America moves nukes in range of North Korea?! | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

America moves nukes in range of North Korea?!

That is quite a mouthful. Why don't you just give us a list of names and their addresses, being they are all such criminals. I would like to see a list you would summon. That should take much less time than that mouthful. List the real criminals with the charges against each.

It should be quite easy to trace the trillions of dollars they have taken from everyone.
 
Hi just me

I think I pretty much did give you a list of culprits: look at the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations

Also look at the post that Jet has posted about the plumber knowing more than Ben Bernanke also in the 'news' section of the forum. This makes it pretty clear the part that Goldman Sachs are playing....follow the money as the journalists say

If i did as you suggested and wrote a list of people, people reading it could easily dismiss it. It would not be very effective in changing perceptions

Often if you tell someone something they won't always accept it at first until they hear more evidence to corroborate, especially if it goes against 'conventional wisdom'. But who creates conventional wisdom....the media creates it.

I'm trying to make the case that we the people should not blindly follow our governments, we should QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION everything they do. In fact it is our responsibility to act as a check and balance on their power.

Our ability to act as this check and balance has been largely negated by an extremely effective propaganda machine. This machine is pervasive and it starts manipulating our perceptions from childhood. The education system and the media tell us what to think and how to feel about things. The government and media use polls and focus groups to guage how we think and feel about things and they adjust their propaganda accordingly.

These things exist however to maintain a status quo within society. That status quo is basically rule by the rich.

The dissapearance of public funds and the ensuing economic hardship is a pointer to the public about who is really running things and what they are upto and people are now more receptive than ever to criticism of the government. The politicians are just the front men/women of the moneyed interests behind them

We shouldn't let them convince us that war is a good idea. It's only a good idea for those that own the weapons manufacturing companies, the wall street traders, the oil companies and any other corporations that can get in on the act. It is bad for the people....it is always bad for the people. As the african saying goes: when the elephants fight, its the grass that suffers

I think there are 2 US's (and 2 UK's). There is the US of the people (peaceful/hardworking/honest) and there is the US of the super rich (corrupt/exploitative/violent). I think it is fully possible to criticise one while still loving the other
 
Last edited:
That is quite a conspiracy theory. I do like the passion you show in the words you write. Being a fly on the wall here and there during perilous times, I cannot swallow this. People always blame everything on the rich, greed, oil, power, arms manufacturing and sales, and what have you.

Why in tarnation would America want to take on North Korea and China?

Why did China send SU and MIG fighter planes, stopping to refuel in Iran, to Turkey's war games when America and Israel opted out months ago? Does China think it alright to intervene? If so, then what do they expect of others when practice time comes along?

I really think you should put together a case and file an injunction.

I agree one can like the populace and not like the ruling class: exactly how I feel about Iran and the North.
 
My Oxford dictionary describes a conspiracy as: a 'secret plan to commit a crime or do harm, often for political ends; a plot'

We are all conjecturing as to what is happening in Korea and what the US's part is in the process. That is because we haven't been told by our government's what they are doing.

They have made a plan, that is a secret, to commit harm to their enemies, that may or may not be a crime under international law, for political ends......they are effectively carrying out a conspiracy.....and we are out of the loop

So i think its pretty clear that 'conspiracies' exist everywhere all the time.

'Conspiracy' is a word that is missused a lot by the western media as a way of discrediting something. They attach over time negative associations to certain key words and these then act as a turn off for people. I think those key words are called 'slides'. Other commonly missused words are: 'anarchy' and 'unpatriotic'. But thats another discussion.

I am saying that there is a conspiracy of super rich people to run the US and UK...yes. There are also, naturally, conspiracies within conspiracies.

A good analysis of the rise of the current super rich (bourgeoisie) is found in part 1 of the 'Communist Manifesto'

Reading it doesn't make you a communist! I don't agree with Marx's cure but i do agree with his diagnosis:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

The modern day bourgeoisie own: the media corporations, the banks, the pharmaceutical companies and their money funds the political system. Deregualtion of the markets by corrupt politicians who are in cahoots with the super rich has allowed larger corporations to swallow up smaller ones and therefore consolidating the power/wealth of the few biggest players. For example the merger of Disney and ABC under Clinton....who got very rich whilst in office
 
Last edited:
First, let me clear the air I am not trying to discredit you or anything you say by the use of the word "conspiracy". You have in your mind put together quite a conspiracy theory. You have in your mind evidence enough for proof. Carry on. Do not expect everyone to follow suit. I have but a small handful of people I know with as much zeal as you seem to present yourself as having. Zeal regarding world governments and world economies is rare nowadays. By my not knowing you personally, I can but regard what you are saying as authentic to a certain degree or pure hogwash. I would like to treat it as real, yet I have to remember all those lessons I have learned in the past approaching such things.

Yesterday is gone and tomorrow is upon us. I have found over the years those who are true to themselves and actually show genuine concern with knowledge and understanding regarding national or worldly affairs to be listened to. People will come into one's life and help educate them with the many realities that exist out there.
Those showing that way above average concern for the world are looked up to and nurtured. Certain qualities are looked for and if those qualities exist in said person, said person will be listened to. Being listened to has a lot to do with how one approaches it.

There very well may be people of great influence that help make decisions, but for the most part they are only people and are subject to mere human frailties. Mistakes are made. Good decisions today may have a negative impact tomorrow in the unforeseeable future. As time goes by, these people die and others take their places. It has always been that way. That does not translate the governing political environment into a Patsy or a puppet show. If you were to say something and a government actually were to do what you said, they would more than likely discuss it and vote on it first as they always do. They most likely would not thank you and you should not want to be thanked. If they told you they used your idea(s) it would most likely make your head so big you might be of little to no help in the future.

We have a certain politician that represents a specific group of people I look up to because of the way he handles his disagreements in our government. I would recommend you personally try and understand the importance of what makes me look up to him so much. It never fails his emails and such to his constituents. No matter how much he disagrees with something, he always takes the time to talk about the good in something before he states why he would like to see change.....always. No matter how much he opposes something, he talks about the good in it he can find first. This is so important to me because he has taught me to find the good in what I disagree with and acknowledge it before saying how it might be improved. He then shares his thoughts of improvement in a positive manner. He will state what he disagrees with. He will say why. He then goes on to the next subject that is being discussed.

Over the years we learn who and what to listen to(media and people) and how much we can trust to be true, even knowing most full truths are not being discussed because most people either do not care or are not really that concerned. Too many people around the world with bad intentions may not need to know everything. We are thus spoken to. Bad information is sometimes given to prepare something in another arena or on another subject. We just cannot allow some people to know our intentions. That does not make us bad guys. We do what we must do. We read between the lines and trust our intelligence best we can. Our decisions are not going to make everyone happy and we still have to make decisions. Believe it or not, the people of the world are in the best interests of most influencial people; that is why they are so influencial. The bad guys get weeded out when at all possible. We cannot and do not just kill them.

I can only hope someone will take you under their wing and help guide you to the understanding you seem to be seeking.
 
That said, I would like to do a PET scan on Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad; but on their brains.
 
just me said:
That said, I would like to do a PET scan on Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad; but on their brains.
Click to expand...

LOL

What if you find they are completely sane!

Everything is pointing to increased global integration (which needn’t necessarily be a bad thing):

Bilderberg Group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg
Bohemian Grove: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove
Trilateral Commission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_commission
Council on foreign relations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_foreign_relations
European Council on Foreign relations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council_on_Foreign_Relations
Chatham House: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Institute_of_International_Affairs
Citizens for global solutions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Global_Solutions
Interfaith Alliance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_alliance

What concerns me is that if the world’s elites are working to bring peace to the world by greater international integration they seem to be going about it in a strange and violent way. There are different forms of governance as Americans particularly know there are federations and confederations. If we are marching towards world governance, and I believe we are, then what form will that take? Also it looks like it is going to be born out of violence....is that the best start for the new age?

A pillar of my worldview is that put forward by Noam Chomsky that wherever you have centralised power you have corruption and oppression. That is why I believe that power should be held by the people and exercised upwards instead of imposed from above. Can world government be formed which still involves the people in the democratic process or will it be a tyranny run by a global intellectual and financial elite?

All this political, economic, military and even spiritual manuovering is going on and the people seem to be left completely out of the loop. Are the global elite justified in doing that or is it undemocratic?

Those are my concerns....

As for my main post: the facts can be checked. The dots can be joined

I have put forward a paradigm (it isn’t mine)

Wear it if you want, for a while, like a new pair of glasses!

See if the world doesn’t seem a little clearer

‘There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.’ Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction
 
Last edited:
"
Everything is pointing to increased global integration "

I disagree. It may lead to that, but I do not see it pointing to it. If China is Communist, there will never be a world government; that would have to change. There are people in American politics that would like to help their contacts worldwide to create a world government. The only way they can find to lead up to a scenario where it might be accepted is to create a world of chaos and financial instability. I would call that starting out on the wrong foot.

I feel it, too. There are those trying to do this or we wouldn't feel it. Doesn't mean it will happen. If it does, it may very well get accomplished by something altogether different than they had ever dreamed of. jmo

 
Further from what you are saying concerning creating a world of chaos from the old world in order to create a new one....Kissinger says something quite interesting in that clip i posted

He says that other countries (he means those not allied to the US) can't go on worrying all the time what is going to happen. He talks about people looking into an abyss and then pulling back. So does he mean that the US should turn the thumbscrews on everyone to the point where they all go 'ok we've had enough, please can we join your global club?'

I mean all this talk of 'axis of evil' and the US's various conflicts with different countries around the world. It does seem to be trying to bully everyone into joining their global club....lets use the term 'new world order' for want of a better term

On the face of it countries like China and Russia are part of the G20 (20 most wealthy economies in the world) so seem to be playing along with the globalist agenda, but are they secretly harbouring desires to see the US dominance end?

From all the different war games its difficult to tell whats being implied to who

The US has used false flag operations to justify entering wars before (warning: i can't prove any of the following so i am just suggesting them as possibilities):

USS Maine-sunk to justify entering into the Spanish-American war
RMS Lusitania-helped bring the US into world war one
Pearl Harbour-brought The US into world war 2
Gulf of Tonkin-brought US into Vietnam
Some are also questioning 9/11 as a possible false flag operation to create a pretext for war in Iraq and Afghanistan

So it is not entirely inconceivable that something might spark hostilities with N.Korea
 
muir said:
The US has used false flag operations to justify entering wars before (warning: i can't prove any of the following so i am just suggesting them as possibilities):

USS Maine-sunk to justify entering into the Spanish-American war
RMS Lusitania-helped bring the US into world war one
Pearl Harbour-brought The US into world war 2
Gulf of Tonkin-brought US into Vietnam
Some are also questioning 9/11 as a possible false flag operation to create a pretext for war in Iraq and Afghanistan

So it is not entirely inconceivable that something might spark hostilities with N.Korea
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to respond to this, it's so inconceivably retarded that I can't believe you actually said that.
 
LOL

That's why i put a little disclaimer in there warning that i have no proof!

Let's say that we definately know that they weren't false flag ops ok? Even if that were definately the case, they still happened and they still brought the US into various different wars.

So the point i'm making....even without intrigue, is that something could easily happen in such a tense theatre as N.Korea

Just for your own interest though have a wee read of this link and scroll down to the bit that says 'remember the Maine':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwood
 
Last edited:
muir said:
LOL

That's why i put a little disclaimer in there warning that i have no proof!

Let's say that we definately know that they weren't false flag ops ok? Even if that were definately the case, they still happened and they still brought the US into various different wars.

So the point i'm making....even without intrigue, is that something could easily happen in such a tense theatre as N.Korea

Just for your own interest though have a wee read of this link and scroll down to the bit that says 'remember the Maine':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwood
Click to expand...

"Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted and the proposals included in the plan were never executed."
 
Yup and it was released into the public domain

So what we're looking at was the concideration by people in power of using false flag ops to incite a land war with Cuba. As it is the US just launched an attack anyway (Bay of Pigs)

It isn't a smoking gun, but it serves as a little window into the twisted mentality of the security forces

However going back to the example above of events that did happen. If you look into them there are a lot of inconsistencies....a lot of question marks

It's not crazy to question....its crazy not to question
 
muir said:
Yup and it was released into the public domain

So what we're looking at was the concideration by people in power of using false flag ops to incite a land war with Cuba. As it is the US just launched an attack anyway (Bay of Pigs)

It isn't a smoking gun, but it serves as a little window into the twisted mentality of the security forces

However going back to the example above of events that did happen. If you look into them there are a lot of inconsistencies....a lot of question marks

It's not crazy to question....its crazy not to question
Click to expand...

Your claiming that the U.S. government has caused the deaths of almost 10,000 people to go to war on multiple occasions, with no evidence to back up your claims. Thats not questioning, thats fear mongering if I've ever seen it.
 
You think 10,000 over the course of a century is a lot?

You need to go looking at the death tolls of the wars in the last century....10,000 doesn't scratch the surface
 
muir said:
You think 10,000 over the course of a century is a lot?

You need to go looking at the death tolls of the wars in the last century....10,000 doesn't scratch the surface
Click to expand...

Half the many have died in Iraq, your claiming the U.S. government caused the death of 6000+ people in New York to go to war with Iraq.
 
Now you've lost me.....these 10,000 are from what?
 
You say 6000+ in New York....what do you mean?
 
muir said:
You say 6000+ in New York....what do you mean?
Click to expand...

sorry I way over estimated my number on that one, number is supposed to be 3000, and it represents the number of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Sorry again I way over did that number.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back