|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On August 29 2013 04:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 04:05 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:00 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 03:55 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 03:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 29 2013 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 01:48 nunez wrote:On August 29 2013 01:29 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 00:40 imperator-xy wrote:
[quote]
Wow, so there are still people who accuse everyone who critizises Israel and their controversial policies of being anti-Semitic. No. But there are people who recognize that the claim 'Syria is being attacked because its central bank is state owned and not owned by the Jew Rothschild scum" is anti-Semitic. 'jew scum' would be the anti-semitic part of that sentence, which you injected on your own. the mind reels. http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/29/former-conspiracy-theorist-when-they-say-‘illuminati’-or-‘reptiles’-they-mean-jews/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/youre_not_paranoid_if_its_true.htmlNo, the whole of it is anti-Semitic, and if you don't understand why, then you don't know enough about the origin and evolution of "NWO" "central bank" conspiracy theories, probably because you have not had enough exposure to the people who advocate such theories. Lucky you. What they mean when they say "NWO" is "Jews." What they mean when they say "central banks" is "Jews." What they mean when they rant about fiat currency or fractional reserve banking is "Jewish usurers." The mind does reel when people act like taking the prime anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of the last 200 years and replacing the word "Jews" with "NWO" means that it is no longer anti-Semitic. You're being taken for a ride nunez, how can you not notice the swastika hood ornament? dsousa
Sorry for being sarcastic, but this is a perfect example of how the story gets tilted. Every counter point can be dismissed as lack of proof, or questionable source, etc..... but when NATO says something they get the benefit of the doubt from the public despite having a serious credibility problem in recent history (NSA, Iraq, etc). What world do you live in? Have you even read any of this thread at all? Around half the posters here dismiss anything anti-Assad because it's "US" or "UK" or "Israeli" and obviously lies because imperialism blah blah blah, while propaganda coming out of the Kremlin basement is linked as if it were holy writ. That kind of logic is terrible. So no-one is allowed to engage in this kind of conspiracy theorizing without being anti-semitic? To be honest i usually completely ignore most allegations of anti-semitism because i have seen it used so recklessly so many times that the whole thing is now just a total joke. Joseph Campbell, the world renowned mythologist, was subject to these allegations of anti-semitism because some jews didn't like him saying that their God was a myth. These allegations were delivered through the medium of newspaper articles all over the world. I'm not anti-semitic, but anyone who levels that accusation without real proof and personal experience is total dick. In other words, its an easy, lazy way to dismiss something without having to have a brain cell to be able to do it properly. EDIT: obviously allegations of anti-semitism aren't always this kind of lazy thinking, but when applied to huge groups of people and whole ways of thinking then they usually are. I sometimes dont understand people. "Someone I respect was being labeled anti-Semitic, therefore it is always wrong to label anyone anti-Semitic and I wont examine the actual claims of anti-Semitism here because its obviously wrong." Claiming that Syria is under attack because the Rothschild family of bankers want the Syrian bank to become 'owned by them' instead of 'owned by the Syrian state' is an anti-Semitic trope and has been one for a hundred years or so. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rothschilds_(film). I actually agree with you, if you focus on the fact that its a "Rothchilds" owned central bank, howvever, if you look at from purely a banking perspective it is still relevant. To what degree the Rothchilds are involved in central banking I have no idea. But currencies and the IMF are big deals and they help maintain a US dollar domination of the worlds financial system. That is a very big deal. Petrodollars are a big deal and something that the beneficiaries would surely fight for. Perhaps when she talks about the Rothchilds I dismiss it too quickly and you focus on it too much. I though she made 8 strong points, but perhaps you are not wrong in saying the first could be construed as anti-semitic. I didn't immediately see it that way, but I could see how someone would. What did you think of her other 7 points? The 7 other points are all out of the same anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, if she doesn't think it's the Jews she's a useful idiot for anti-Semites, if she does, she's an anti-Semite herself. Sounds like a wonderful PRISM from which to view the world. Well if you have anything like actual facts to back you up, let us know please.
The fact is we're going to get involved in Syria.
The question is why. Why do you think?
|
On August 29 2013 04:05 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:00 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 03:55 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 03:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 29 2013 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 01:48 nunez wrote:On August 29 2013 01:29 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 00:40 imperator-xy wrote:On August 28 2013 13:09 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]There is no reason to bring in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories into this. Unless you were posting this as an example of propaganda -- and of a hot girl. Wow, so there are still people who accuse everyone who critizises Israel and their controversial policies of being anti-Semitic. No. But there are people who recognize that the claim 'Syria is being attacked because its central bank is state owned and not owned by the Jew Rothschild scum" is anti-Semitic. 'jew scum' would be the anti-semitic part of that sentence, which you injected on your own. the mind reels. http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/29/former-conspiracy-theorist-when-they-say-‘illuminati’-or-‘reptiles’-they-mean-jews/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/youre_not_paranoid_if_its_true.htmlNo, the whole of it is anti-Semitic, and if you don't understand why, then you don't know enough about the origin and evolution of "NWO" "central bank" conspiracy theories, probably because you have not had enough exposure to the people who advocate such theories. Lucky you. What they mean when they say "NWO" is "Jews." What they mean when they say "central banks" is "Jews." What they mean when they rant about fiat currency or fractional reserve banking is "Jewish usurers." The mind does reel when people act like taking the prime anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of the last 200 years and replacing the word "Jews" with "NWO" means that it is no longer anti-Semitic. You're being taken for a ride nunez, how can you not notice the swastika hood ornament? dsousa
Sorry for being sarcastic, but this is a perfect example of how the story gets tilted. Every counter point can be dismissed as lack of proof, or questionable source, etc..... but when NATO says something they get the benefit of the doubt from the public despite having a serious credibility problem in recent history (NSA, Iraq, etc). What world do you live in? Have you even read any of this thread at all? Around half the posters here dismiss anything anti-Assad because it's "US" or "UK" or "Israeli" and obviously lies because imperialism blah blah blah, while propaganda coming out of the Kremlin basement is linked as if it were holy writ. That kind of logic is terrible. So no-one is allowed to engage in this kind of conspiracy theorizing without being anti-semitic? To be honest i usually completely ignore most allegations of anti-semitism because i have seen it used so recklessly so many times that the whole thing is now just a total joke. Joseph Campbell, the world renowned mythologist, was subject to these allegations of anti-semitism because some jews didn't like him saying that their God was a myth. These allegations were delivered through the medium of newspaper articles all over the world. I'm not anti-semitic, but anyone who levels that accusation without real proof and personal experience is total dick. In other words, its an easy, lazy way to dismiss something without having to have a brain cell to be able to do it properly. EDIT: obviously allegations of anti-semitism aren't always this kind of lazy thinking, but when applied to huge groups of people and whole ways of thinking then they usually are. I sometimes dont understand people. "Someone I respect was being labeled anti-Semitic, therefore it is always wrong to label anyone anti-Semitic and I wont examine the actual claims of anti-Semitism here because its obviously wrong." Claiming that Syria is under attack because the Rothschild family of bankers want the Syrian bank to become 'owned by them' instead of 'owned by the Syrian state' is an anti-Semitic trope and has been one for a hundred years or so. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rothschilds_(film). I actually agree with you, if you focus on the fact that its a "Rothchilds" owned central bank, howvever, if you look at from purely a banking perspective it is still relevant. To what degree the Rothchilds are involved in central banking I have no idea. But currencies and the IMF are big deals and they help maintain a US dollar domination of the worlds financial system. That is a very big deal. Petrodollars are a big deal and something that the beneficiaries would surely fight for. Perhaps when she talks about the Rothchilds I dismiss it too quickly and you focus on it too much. I though she made 8 strong points, but perhaps you are not wrong in saying the first could be construed as anti-semitic. I didn't immediately see it that way, but I could see how someone would. What did you think of her other 7 points? The 7 other points are all out of the same anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, if she doesn't think it's the Jews she's a useful idiot for anti-Semites, if she does, she's an anti-Semite herself. Sounds like a wonderful PRISM from which to view the world.
I can't help but agree with you.
Antisemitism is an intention. If you have no ill-will towards Jewish people, then you aren't an anti-semite.
Money controls the world and politics. Obviously? Whether the people who control the money are Jewish or not is irrelevant.
Having this perspective does not infer that I dislike Jews. If other people share this perspective, and also happen to be antisemitic, any correlation between the two is a false one. Drawing a correlation between the two is a distraction from the critical issues caused when a group of people without regulation or examination determine the fate of the entire world.
|
On August 29 2013 04:42 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 04:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:05 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:00 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 03:55 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 03:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 29 2013 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 01:48 nunez wrote:On August 29 2013 01:29 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
No. But there are people who recognize that the claim 'Syria is being attacked because its central bank is state owned and not owned by the Jew Rothschild scum" is anti-Semitic. 'jew scum' would be the anti-semitic part of that sentence, which you injected on your own. the mind reels. http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/29/former-conspiracy-theorist-when-they-say-‘illuminati’-or-‘reptiles’-they-mean-jews/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/youre_not_paranoid_if_its_true.htmlNo, the whole of it is anti-Semitic, and if you don't understand why, then you don't know enough about the origin and evolution of "NWO" "central bank" conspiracy theories, probably because you have not had enough exposure to the people who advocate such theories. Lucky you. What they mean when they say "NWO" is "Jews." What they mean when they say "central banks" is "Jews." What they mean when they rant about fiat currency or fractional reserve banking is "Jewish usurers." The mind does reel when people act like taking the prime anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of the last 200 years and replacing the word "Jews" with "NWO" means that it is no longer anti-Semitic. You're being taken for a ride nunez, how can you not notice the swastika hood ornament? dsousa
Sorry for being sarcastic, but this is a perfect example of how the story gets tilted. Every counter point can be dismissed as lack of proof, or questionable source, etc..... but when NATO says something they get the benefit of the doubt from the public despite having a serious credibility problem in recent history (NSA, Iraq, etc). What world do you live in? Have you even read any of this thread at all? Around half the posters here dismiss anything anti-Assad because it's "US" or "UK" or "Israeli" and obviously lies because imperialism blah blah blah, while propaganda coming out of the Kremlin basement is linked as if it were holy writ. That kind of logic is terrible. So no-one is allowed to engage in this kind of conspiracy theorizing without being anti-semitic? To be honest i usually completely ignore most allegations of anti-semitism because i have seen it used so recklessly so many times that the whole thing is now just a total joke. Joseph Campbell, the world renowned mythologist, was subject to these allegations of anti-semitism because some jews didn't like him saying that their God was a myth. These allegations were delivered through the medium of newspaper articles all over the world. I'm not anti-semitic, but anyone who levels that accusation without real proof and personal experience is total dick. In other words, its an easy, lazy way to dismiss something without having to have a brain cell to be able to do it properly. EDIT: obviously allegations of anti-semitism aren't always this kind of lazy thinking, but when applied to huge groups of people and whole ways of thinking then they usually are. I sometimes dont understand people. "Someone I respect was being labeled anti-Semitic, therefore it is always wrong to label anyone anti-Semitic and I wont examine the actual claims of anti-Semitism here because its obviously wrong." Claiming that Syria is under attack because the Rothschild family of bankers want the Syrian bank to become 'owned by them' instead of 'owned by the Syrian state' is an anti-Semitic trope and has been one for a hundred years or so. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rothschilds_(film). I actually agree with you, if you focus on the fact that its a "Rothchilds" owned central bank, howvever, if you look at from purely a banking perspective it is still relevant. To what degree the Rothchilds are involved in central banking I have no idea. But currencies and the IMF are big deals and they help maintain a US dollar domination of the worlds financial system. That is a very big deal. Petrodollars are a big deal and something that the beneficiaries would surely fight for. Perhaps when she talks about the Rothchilds I dismiss it too quickly and you focus on it too much. I though she made 8 strong points, but perhaps you are not wrong in saying the first could be construed as anti-semitic. I didn't immediately see it that way, but I could see how someone would. What did you think of her other 7 points? The 7 other points are all out of the same anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, if she doesn't think it's the Jews she's a useful idiot for anti-Semites, if she does, she's an anti-Semite herself. Sounds like a wonderful PRISM from which to view the world. Well if you have anything like actual facts to back you up, let us know please. The fact is we're going to get involved in Syria. The question is why. Why do you think?
Because after two and a half years of not getting openly involved, the pressure to do so has become too much to resist?
Because chemical weapons use on such a scale is serious enough that something does have to be done about it?
Moral considerations do play a large and influential role in decision-making at times, believe it or not. The whole UN-anchored international system created after WW2 was a reaction to the immorality and horror of the war, slaughter and destruction on a scale not seen since the Huns invaded Europe 1500 years before.
The world and why things happen in it are a lot more complicated than the simplistic Manicheanism that pervades this forum and internet political discussions in general.
On August 29 2013 04:49 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 04:05 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:00 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 03:55 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 03:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 29 2013 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 01:48 nunez wrote:On August 29 2013 01:29 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 00:40 imperator-xy wrote:
[quote]
Wow, so there are still people who accuse everyone who critizises Israel and their controversial policies of being anti-Semitic. No. But there are people who recognize that the claim 'Syria is being attacked because its central bank is state owned and not owned by the Jew Rothschild scum" is anti-Semitic. 'jew scum' would be the anti-semitic part of that sentence, which you injected on your own. the mind reels. http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/29/former-conspiracy-theorist-when-they-say-‘illuminati’-or-‘reptiles’-they-mean-jews/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/youre_not_paranoid_if_its_true.htmlNo, the whole of it is anti-Semitic, and if you don't understand why, then you don't know enough about the origin and evolution of "NWO" "central bank" conspiracy theories, probably because you have not had enough exposure to the people who advocate such theories. Lucky you. What they mean when they say "NWO" is "Jews." What they mean when they say "central banks" is "Jews." What they mean when they rant about fiat currency or fractional reserve banking is "Jewish usurers." The mind does reel when people act like taking the prime anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of the last 200 years and replacing the word "Jews" with "NWO" means that it is no longer anti-Semitic. You're being taken for a ride nunez, how can you not notice the swastika hood ornament? dsousa
Sorry for being sarcastic, but this is a perfect example of how the story gets tilted. Every counter point can be dismissed as lack of proof, or questionable source, etc..... but when NATO says something they get the benefit of the doubt from the public despite having a serious credibility problem in recent history (NSA, Iraq, etc). What world do you live in? Have you even read any of this thread at all? Around half the posters here dismiss anything anti-Assad because it's "US" or "UK" or "Israeli" and obviously lies because imperialism blah blah blah, while propaganda coming out of the Kremlin basement is linked as if it were holy writ. That kind of logic is terrible. So no-one is allowed to engage in this kind of conspiracy theorizing without being anti-semitic? To be honest i usually completely ignore most allegations of anti-semitism because i have seen it used so recklessly so many times that the whole thing is now just a total joke. Joseph Campbell, the world renowned mythologist, was subject to these allegations of anti-semitism because some jews didn't like him saying that their God was a myth. These allegations were delivered through the medium of newspaper articles all over the world. I'm not anti-semitic, but anyone who levels that accusation without real proof and personal experience is total dick. In other words, its an easy, lazy way to dismiss something without having to have a brain cell to be able to do it properly. EDIT: obviously allegations of anti-semitism aren't always this kind of lazy thinking, but when applied to huge groups of people and whole ways of thinking then they usually are. I sometimes dont understand people. "Someone I respect was being labeled anti-Semitic, therefore it is always wrong to label anyone anti-Semitic and I wont examine the actual claims of anti-Semitism here because its obviously wrong." Claiming that Syria is under attack because the Rothschild family of bankers want the Syrian bank to become 'owned by them' instead of 'owned by the Syrian state' is an anti-Semitic trope and has been one for a hundred years or so. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rothschilds_(film). I actually agree with you, if you focus on the fact that its a "Rothchilds" owned central bank, howvever, if you look at from purely a banking perspective it is still relevant. To what degree the Rothchilds are involved in central banking I have no idea. But currencies and the IMF are big deals and they help maintain a US dollar domination of the worlds financial system. That is a very big deal. Petrodollars are a big deal and something that the beneficiaries would surely fight for. Perhaps when she talks about the Rothchilds I dismiss it too quickly and you focus on it too much. I though she made 8 strong points, but perhaps you are not wrong in saying the first could be construed as anti-semitic. I didn't immediately see it that way, but I could see how someone would. What did you think of her other 7 points? The 7 other points are all out of the same anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, if she doesn't think it's the Jews she's a useful idiot for anti-Semites, if she does, she's an anti-Semite herself. Sounds like a wonderful PRISM from which to view the world. I can't help but agree with you. Antisemitism is an intention. If you have no ill-will towards Jewish people, then you aren't an anti-semite. Money controls the world and politics. Obviously? Whether the people who control the money are Jewish or not is irrelevant. Having this perspective does not infer that I dislike Jews. If other people share this perspective, and also happen to be antisemitic, any correlation between the two is a false one. Drawing a correlation between the two is a distraction from the critical issues caused when a group of people without regulation or examination determine the fate of the entire world.
We sure have a lot of pretzel-twisting to justify an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory here today. Banalities like "money controls the world and politics" does not dissipate the anti-Semitic core of the conspiracy theory that "a group of people without regulation or examination determine the fate of the entire world." No such charge has been made against any other group of people in history.
You don't get to take "Jews secretly run the world and cause all wars and enslave societies through central banking," take out the word "Jews" and replace it with "the NWO" or "a group of people" and act like you have separated the theory from the anti-Semitism.
Having that perspective infers that you are a "useful idiot" as Lenin meant it. Your argument is a deliberate distraction from the anti-Semitic origin and inherently anti-Semitic nature of the "NWO / central bank" conspiracy theory.
Bullshit made up to make people hate Jews is no longer bullshit if we take the Jews out of the equation. It's still bullshit. Are we really to believe that anti-Semites in 19th century Europe stumbled upon THE TROOF and managed to describe with great accuracy the CONSPIRAZEE running the world, but then erred in attributing it to the Jews? Yeah that makes sense. We've got a return to "Fake but accurate" going on here.
See, it doesn't matter that the conspiracy theory was created as a deliberate lie to inflame Jew-hatred. It's still accurate, just that Jew part is wrong because I'm never going to get anywhere if I keep the Jew-hating parts. So I'll drop those and then try to say with a straight face that my bullshit theory that was created out of whole cloth to make people hate Jews is not bullshit, it's accurate, the origins and motivations behind it are meaningless, despite being created solely for the purpose of Jew-hatred, the conspiracy theory is still accurate and not necessarily anti-Semitic, just take the blame-the-Jews part out. Whatever man, if you want to fool yourself, that's up to you. Just don't expect too many others to be similarly hoodwinked.
|
On August 29 2013 04:00 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 03:55 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 03:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 29 2013 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 01:48 nunez wrote:On August 29 2013 01:29 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 00:40 imperator-xy wrote:On August 28 2013 13:09 Sub40APM wrote:On August 28 2013 12:43 dsousa wrote:On August 28 2013 12:27 Roe wrote:
[quote]
I can see all that, but what would the US gain...not oil, not stability, not fighting terrorism. I'm not arguing they wouldn't orchestrate this after all the times they have, but I can't see the benefit of an attack/invasion. Among other reasons - + Show Spoiler + There is no reason to bring in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories into this. Unless you were posting this as an example of propaganda -- and of a hot girl. Wow, so there are still people who accuse everyone who critizises Israel and their controversial policies of being anti-Semitic. No. But there are people who recognize that the claim 'Syria is being attacked because its central bank is state owned and not owned by the Jew Rothschild scum" is anti-Semitic. 'jew scum' would be the anti-semitic part of that sentence, which you injected on your own. the mind reels. http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/29/former-conspiracy-theorist-when-they-say-‘illuminati’-or-‘reptiles’-they-mean-jews/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/youre_not_paranoid_if_its_true.htmlNo, the whole of it is anti-Semitic, and if you don't understand why, then you don't know enough about the origin and evolution of "NWO" "central bank" conspiracy theories, probably because you have not had enough exposure to the people who advocate such theories. Lucky you. What they mean when they say "NWO" is "Jews." What they mean when they say "central banks" is "Jews." What they mean when they rant about fiat currency or fractional reserve banking is "Jewish usurers." The mind does reel when people act like taking the prime anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of the last 200 years and replacing the word "Jews" with "NWO" means that it is no longer anti-Semitic. You're being taken for a ride nunez, how can you not notice the swastika hood ornament? dsousa
Sorry for being sarcastic, but this is a perfect example of how the story gets tilted. Every counter point can be dismissed as lack of proof, or questionable source, etc..... but when NATO says something they get the benefit of the doubt from the public despite having a serious credibility problem in recent history (NSA, Iraq, etc). What world do you live in? Have you even read any of this thread at all? Around half the posters here dismiss anything anti-Assad because it's "US" or "UK" or "Israeli" and obviously lies because imperialism blah blah blah, while propaganda coming out of the Kremlin basement is linked as if it were holy writ. That kind of logic is terrible. So no-one is allowed to engage in this kind of conspiracy theorizing without being anti-semitic? To be honest i usually completely ignore most allegations of anti-semitism because i have seen it used so recklessly so many times that the whole thing is now just a total joke. Joseph Campbell, the world renowned mythologist, was subject to these allegations of anti-semitism because some jews didn't like him saying that their God was a myth. These allegations were delivered through the medium of newspaper articles all over the world. I'm not anti-semitic, but anyone who levels that accusation without real proof and personal experience is total dick. In other words, its an easy, lazy way to dismiss something without having to have a brain cell to be able to do it properly. EDIT: obviously allegations of anti-semitism aren't always this kind of lazy thinking, but when applied to huge groups of people and whole ways of thinking then they usually are. I sometimes dont understand people. "Someone I respect was being labeled anti-Semitic, therefore it is always wrong to label anyone anti-Semitic and I wont examine the actual claims of anti-Semitism here because its obviously wrong." Claiming that Syria is under attack because the Rothschild family of bankers want the Syrian bank to become 'owned by them' instead of 'owned by the Syrian state' is an anti-Semitic trope and has been one for a hundred years or so. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rothschilds_(film). I actually agree with you, if you focus on the fact that its a "Rothchilds" owned central bank, howvever, if you look at from purely a banking perspective it is still relevant.
How is it relevant except as part of the wider claim -- that was already pointed out to you has roots in a more sophisticated version of anti-Semitism -- that the central bankers of the world want to control the Syrian central bank. Why the fuck would they care? Syria is an obscure, poor country with no impact on the world economy when it isnt causing oil prices to spike.
Why not create a false context for the invasion of China, where the central bank is controlled by the PRC instead of the 'Rothschilds'
To what degree the Rothchilds are involved in central banking I have no idea.
They arent involved at all! The current generation of Rothschild family owns 1 small investment bank -- smaller than every bank that has been in the news recently -- and are mostly just living of their inherited wealth just like all the other European aristocrats.
But currencies and the IMF are big deals and they help maintain a US dollar domination of the worlds financial system. That is a very big deal. Petrodollars are a big deal and something that the beneficiaries would surely fight for.
The IMF embarrassed itself in East Asia and Argentina, but what does it have to do with anything? Look at its term sheets, those dastardly IMF and their 0% interest loans! HOW DARE THEY (http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/howlend.htm)
Petrodollars are a huge burden to the United States because they drive the Gulf oil countries oil surpluses into the US treasury market, lowering interest rates and keeping the dollar higher than it should be, which in turn hurts American competitiveness in manufacturing. America would love it if the oil was valued in euros and the dollar dropped to something like 1-3 vs the yuan and 1-9 vs the euro, no more structural trade deficit.
Perhaps when she talks about the Rothchilds I dismiss it too quickly and you focus on it too much.
If the 'sources' for her other arguments are as 'well sourced' as her the central banking system is a tool of jews for world control then no, her points are not well researched. But what the hell, lets go quickly through them.
1) Syria owes no foreign debt to anyone. Wrong. Syria's current external debt is 3.5 billion dollars, and only because Russia wrote 11 billion dollars of debts owned to it by Syria in 2008. Before the wright off, Syria owned about as much debt as % of its GDP as Australia does. So I guess the NWO is going after Australia next, better warn the Aussies!
2) [a] Syria only takes out debt from 'trusted ally like Russia' but Russia has an independent central bank! Which means its central bank is controlled by the Rothschilds! Which means Syria is already controlled by the JEWS!
[b] Egypt and its 'so called Muslim president Mosri who took on debt and thus proves he is not Muslim unlike Muslim president Assad who only takes on debt from Russia' took a 4 billion dollar loan from the IMF! Yes they did, GOTCHA NWO! Oh wait, what, the IMF has suspended the loan because of the coup? http://rt.com/news/egypt-imf-loan-talks-596/
So what is it, taking loans from the IMF is evil? Not taking the loans? Taking loans from anyone but Russia? (because there is clearly an exception in the Quran, I remember it well 'wearily you must not take interest because it is against god to earn rewards for nothing, unless the loan comes from the land of bears and alcohol, then yee shall take as many as you want, but only if yee are buying armored horses and arrows that strike down flying jinns from miles away!" its somewhere in the back but its definitely there)
3) Syria bans GMO! Heroically standing up to the NWO. Other places that heroically stood up to the GMO promoting NWO and were thus viciously and totally bombed for it are...the European Union, which banned GMOs in 1998 and caused the American corn export trade to Europe to collapse. You hear that Europe, AMERICA IS COMING! http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Food_and_Biotechnology/Biotech_USEU1205.pdf
3.5) as soon as America conquered Iraq they changed the constitution making it a *Requirement* for Iraqi farmers to buy Monsanto GMO seeds and only those seeds. Here is the Iraqi Constitution, feel free to highlight that paragraph in it http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html
4) 'Syria talks of secret societies. It is mainstream to discuss world global conspiracies. Bush and Kerry were members of the Skull and Bones!' Oh my god two guys joined the same student group at a university they both attended!
5) Syria has gas and plans to build pipelines! Otherwise the only way oil flows from the Middle East to Europe, Asia and Africa is through Israel! The BTC pipeline she refers to doesnt go through Israel, it goes through Turkey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan_pipeline
The max discharge is a million barrels of oil per day. The Egyptians oil transit hub alone moves 3.9 million oil barrels per day. And the EVIL NWO will bring countries to their knees by turning of taps! Which is why everytime there is tension in the middle east the Saudis respond by increasing oil production. Not to decrease the impact of politics on the world economy but as a clever ruse by the NWO to distract people from ITS EVIL PLANS.
6) Syria is bravely one of the last countries left that dont recognize the zionist agenda! HOW BRAVE AND MUST BE THE REASON THEY ARE TARGETED! Well, better warn Saudi Arabia that they are totally next! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations) And we better warn every other member of the Arab League except Egypt because none of them recognize Israel.
7) Syria is the last secular country left in the middle east! yep, that world wide conspiracy that wants to promote Islamic fundamentalism as its main goal for its Jewish central bank world domination.
8) Syria resists globalization because you cant shop at H&M.
As you can see all her posts are either incredibly misinformed, wrong, or silly. So no, after opening up with a pretty strong anti-Semitic lie she didnt get better. thats 0/8. Hell, I'll be charitable and admit that Syria is an anti-Israeli state and giver her that one 1/8.
|
UN: "If Syria uses gas we will intervene"
Assad: "No gas here boys"
UN: "Errr.."
-A few months later-
Assad: "Better use that gas that will give everyone and their mother a reason to attack me even though the rebels are already failing on the conventional field, and then let UN inspectors in to confirm it"
You: "Yea right, like you'd be so stupid"
UN: "U used gas n00b"
Newspapers: "You heard what the UN said? Syria used gas! Gogogog"
If I look at some newspaper comments it's like everybody around here doesn't believe the shit the media write any more.
It would be so illogical from Syria to use chemical weapons.
|
On August 29 2013 05:07 Vivax wrote:
UN: "If Syria uses gas we will intervene"
Assad: "No gas here boys"
UN: "Errr.."
-A few months later-
Assad: "Better use that gas that will give everyone and their mother a reason to attack me even though the rebels are already failing on the conventional field, and then let UN inspectors in to confirm it"
You: "Yea right, like you'd be so stupid"
UN: "U used gas n00b"
Newspapers: "You heard what the UN said? Syria used gas! Gogogog"
If I look at some newspaper comments it's like everybody around here doesn't believe the shit the media write any more.
It would be so illogical from Syria to use chemical weapons.
And its highly unlikely the rebels even have access to chemical weapons let alone the means to use them yet someone had to have made the attack.
|
On August 29 2013 04:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 04:42 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 04:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:05 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:00 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 03:55 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 03:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 29 2013 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 01:48 nunez wrote:
[quote]
'jew scum' would be the anti-semitic part of that sentence, which you injected on your own. the mind reels. http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/29/former-conspiracy-theorist-when-they-say-‘illuminati’-or-‘reptiles’-they-mean-jews/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/youre_not_paranoid_if_its_true.htmlNo, the whole of it is anti-Semitic, and if you don't understand why, then you don't know enough about the origin and evolution of "NWO" "central bank" conspiracy theories, probably because you have not had enough exposure to the people who advocate such theories. Lucky you. What they mean when they say "NWO" is "Jews." What they mean when they say "central banks" is "Jews." What they mean when they rant about fiat currency or fractional reserve banking is "Jewish usurers." The mind does reel when people act like taking the prime anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of the last 200 years and replacing the word "Jews" with "NWO" means that it is no longer anti-Semitic. You're being taken for a ride nunez, how can you not notice the swastika hood ornament? dsousa
Sorry for being sarcastic, but this is a perfect example of how the story gets tilted. Every counter point can be dismissed as lack of proof, or questionable source, etc..... but when NATO says something they get the benefit of the doubt from the public despite having a serious credibility problem in recent history (NSA, Iraq, etc). What world do you live in? Have you even read any of this thread at all? Around half the posters here dismiss anything anti-Assad because it's "US" or "UK" or "Israeli" and obviously lies because imperialism blah blah blah, while propaganda coming out of the Kremlin basement is linked as if it were holy writ. That kind of logic is terrible. So no-one is allowed to engage in this kind of conspiracy theorizing without being anti-semitic? To be honest i usually completely ignore most allegations of anti-semitism because i have seen it used so recklessly so many times that the whole thing is now just a total joke. Joseph Campbell, the world renowned mythologist, was subject to these allegations of anti-semitism because some jews didn't like him saying that their God was a myth. These allegations were delivered through the medium of newspaper articles all over the world. I'm not anti-semitic, but anyone who levels that accusation without real proof and personal experience is total dick. In other words, its an easy, lazy way to dismiss something without having to have a brain cell to be able to do it properly. EDIT: obviously allegations of anti-semitism aren't always this kind of lazy thinking, but when applied to huge groups of people and whole ways of thinking then they usually are. I sometimes dont understand people. "Someone I respect was being labeled anti-Semitic, therefore it is always wrong to label anyone anti-Semitic and I wont examine the actual claims of anti-Semitism here because its obviously wrong." Claiming that Syria is under attack because the Rothschild family of bankers want the Syrian bank to become 'owned by them' instead of 'owned by the Syrian state' is an anti-Semitic trope and has been one for a hundred years or so. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rothschilds_(film). I actually agree with you, if you focus on the fact that its a "Rothchilds" owned central bank, howvever, if you look at from purely a banking perspective it is still relevant. To what degree the Rothchilds are involved in central banking I have no idea. But currencies and the IMF are big deals and they help maintain a US dollar domination of the worlds financial system. That is a very big deal. Petrodollars are a big deal and something that the beneficiaries would surely fight for. Perhaps when she talks about the Rothchilds I dismiss it too quickly and you focus on it too much. I though she made 8 strong points, but perhaps you are not wrong in saying the first could be construed as anti-semitic. I didn't immediately see it that way, but I could see how someone would. What did you think of her other 7 points? The 7 other points are all out of the same anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, if she doesn't think it's the Jews she's a useful idiot for anti-Semites, if she does, she's an anti-Semite herself. Sounds like a wonderful PRISM from which to view the world. Well if you have anything like actual facts to back you up, let us know please. The fact is we're going to get involved in Syria. The question is why. Why do you think? Because after two and a half years of not getting openly involved, the pressure to do so has become too much to resist? Because chemical weapons use on such a scale is serious enough that something does have to be done about it? Moral considerations do play a large and influential role in decision-making at times, believe it or not. The whole UN-anchored international system created after WW2 was a reaction to the immorality and horror of the war, slaughter and destruction on a scale not seen since the Huns invaded Europe 1500 years before. The world and why things happen in it are a lot more complicated than the simplistic Manicheanism that pervades this forum and internet political discussions in general. Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 04:49 Mora wrote:On August 29 2013 04:05 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:00 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 03:55 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 03:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 29 2013 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 01:48 nunez wrote:On August 29 2013 01:29 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
No. But there are people who recognize that the claim 'Syria is being attacked because its central bank is state owned and not owned by the Jew Rothschild scum" is anti-Semitic. 'jew scum' would be the anti-semitic part of that sentence, which you injected on your own. the mind reels. http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/29/former-conspiracy-theorist-when-they-say-‘illuminati’-or-‘reptiles’-they-mean-jews/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/youre_not_paranoid_if_its_true.htmlNo, the whole of it is anti-Semitic, and if you don't understand why, then you don't know enough about the origin and evolution of "NWO" "central bank" conspiracy theories, probably because you have not had enough exposure to the people who advocate such theories. Lucky you. What they mean when they say "NWO" is "Jews." What they mean when they say "central banks" is "Jews." What they mean when they rant about fiat currency or fractional reserve banking is "Jewish usurers." The mind does reel when people act like taking the prime anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of the last 200 years and replacing the word "Jews" with "NWO" means that it is no longer anti-Semitic. You're being taken for a ride nunez, how can you not notice the swastika hood ornament? dsousa
Sorry for being sarcastic, but this is a perfect example of how the story gets tilted. Every counter point can be dismissed as lack of proof, or questionable source, etc..... but when NATO says something they get the benefit of the doubt from the public despite having a serious credibility problem in recent history (NSA, Iraq, etc). What world do you live in? Have you even read any of this thread at all? Around half the posters here dismiss anything anti-Assad because it's "US" or "UK" or "Israeli" and obviously lies because imperialism blah blah blah, while propaganda coming out of the Kremlin basement is linked as if it were holy writ. That kind of logic is terrible. So no-one is allowed to engage in this kind of conspiracy theorizing without being anti-semitic? To be honest i usually completely ignore most allegations of anti-semitism because i have seen it used so recklessly so many times that the whole thing is now just a total joke. Joseph Campbell, the world renowned mythologist, was subject to these allegations of anti-semitism because some jews didn't like him saying that their God was a myth. These allegations were delivered through the medium of newspaper articles all over the world. I'm not anti-semitic, but anyone who levels that accusation without real proof and personal experience is total dick. In other words, its an easy, lazy way to dismiss something without having to have a brain cell to be able to do it properly. EDIT: obviously allegations of anti-semitism aren't always this kind of lazy thinking, but when applied to huge groups of people and whole ways of thinking then they usually are. I sometimes dont understand people. "Someone I respect was being labeled anti-Semitic, therefore it is always wrong to label anyone anti-Semitic and I wont examine the actual claims of anti-Semitism here because its obviously wrong." Claiming that Syria is under attack because the Rothschild family of bankers want the Syrian bank to become 'owned by them' instead of 'owned by the Syrian state' is an anti-Semitic trope and has been one for a hundred years or so. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rothschilds_(film). I actually agree with you, if you focus on the fact that its a "Rothchilds" owned central bank, howvever, if you look at from purely a banking perspective it is still relevant. To what degree the Rothchilds are involved in central banking I have no idea. But currencies and the IMF are big deals and they help maintain a US dollar domination of the worlds financial system. That is a very big deal. Petrodollars are a big deal and something that the beneficiaries would surely fight for. Perhaps when she talks about the Rothchilds I dismiss it too quickly and you focus on it too much. I though she made 8 strong points, but perhaps you are not wrong in saying the first could be construed as anti-semitic. I didn't immediately see it that way, but I could see how someone would. What did you think of her other 7 points? The 7 other points are all out of the same anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, if she doesn't think it's the Jews she's a useful idiot for anti-Semites, if she does, she's an anti-Semite herself. Sounds like a wonderful PRISM from which to view the world. I can't help but agree with you. Antisemitism is an intention. If you have no ill-will towards Jewish people, then you aren't an anti-semite. Money controls the world and politics. Obviously? Whether the people who control the money are Jewish or not is irrelevant. Having this perspective does not infer that I dislike Jews. If other people share this perspective, and also happen to be antisemitic, any correlation between the two is a false one. Drawing a correlation between the two is a distraction from the critical issues caused when a group of people without regulation or examination determine the fate of the entire world. We sure have a lot of pretzel-twisting to justify an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory here today. Banalities like "money controls the world and politics" does not dissipate the anti-Semitic core of the conspiracy theory that "a group of people without regulation or examination determine the fate of the entire world." No such charge has been made against any other group of people in history. You don't get to take "Jews secretly run the world and cause all wars and enslave societies through central banking," take out the word "Jews" and replace it with "the NWO" or "a group of people" and act like you have separated the theory from the anti-Semitism. Having that perspective infers that you are a "useful idiot" as Lenin meant it. Your argument is a deliberate distraction from the anti-Semitic origin and inherently anti-Semitic nature of the "NWO / central bank" conspiracy theory. Bullshit made up to make people hate Jews is no longer bullshit if we take the Jews out of the equation. It's still bullshit. Are we really to believe that anti-Semites in 19th century Europe stumbled upon THE TROOF and managed to describe with great accuracy the CONSPIRAZEE running the world, but then erred in attributing it to the Jews? Yeah that makes sense. We've got a return to "Fake but accurate" going on here. See, it doesn't matter that the conspiracy theory was created as a deliberate lie to inflame Jew-hatred. It's still accurate, just that Jew part is wrong because I'm never going to get anywhere if I keep the Jew-hating parts. So I'll drop those and then try to say with a straight face that my bullshit theory that was created out of whole cloth to make people hate Jews is not bullshit, it's accurate, the origins and motivations behind it are meaningless, despite being created solely for the purpose of Jew-hatred, the conspiracy theory is still accurate and not necessarily anti-Semitic, just take the blame-the-Jews part out. Whatever man, if you want to fool yourself, that's up to you. Just don't expect too many others to be similarly hoodwinked.
No. You are so blinded by your desire to pigeon-hole me into this position that you can't see what I am attempting to say.
My thoughts are completely unrelated to NWO conspiracies or Jews. I should not have participated in this thread, as I did not intend in fighting a battle that you are set on involving my thoughts in.
I'm speaking to this: http://www.ted.com/talks/james_b_glattfelder_who_controls_the_world.html
Again, these critical issues transcend nationality, race, and religion. The Jews just aren't that important.
|
On August 29 2013 03:53 dsousa wrote:Poll: Has the US/NATO sufficiently justified its proposed attack on Syria?No (37) 73% Yes (14) 27% 51 total votes Your vote: Has the US/NATO sufficiently justified its proposed attack on Syria? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Its crazy to me this is even close.
Patriotism is OP.
|
On August 29 2013 05:07 Vivax wrote:
UN: "If Syria uses gas we will intervene"
Assad: "No gas here boys"
UN: "Errr.."
-A few months later-
Assad: "Better use that gas that will give everyone and their mother a reason to attack me even though the rebels are already failing on the conventional field, and then let UN inspectors in to confirm it"
You: "Yea right, like you'd be so stupid"
UN: "U used gas n00b"
Newspapers: "You heard what the UN said? Syria used gas! Gogogog"
If I look at some newspaper comments it's like everybody around here doesn't believe the shit the media write any more.
It would be so illogical from Syria to use chemical weapons.
Yeah these arguments that it would be so illogical for Syria to use chemical weapons so they wouldn't aren't logical in and of themselves. They take the perspective of a purportedly rational and moderate Westerner who thinks that if he were in Assad's position, of course he wouldn't use WMD because he *knows* it would be the end of him as the US and allied militaries would, in his mind, undoubtedly fall on him like a ton of bricks.
Unfortunately for this argument, heads of state are not the legal construct of a "reasonable person," they are living, breathing human beings. Chemical weapons were already used numerous times in the last year and absolutely nothing was done by the West about it. So why would Assad think that NATO would go all-out regime change on him if he used some more? He has Russia in his corner and China kinda-sorta in his corner as well. The United States in the presidency of Barack Obama has an international reputation for being weak and vacillating. Our threats aren't believed.
It's perfectly logical to use chemical weapons when you think that the West in general and the US specifically is too pussy to come after you and go for the kill. Looks like that has been a very accurate assessment on the part of Assad.
On August 29 2013 05:13 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 04:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:42 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 04:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:05 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:00 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 03:55 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 03:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 29 2013 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:[quote] http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/29/former-conspiracy-theorist-when-they-say-‘illuminati’-or-‘reptiles’-they-mean-jews/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/youre_not_paranoid_if_its_true.htmlNo, the whole of it is anti-Semitic, and if you don't understand why, then you don't know enough about the origin and evolution of "NWO" "central bank" conspiracy theories, probably because you have not had enough exposure to the people who advocate such theories. Lucky you. What they mean when they say "NWO" is "Jews." What they mean when they say "central banks" is "Jews." What they mean when they rant about fiat currency or fractional reserve banking is "Jewish usurers." The mind does reel when people act like taking the prime anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of the last 200 years and replacing the word "Jews" with "NWO" means that it is no longer anti-Semitic. You're being taken for a ride nunez, how can you not notice the swastika hood ornament? [quote] What world do you live in? Have you even read any of this thread at all? Around half the posters here dismiss anything anti-Assad because it's "US" or "UK" or "Israeli" and obviously lies because imperialism blah blah blah, while propaganda coming out of the Kremlin basement is linked as if it were holy writ. That kind of logic is terrible. So no-one is allowed to engage in this kind of conspiracy theorizing without being anti-semitic? To be honest i usually completely ignore most allegations of anti-semitism because i have seen it used so recklessly so many times that the whole thing is now just a total joke. Joseph Campbell, the world renowned mythologist, was subject to these allegations of anti-semitism because some jews didn't like him saying that their God was a myth. These allegations were delivered through the medium of newspaper articles all over the world. I'm not anti-semitic, but anyone who levels that accusation without real proof and personal experience is total dick. In other words, its an easy, lazy way to dismiss something without having to have a brain cell to be able to do it properly. EDIT: obviously allegations of anti-semitism aren't always this kind of lazy thinking, but when applied to huge groups of people and whole ways of thinking then they usually are. I sometimes dont understand people. "Someone I respect was being labeled anti-Semitic, therefore it is always wrong to label anyone anti-Semitic and I wont examine the actual claims of anti-Semitism here because its obviously wrong." Claiming that Syria is under attack because the Rothschild family of bankers want the Syrian bank to become 'owned by them' instead of 'owned by the Syrian state' is an anti-Semitic trope and has been one for a hundred years or so. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rothschilds_(film). I actually agree with you, if you focus on the fact that its a "Rothchilds" owned central bank, howvever, if you look at from purely a banking perspective it is still relevant. To what degree the Rothchilds are involved in central banking I have no idea. But currencies and the IMF are big deals and they help maintain a US dollar domination of the worlds financial system. That is a very big deal. Petrodollars are a big deal and something that the beneficiaries would surely fight for. Perhaps when she talks about the Rothchilds I dismiss it too quickly and you focus on it too much. I though she made 8 strong points, but perhaps you are not wrong in saying the first could be construed as anti-semitic. I didn't immediately see it that way, but I could see how someone would. What did you think of her other 7 points? The 7 other points are all out of the same anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, if she doesn't think it's the Jews she's a useful idiot for anti-Semites, if she does, she's an anti-Semite herself. Sounds like a wonderful PRISM from which to view the world. Well if you have anything like actual facts to back you up, let us know please. The fact is we're going to get involved in Syria. The question is why. Why do you think? Because after two and a half years of not getting openly involved, the pressure to do so has become too much to resist? Because chemical weapons use on such a scale is serious enough that something does have to be done about it? Moral considerations do play a large and influential role in decision-making at times, believe it or not. The whole UN-anchored international system created after WW2 was a reaction to the immorality and horror of the war, slaughter and destruction on a scale not seen since the Huns invaded Europe 1500 years before. The world and why things happen in it are a lot more complicated than the simplistic Manicheanism that pervades this forum and internet political discussions in general. On August 29 2013 04:49 Mora wrote:On August 29 2013 04:05 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:00 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 03:55 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 03:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 29 2013 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 01:48 nunez wrote:
[quote]
'jew scum' would be the anti-semitic part of that sentence, which you injected on your own. the mind reels. http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/29/former-conspiracy-theorist-when-they-say-‘illuminati’-or-‘reptiles’-they-mean-jews/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/youre_not_paranoid_if_its_true.htmlNo, the whole of it is anti-Semitic, and if you don't understand why, then you don't know enough about the origin and evolution of "NWO" "central bank" conspiracy theories, probably because you have not had enough exposure to the people who advocate such theories. Lucky you. What they mean when they say "NWO" is "Jews." What they mean when they say "central banks" is "Jews." What they mean when they rant about fiat currency or fractional reserve banking is "Jewish usurers." The mind does reel when people act like taking the prime anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of the last 200 years and replacing the word "Jews" with "NWO" means that it is no longer anti-Semitic. You're being taken for a ride nunez, how can you not notice the swastika hood ornament? dsousa
Sorry for being sarcastic, but this is a perfect example of how the story gets tilted. Every counter point can be dismissed as lack of proof, or questionable source, etc..... but when NATO says something they get the benefit of the doubt from the public despite having a serious credibility problem in recent history (NSA, Iraq, etc). What world do you live in? Have you even read any of this thread at all? Around half the posters here dismiss anything anti-Assad because it's "US" or "UK" or "Israeli" and obviously lies because imperialism blah blah blah, while propaganda coming out of the Kremlin basement is linked as if it were holy writ. That kind of logic is terrible. So no-one is allowed to engage in this kind of conspiracy theorizing without being anti-semitic? To be honest i usually completely ignore most allegations of anti-semitism because i have seen it used so recklessly so many times that the whole thing is now just a total joke. Joseph Campbell, the world renowned mythologist, was subject to these allegations of anti-semitism because some jews didn't like him saying that their God was a myth. These allegations were delivered through the medium of newspaper articles all over the world. I'm not anti-semitic, but anyone who levels that accusation without real proof and personal experience is total dick. In other words, its an easy, lazy way to dismiss something without having to have a brain cell to be able to do it properly. EDIT: obviously allegations of anti-semitism aren't always this kind of lazy thinking, but when applied to huge groups of people and whole ways of thinking then they usually are. I sometimes dont understand people. "Someone I respect was being labeled anti-Semitic, therefore it is always wrong to label anyone anti-Semitic and I wont examine the actual claims of anti-Semitism here because its obviously wrong." Claiming that Syria is under attack because the Rothschild family of bankers want the Syrian bank to become 'owned by them' instead of 'owned by the Syrian state' is an anti-Semitic trope and has been one for a hundred years or so. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rothschilds_(film). I actually agree with you, if you focus on the fact that its a "Rothchilds" owned central bank, howvever, if you look at from purely a banking perspective it is still relevant. To what degree the Rothchilds are involved in central banking I have no idea. But currencies and the IMF are big deals and they help maintain a US dollar domination of the worlds financial system. That is a very big deal. Petrodollars are a big deal and something that the beneficiaries would surely fight for. Perhaps when she talks about the Rothchilds I dismiss it too quickly and you focus on it too much. I though she made 8 strong points, but perhaps you are not wrong in saying the first could be construed as anti-semitic. I didn't immediately see it that way, but I could see how someone would. What did you think of her other 7 points? The 7 other points are all out of the same anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, if she doesn't think it's the Jews she's a useful idiot for anti-Semites, if she does, she's an anti-Semite herself. Sounds like a wonderful PRISM from which to view the world. I can't help but agree with you. Antisemitism is an intention. If you have no ill-will towards Jewish people, then you aren't an anti-semite. Money controls the world and politics. Obviously? Whether the people who control the money are Jewish or not is irrelevant. Having this perspective does not infer that I dislike Jews. If other people share this perspective, and also happen to be antisemitic, any correlation between the two is a false one. Drawing a correlation between the two is a distraction from the critical issues caused when a group of people without regulation or examination determine the fate of the entire world. We sure have a lot of pretzel-twisting to justify an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory here today. Banalities like "money controls the world and politics" does not dissipate the anti-Semitic core of the conspiracy theory that "a group of people without regulation or examination determine the fate of the entire world." No such charge has been made against any other group of people in history. You don't get to take "Jews secretly run the world and cause all wars and enslave societies through central banking," take out the word "Jews" and replace it with "the NWO" or "a group of people" and act like you have separated the theory from the anti-Semitism. Having that perspective infers that you are a "useful idiot" as Lenin meant it. Your argument is a deliberate distraction from the anti-Semitic origin and inherently anti-Semitic nature of the "NWO / central bank" conspiracy theory. Bullshit made up to make people hate Jews is no longer bullshit if we take the Jews out of the equation. It's still bullshit. Are we really to believe that anti-Semites in 19th century Europe stumbled upon THE TROOF and managed to describe with great accuracy the CONSPIRAZEE running the world, but then erred in attributing it to the Jews? Yeah that makes sense. We've got a return to "Fake but accurate" going on here. See, it doesn't matter that the conspiracy theory was created as a deliberate lie to inflame Jew-hatred. It's still accurate, just that Jew part is wrong because I'm never going to get anywhere if I keep the Jew-hating parts. So I'll drop those and then try to say with a straight face that my bullshit theory that was created out of whole cloth to make people hate Jews is not bullshit, it's accurate, the origins and motivations behind it are meaningless, despite being created solely for the purpose of Jew-hatred, the conspiracy theory is still accurate and not necessarily anti-Semitic, just take the blame-the-Jews part out. Whatever man, if you want to fool yourself, that's up to you. Just don't expect too many others to be similarly hoodwinked. No. You are so blinded by your desire to pigeon-hole me into this position that you can't see what I am attempting to say. My thoughts are completely unrelated to NWO conspiracies or Jews. I should not have participated in this thread, as I did not intend in fighting a battle that you are set on involving my thoughts in. I'm speaking to this: http://www.ted.com/talks/james_b_glattfelder_who_controls_the_world.htmlAgain, these critical issues transcend nationality, race, and religion. The Jews just aren't that important.
I saw what you were attempting to say, it was bullshit.
Now you are attempting to say something similar but vitally different, and it is still mostly bullshit. Just less rank bullshit. Glattfelder oversimplifies, as is usual for someone trying to explain something as ridiculous as "who controls the world." Ownership networks of shareholder relations show that a small cabal controls the world? I notice that Glattfelder neglected to mention what is meant by "control." I notice he neglected to mention how these ownership networks rule the world in practice. It's just "they're interconnected, we modeled their network, they control the world." Where is the coordination between the nodes? Where is the actual evidence of a highly interconnected network with a core that is controlling the actions of the network? Where is the evidence of an actual organization? I am not seeing any evidence of anything like "control of the world" in this talk. Just evidence that a relatively small number of shareholders own a majority of shares in "trans-national corporations," and of course the assumption that "TNCs" run the world is implicit and not questioned or given any skepticism at all. This is of course a grossly inaccurate oversimplification of the world, but hey, he's giving a TED talk, and we know all those technocrats at TED are visionary geniuses who probably can't be wrong! Because technocrats base their beliefs on science.
|
And there we go again: USA claims "proof" without really have any. UK joins in. Lets make a prognosis:
Lot of people die, Syria will even more destabilized, USA´s arm industry gets money, USA in total will spend lots of money leading into another bad financial situation. Later on, no one will ever actually proof that Assad used any C-weapons but F**CK IT DEMOCRACY!
Sounds stupid? Yes, but where is the really difference to Iraq?
Meanwhile in Germany: Press mostly tries to encourage war, while the populace disagrees. So lets wait: In 1 month elections over and our "representatives" will do whatever they want totally ignoring the populace´s stand on this.
Oh, and we will have to bail out Greece once again with tax money.
Sad times ...
|
|
|
On August 29 2013 05:09 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 05:07 Vivax wrote:
UN: "If Syria uses gas we will intervene"
Assad: "No gas here boys"
UN: "Errr.."
-A few months later-
Assad: "Better use that gas that will give everyone and their mother a reason to attack me even though the rebels are already failing on the conventional field, and then let UN inspectors in to confirm it"
You: "Yea right, like you'd be so stupid"
UN: "U used gas n00b"
Newspapers: "You heard what the UN said? Syria used gas! Gogogog"
If I look at some newspaper comments it's like everybody around here doesn't believe the shit the media write any more.
It would be so illogical from Syria to use chemical weapons. And its highly unlikely the rebels even have access to chemical weapons let alone the means to use them yet someone had to have made the attack.
in may the un investigators suspected the rebels used chemical weapons.
i think you were the one who claimed they back peddled, but when asked to source it you left me wanting.
where did you read that they back peddled?
|
|
|
Is there any word by the UN that Assad used chemical weapons ? All we got before was the US with "undeniable" proof.
On August 29 2013 05:26 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 05:09 Zaros wrote:On August 29 2013 05:07 Vivax wrote:
UN: "If Syria uses gas we will intervene"
Assad: "No gas here boys"
UN: "Errr.."
-A few months later-
Assad: "Better use that gas that will give everyone and their mother a reason to attack me even though the rebels are already failing on the conventional field, and then let UN inspectors in to confirm it"
You: "Yea right, like you'd be so stupid"
UN: "U used gas n00b"
Newspapers: "You heard what the UN said? Syria used gas! Gogogog"
If I look at some newspaper comments it's like everybody around here doesn't believe the shit the media write any more.
It would be so illogical from Syria to use chemical weapons. And its highly unlikely the rebels even have access to chemical weapons let alone the means to use them yet someone had to have made the attack. in may the un investigators suspected the rebels used chemical weapons. i think you were the one who claimed they back peddled, but when asked to source it you left me wanting. where did you read that they back peddled?
Note to self : Never fuck with Nunez memory.
|
William Hague has played down the prospects of an imminent attack on Syria, saying talks about the crisis could go on at the United Nations "over the coming days".
Speaking after a meeting of Britain's National Security Council, the foreign secretary said the UN security council should "shoulder its responsibility" over Syria; if it failed to do so, however, Britain and and its allies would act on their own.
"This is the first use of chemical warfare in the 21st century," he said. "It has to be unacceptable. We have to confront something that is a war crime, something that is a crime against humanity."
Britain and the other four permanent members of the security council have begun talks in New York on a resolution proposed by Britain that would authorise the use of military force in Syria as a response to its use of chemical weapons last week.
Russia and China are firmly opposed to a security council resolution allowing force, and British government officials admit their initiative is likely to fail. But Labour said on Wednesday it would not support the government in Thursday's Commons vote unless ministers had tried to win security council agreement.
Hague said: "It is time the United Nations security council shoulders its responsibility on Syria, which for the last two and a half years it has failed to do.
Source
|
This somewhat not really related but interesting to note. Isreal never signed the bio weapon contract. They signed the chemical weapon contract though but never ratified it. Therefore they don´t fall under international law if they would produce and use gas.
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table.
|
The fact is we're going to get involved in Syria.
The question is why. Why do you think?
pipelineistan. google it. google it well.
|
On August 29 2013 05:39 Godwrath wrote:Is there any word by the UN that Assad used chemical weapons ? All we got before was the US with "undeniable" proof. Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 05:26 nunez wrote:On August 29 2013 05:09 Zaros wrote:On August 29 2013 05:07 Vivax wrote:
UN: "If Syria uses gas we will intervene"
Assad: "No gas here boys"
UN: "Errr.."
-A few months later-
Assad: "Better use that gas that will give everyone and their mother a reason to attack me even though the rebels are already failing on the conventional field, and then let UN inspectors in to confirm it"
You: "Yea right, like you'd be so stupid"
UN: "U used gas n00b"
Newspapers: "You heard what the UN said? Syria used gas! Gogogog"
If I look at some newspaper comments it's like everybody around here doesn't believe the shit the media write any more.
It would be so illogical from Syria to use chemical weapons. And its highly unlikely the rebels even have access to chemical weapons let alone the means to use them yet someone had to have made the attack. in may the un investigators suspected the rebels used chemical weapons. i think you were the one who claimed they back peddled, but when asked to source it you left me wanting. where did you read that they back peddled? Note to self : Never fuck with Nunez memory.
ahaha, i think you're misunderstanding. the "back peddle"-post was just a couple of days back tops, even though the claims came in may. my memory is so-so.
|
On August 29 2013 05:45 Nachtwind wrote:
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table.
The proposed plan of firing cruise missiles doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. I'm assuming it's what Washington, London, and Paris wish to do as it's both cheap and sends a message that the US and her allies will get involved if you use chemical weaponry. The problem is that it only really strengthens Russia's position, it won't cause the rebels to defeat Assad, and it further de-stabilizes the country allowing more Wahabi groups to operate in Syria.
|
On August 29 2013 06:16 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 05:45 Nachtwind wrote:
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table. The proposed plan of firing cruise missiles doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. I'm assuming it's what Washington, London, and Paris wish to do as it's both cheap and sends a message that the US and her allies will get involved if you use chemical weaponry. The problem is that it only really strengthens Russia's position, it won't cause the rebels to defeat Assad, and it further de-stabilizes the country allowing more Wahabi groups to operate in Syria.
In my opinion it makes a ton of sense. Simply said it's the best of all the bad options the US has. They can't do nothing. They can't go with heavy ground troops action because that would make the current US government really unpopular and (correct me if I'm wrong here) guarantee a Republican as the next president.
So then it's just missiles and maybe a no-fly zone left. Which is still weak and won't solve anything, but it's at least something, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
