The Puppet Masters decided to end that little social experiment and declared that the Iron Curtain no longer existed; just like that! We then` figuratively speaking, loaded airplanes with money and sent them to the former USSR. Most of the sheeple fell for the entire production. Communism was manufactured and implemented by the Puppet Masters just as the bullshit Islamic terrorist threat has been. A wasp nest hanging under the eave of your house is no threat until you strike it with a stick. I am surprised at your ignorance of The Golden Triangle. Quote "Ok....and what is your source of information for these claims? Let's see your sources. These claims fly in the face of other realities such as those I've just mentioned." Once again I am surprised at your lack of knowledge. Most of the information regarding the topics of The Golden Triangle and the CIA is available in documents released by the Freedom of Information Act. I am not discussing theories nor is Shawn. We are talking about data from reliable sources such as, but not limited to: Congressional Records, documents released through the FOIA, main-stream press articles, books and papers by the actual Puppet Masters themselves. While Shawn, Allen and I are talking about reality and proven history. You continue to ramble on about theories, conspiracies, Left and Right, Conservatives and Liberals, Islamic terrorists, 98 IQ Bush's brilliant strategies, your opinions, philosophies, bullshit, blah, blah, blah; all of which you have based on what is obviously very little knowledge of current and past events. No matter what we talk about, you slip back into that same groove like a broken record or someone who has had his thinking processes tampered with. I agree with you about Kerry! Okay? But guess what? Bush is no different. He works for the same bosses. That's why we have no borders. I think it is way past time for you to do some reading and investigating. Your narrow, baseless views of Bush and Islam are becoming a boring litany and are beginning to sound like Jay Reynalds on chemtrails. You obviously have a brilliant mind, Jason; now, how about getting some more data into so that you'll have a better understanding of what is actually occurring in the world. From the heart, Ed

JAK at 5

Posts: 169
(6/23/2007 1:47:23 AM)

Re: Re: WAR....Huh, What Is It Good For.....(Is War inherently Evil?)

Swedishoo wrote on 3/27/2004 5:44:35 PM:

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III

Whoops Posted 3-6-2004 22:13

Let me just say..I'm sorry that the above response to WMM was unpolished and not proof read. I just didn't have the energy! But I think, if you read beyond the errors, you'll get my meaning.

JAK from Chemtrail and Company III

Good grief... Posted 3-7-2004 00:07

If you lie down with dogs, you are going to get fleas...
The CIA's drug running operations are very well documented from several sources and guess what? Nobody is going to do a darn thing about it- too much $s involved.
The USA propped up and supplied Stalin and his thugs both before and during WW-2. It wasn't until FDR kicked off in 1944 that that began to change a bit.
The "ex" nazis formed the core of our post-war intelligence and scientific programs. I suspect strongly that what has happened in light of current events is that instead of assimilating them and using their knowledge, they actually infected and subverted us. The same thing probably is true of the Russians.
There is a little fiction book called "Serpent's Walk" that came out a couple decades ago- supposedly written by the same man that did the infamous "Turner Diaries". The Turner Diaries were actually written by the Company for use as a subversion tool- I suspect "Serpent's Walk" is a little crowing on their part over their achievements.
To give a thumbnail sketch: it deals with the Nazi SS going underground at the end of WW-2 and continuing to exist and waiting behind the scenes while they manipulated their former enemies through various means into destroying themselves at which point they emerged again a century later [in 2050] to take control.
It is an interesting concept and one I feel comes very near the truth.

Allen

[ This message was edited by: JAK on: 3-7-2004 00:03 ]

Cyclone from Chemtrail and Company III

I do believe we are making progress! Posted 3-7-2004 00:23

You have just admitted Al, that this is your THEORY. It must therefore be treated as a theory and not be stated as fact. At least, with this post, you are attempting that more honest approach. Congratulations!

Swedishoo from Chemtrail and Company III

Shawn Posted 3-7-2004 04:32

Whitemajikman, your name is Shawn? That's cool. I really like knowing people's names. Feels more human ya know. By the way, I really enjoy reading your posts without those ellipses that you used to put in over at Gregg's board. Much easier to read.

Christy

Yaak from Chemtrail and Company III

Necessary Knowledge Posted 3-7-2004 04:38

Quote:
"Look at what you are essentially saying here; What you are saying is that the hatred and fear of Russia was a drummed up media campaign. You see, I have to stop you there."

No, Jason, I have to stop YOU right here. I am 56 years old and lived through that "drummed up media campaign". Yes, that's just what it was. Not only that, but technology was fed to the USSR continually throughout the cold war just to keep the cold war going. Ever heard of the Rosenburgs, Gary Powers and the U2 shoot-down? We were conditioned to hate Russia and anything Russian. Then one day The Puppet Masters decided to end that little social experiment and declared that the Iron Curtain no longer existed; just like that! We then` figuratively speaking, loaded airplanes with money and sent them to the former USSR. Most of the sheeple fell for the entire production. Communism was manufactured and implemented by the Puppet Masters just as the bullshit Islamic terrorist threat has been. A wasp nest hanging under the eave of your house is no threat until you strike it with a stick.

I am surprised at your ignorance of The Golden Triangle.

Quote
"Ok....and what is your source of information for these claims? Let's see your sources. These claims fly in the face of other realities such as those I've just mentioned."

Once again I am surprised at your lack of knowledge. Most of the information regarding the topics of The Golden Triangle and the CIA is available in documents released by the Freedom of Information Act.

I am not discussing theories nor is Shawn. We are talking about data from reliable sources such as, but not limited to: Congressional Records, documents released through the FOIA, main-stream press articles, books and papers by the actual Puppet Masters themselves. While Shawn, Allen and I are talking about reality and proven history. You continue to ramble on about theories, conspiracies, Left and Right, Conservatives and Liberals, Islamic terrorists, 98 IQ Bush's brilliant strategies, your opinions, philosophies, bullshit, blah, blah, blah; all of which you have based on what is obviously very little knowledge of current and past events. No matter what we talk about, you slip back into that same groove like a broken record or someone who has had his thinking processes tampered with.

I agree with you about Kerry! Okay? But guess what? Bush is no different. He works for the same bosses. That's why we have no borders. I think it is way past time for you to do some reading and investigating. Your narrow, baseless views of Bush and Islam are becoming a boring litany and are beginning to sound like Jay Reynalds on chemtrails.

You obviously have a brilliant mind, Jason; now, how about getting some more data into so that you'll have a better understanding of what is actually occurring in the world.

From the heart,
Ed

It is sometimes interesting to go back down the road a bit and see just how little things have changed.

Allen

Swedishoo
Admin

Posts: 690
(6/25/2007 5:38:08 AM)

Re: Re: Re: WAR....Huh, What Is It Good For.....(Is War inherently Evil?)

Interesting.

You're right, three years can go by and things don't change. Like the t-shirt that says, same shit differnet day.