NWO, Police State and Real Options....

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by bogeyman

I think the rebels in IRAQ are giving you a great example of how to rebuff a police state.

As you can surmise.....I hold little faith the US will turn from the path it is currently on. However we do have a responsiblity that when our government fails to act in our best interest- to remove it. First by peaceful means- then by whatever means neccessary.

The U.S. has the best equipped troops in the world- yet they are made a mockery of by the guerrila tactics used by the rebels/insurgents. How many more here will take up that mindset when they realize what has been done- thats anyones guess.

Emphasis added.

This is the general idea.

Let us pray for a peaceful remedy. Although, time seems to be running out.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by bogeyman

The U.S. has the best equipped troops in the world- yet they are made a mockery of by the guerrila tactics used by the rebels/insurgents. How many more here will take up that mindset when they realize what has been done- thats anyones guess.

I will have to disagree with this statement. Iraq has had a free election. The rebels/insurgents didn't stop it. Iraq has written its own constitution. The rebels/insurgents didn't stop it.

And the rebels/insurgents hide and work by stealth... and still get caught or killed. The rebels/insurgents are not winning any war and that cannot be equated with "making a mockery of" the U.S. forces.

And remember this one important point, the majority of the rebels/insurgents are not even IRAQI's... they come from outside of Iraq. They are there for only one purpose - to keep any sort of "freedom" or "liberty" for ALL people from happening in the region.

Ice

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Ice

I will have to disagree with this statement. Iraq has had a free election. The rebels/insurgents didn't stop it. Iraq has written its own constitution. The rebels/insurgents didn't stop it.

This is a very difficult issue to deal with, there are people killing, and being killed. However, I feel that I must comment on this very sensitive issue.

Regarding the above quote, it is not clear that the election or the constitution was done freely. They may be free when the US occupation forces are removed.

And the rebels/insurgents hide and work by stealth... and still get caught or killed. The rebels/insurgents are not winning any war and that cannot be equated with "making a mockery of" the U.S. forces.

The rebels would likely be killed more quickly if they did not work by stealth. The rebels are up against a superior technological, and probably, numerical force. I don't think that they want to play to the US strengths.

Yes, this shows how such a limited resistance can persist against such a superior force.

And remember this one important point, the majority of the rebels/insurgents are not even IRAQI's... they come from outside of Iraq. They are there for only one purpose - to keep any sort of "freedom" or "liberty" for ALL people from happening in the region.

I know that the US psy-ops, and the US media says that the rebels are not IRAQI's. What does it matter? Are the US forces IRAQI's? Of course not! This is now a civil war, which the US unleashed.

I also know that the US got involved in this current conflict based on lies from the Bush administration. This nation is violating its own Constitution by starting this war. This WAR was/is not in defense of this nation, not counting the Bush administration's "pack-of-lies". The US should get out of this situation as soon as possible. All of this confusion, merely displays the friuts of war (mostly death and destruction).

http://www.reopen911.org/inaug.htm

The US should stop exporting war. What we send out into the world, may return to haunt us. In the final analyzes it is We The People who own the government, and not the reverse.

"We will breast... every misfortune save that only of living under a government of unlimited powers. We owe every other sacrifice to ourselves, to our federal brethren, and to the world at large to pursue with temper and perseverance the great experiment which shall prove that man is capable of living in society, governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property and peace; and further to show that even when the government of its choice shall manifest a tendency to degeneracy, we are not at once to despair, but that the will and the watchfulness of its sounder parts will reform its aberrations, recall it to original and legitimate principles, and restrain it within the rightful limits of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. ME 17:445

Once the US occupation is removed, than Iraqi's might be free, I pray, in time.

[Ice]

I didn't intend to open a can of worms with my statement.

My point was really simple. The rebels/insurgents are not making a "mockery of" the U.S. forces.

I would have to disagree with the statement that it is a "civil" war in Iraq. The rebels/insurgents are foreigners... how does that make it a "civil" war?? It appears that these "foreigners" are attempting to influence, by force and threat, the path of the Iraq nation.

Stop and ask yourself this question: Would Iraq be better off being a model of the Taliban state of Afghanistan, a model of Iran or a nation that offers freedom and liberty to all men and women in Iraq?

If the U.S. left right now... there would be more than just a civil war in Iraq. Surrounding nations and other would be despots are more than willing to attempt a take over of Iraq.

As far as "lies" of the Bush Admin. List the 4 other reasons (other than wmd's) the Admin used for going to Iraq. If you can prove those reasons to be lies then I'd agree.

What a lot of folks don't understand, or just simply fail to acknowledge, is that Iraq (Saddam) had a contract with the U.N. and upon his failure of his obligation certain actions would be taken. The U.N. allowed Saddam to "fail" for 13 years... and still hesitated. Well, how can there be a One World Government if the body that seeks to be the "throne" of that government acts like a little wimp in the face of someone like Saddam?? The U.S., as one of the parties to that contract, with other parties of the contract, enforced the terms of the contract. Result: Saddam is out of power and we have this current situation. And, of course, the U.N. is still perceived to be the world governing body. (And I'll bet that the majority of the people of the several states don't want the U.S. in the U.N. Anybody ever see any numbers on that question?).

But all things considered... we could have just left it all alone and Saddam would still be there doing the things he always did and we would have eventually been brought to the Middle East whenever Middle Eastern nations that the U.S. supports are threatened.

One way or another the U.S. would be involved in a Military Action in the Middle East. This fact is difficult to deny.

And while all that is going on... we're still punching away at making change here. The more we struggle for change within our local communities the more changes we can make in the Federal body. If we want to keep out of the business of other nations then we need to concentrate on making changes. The first order of business is to find non-attornies willing to be public servants.

Ice

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Ice

I didn't intend to open a can of worms with my statement.

My point was really simple. The rebels/insurgents are not making a "mockery of" the U.S. forces.

I would have to disagree with the statement that it is a "civil" war in Iraq. The rebels/insurgents are foreigners... how does that make it a "civil" war?? It appears that these "foreigners" are attempting to influence, by force and threat, the path of the Iraq nation.

The point that I am making is that I don't know who the players are. Where is the evidence that most of the rebels are foreigners? Have the rebels given statments on the issue? It may be a civil war, or some other war. Yet, this war was started by the US (pun intended). And the results are the fruits of war. We should look for other ways to reslove our disagreements.

In any event, the US should not be involved.

Stop and ask yourself this question: Would Iraq be better off being a model of the Taliban state of Afghanistan, a model of Iran or a nation that offers freedom and liberty to all men and women in Iraq?

I am asking myself, what gives the US the right to make other nations follow our ideas, and make them into what the US government thinks that they should be? Why are we nation building?

If the U.S. left right now... there would be more than just a civil war in Iraq. Surrounding nations and other would be despots are more than willing to attempt a take over of Iraq.

When will the US reach the point that it can leave? Isn't it strange that the Iraqi's were able to keep other nations, and despots, out of their nations concerns prior to the US involvement. Yet, after several years, Iraqi's still cannot defend themselves with massive, direct US help. It makes me wonder how much many Iraqi's support the current US supported government.

As far as "lies" of the Bush Admin. List the 4 other reasons (other than wmd's) the Admin used for going to Iraq. If you can prove those reasons to be lies then I'd agree.

Why should I have to list any other reason(s) than WNDs? The war is based on lies. Why should we now look for reasons to justify the lie?

What a lot of folks don't understand, or just simply fail to acknowledge, is that Iraq (Saddam) had a contract with the U.N. and upon his failure of his obligation certain actions would be taken. The U.N. allowed Saddam to "fail" for 13 years... and still hesitated. Well, how can there be a One World Government if the body that seeks to be the "throne" of that government acts like a little wimp in the face of someone like Saddam?? The U.S., as one of the parties to that contract, with other parties of the contract, enforced the terms of the contract. Result: Saddam is out of power and we have this current situation. And, of course, the U.N. is still perceived to be the world governing body. (And I'll bet that the majority of the people of the several states don't want the U.S. in the U.N. Anybody ever see any numbers on that question?).

Whatever the contract was that Saddam had with the UN, it did not authorize the US to use force at its discretion. The UN Security Council did not vote to go to war with Iraq. In fact the UN seem to think (Mr. Blix) that Saddam was following the agreement. I believe that the UN asked the US not to act on its own in any case.

But all things considered... we could have just left it all alone and Saddam would still be there doing the things he always did and we would have eventually been brought to the Middle East whenever Middle Eastern nations that the U.S. supports are threatened.

One way or another the U.S. would be involved in a Military Action in the Middle East. This fact is difficult to deny.

Who knows how the future would have unfolded?

However, the US should stick to defending this nation, based on the Constitution, and not based on UN resolutions, or lies.

And while all that is going on... we're still punching away at making change here. The more we struggle for change within our local communities the more changes we can make in the Federal body. If we want to keep out of the business of other nations then we need to concentrate on making changes. The first order of business is to find non-attornies willing to be public servants.

We the People should stop doing wrong.

[Ice]

They have apprehended quite a few of those foreigners and the Iraqi people are "snitching" on them. Hell, they don't want others interfering with the opportunity the U.S. has provided them with.

I understand the points that have been made over the years in regards to the U.S. and its relationship with other nations. Personally, I don't think we should be all that involved with other nations except in trade. The problem is that any nation could gain the technology to blow us up. And one of the main responsibilities of the Fed is to protect our borders. So, like it or not, we will be involved with other governments, working deals of all types in an attempt to make sure our borders are protected.

If you want to know how many Iraqi's support the current government, ask an Iraqi. I have worked with several men from Iraq and they have expressed their anger at the fact that the U.S. did not take out Saddam the FIRST time. And now, some have already returned to Iraq and others are making preparations to do so. They want to be part of re-building their nation. And they are taking a lot of what they have learned here with them.

My point in regards the 5 reasons the U.S. went to Iraq is really simple. If you leave off the WMD's there are 4 other reasons, none of which have been proven to be lies, that were used to justify the action. A blanket statement that the action was based on "lies" based upon the fact that they have not proven there are WMD's isn't even close to the truth.

The UN security council created the contract and obligated themselves and member nations to it. The U.S., being a member, was obligated to that contract. The U.S. and several other member nations took action and fulfilled their obligation to the contract. This was not a "unilateral" action by the U.S. Don't put to much stock into what "Blix" sez. He's got his own problems and he wasn't anything more than an "inspector". The U.N. vote was being held up by those that were making money playing in Saddams sandbox... like the French and Germans. (If you were making millions from Joe Bob, would you want the coppers to bust him??) And let's not forget all the money that was being made from the "food for oil" program... a program which was not used to benefit any of the Iraqi people but was a cash cow for Saddam and many U.N. personel.

You can't force an unwilling servant to do the right thing. Therefore, find those that will serve you as you see fit... find the servant that will do the right thing. That makes change happen here.

Ice

[dadmoonbunny]

(point one) is that our KIDS are the ones being killed and maimed over there!!!
(point two) our white house resident violated the constitution by putting us into this conflict.
(point three) the ELECTED representatives have not upheld their othes of office and fulfilled their duties under the constitution by delegating the authority to make war, which can not be delegated.

REBUTTAL? (remember, practice your point by point skills)

SIC GORGIAMUS ALUS SUBJUCTATOS NUNC

Somethings you guys are overlooking in Iraq.

1) During the Iran Iraq war we supported and supplied Saddam.
2) The reason the US didn't "take him out the first time was because the other mideast nations did not want a US presence in the area. Threatened with oil embargos from them- the US backed off.
3) Saddam was poised to launch an attack into Israel ( late 90's) and the retaliation would have been Israel nuking Damascus and Bagdad. The US had been looking for an excuse to take him out ever since.

WMD's were long gone into Syria before the initial push of US forces into Bagdad. The other U.N. Security Counsel nations have almost all been found to be violating the U.N. trade embargo with IRAQ prior to the launch of hostilities. Gee no wonder they didn't want the US to go in.

The US will never "win" over there. This is completely impossible due the fact that the US is veiwed as a "Christian" nation. Muslims and Judeo/Christians are at odds, and always will be. This goes back to Abrahams two sons- Issac and Ishmael. It is family feud that is thousands of years old.

The only way to settle Iraq is to give the 4 major religious sects,their own area. Something that won't happen be cause Turkey is terrified that if the Iraqi Kurds get a homes state- the Turkish Kurds will revolt and take back the land Turkey swiped from them.

This whole situation is something that is only going to cost lives and money. It will never be fully resolved-ever. The US can't win ( welcome to the Vietnam of the new millenium) and the 4 major religious sects are never going to agree on anything but trying to win the power struggle so they can rule the land. The US may get their political puppets into place for time- but that will soon be forgotten as the tensions rise between the sects. Hell these guys have been fighting each other for GOD knows how long. To think we could "resolve" the situation when we can't even get Afgahanstan settled is ridiculous. The logistics there are much simpler and there is still major dissent, even with the government. Not that you ever see it in the news here.

We have got entirely too many problems here that need to be resolved first. Like getting our Gov't back and working for us, or demolishing the FEDRES. Not to mention our son's and daughters getting made cannon fodder for a enemy that is never concentrated in one area using guerllia tactics. Also they are getting help from the surrounding nations like Iran and Syria. Anyone think that Arabia is any less sypathetic???? Then follow the money trail. This is a whores game of global politics. Only whores win.

[Ice]

We have got entirely too many problems here that need to be resolved first.

My point exactly. We can't do anything to control the Fed until we can control our local and state reps. This is my goal. Let's not worry about all this kind of stuff and concentrate on taking back control.

By all means, keep an eye on these things... but let's not put so much time into them. Do what we can to make the changes that won't allow for such things to happen.

Ice

[weasel]

just got this in an email:

British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq?
Media blackout shadows why black op soldiers were arrested

Paul Joseph Watson | September 20 2005


In another example of how the Iraqi quagmire is deliberately designed to degenerate into a chaotic abyss, British SAS were caught attempting to stage a terror attack and the media have dutifully shut up about the real questions surrounding the incident.

What is admitted is that two British soldiers in Arab garb and head dress drove a car towards a group of Iraq police and began firing. According to the Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili, one policeman was shot dead and another was injured. Pictured below are the wigs and clothing that the soldiers were wearing.

The Arab garb is obviously undeniable proof that the operation, whatever its ultimate intention, was staged so that any eyewitnesses would believe it had been carried out by Iraqis.

This has all the indications of a frame up.

This is made all the more interesting by the fact that early reports cited as originating from BBC World Service radio stated that the car used contained explosives.




Was this another staged car bombing intended to keep tensions high? As you will discover later, the plan to keep Iraq divided and in turmoil is an actual policy directive that spans back over two decades.

The BBC reports that the car did contain, "assault rifles, a light machine gun, an anti-tank weapon, radio gear and medical kit. This is thought to be standard kit for the SAS operating in such a theatre of operations."

And are fake bushy black wigs and turbans standard kit for the SAS?

What happened to the early reports of explosives? Why has the media relentlessly reported on the subsequent rescue effort and failed to address these key questions?

The soldiers were arrested and taken to a nearby jail where they were confronted and interrogated by an Iraqi judge.

The initial demand from the puppet authorities that the soldiers be released was rejected by the Basra government. At that point tanks were sent in to 'rescue' the terrorists and the 'liberated' Iraqis started to riot, firebombing and pelting stones at the vehicles injuring British troops as was depicted in this dramatic Reuters photo.


As the SAS were being rescued 150 prisoners escaped from the jail. Was this intentional or just a result of another botched black op?

From this point on media coverage was monopolized by accounts of the rescue and the giant marauding pink elephant in the living room, namely why the soldiers were arrested in the first place, was routinely ignored.

The only outlet to ask any serious questions was Australian TV news which according to one viewer gave, "credibility to the 'conspiracy theorists' who have long claimed many terrorist acts in Iraq are, in fact, being initiated and carried out by US, British and Israeli forces."

Iran's top military commander Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr pointed the finger at the occupational government last week by publicly stating,

“The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies,” Zolqadr said.

“Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners”.

“If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers”.

That explanation has a lot of currency amongst ordinary Iraqis who have been direct witnesses to these bombings.

In the past we’ve asked questions about why so-called car bombings leave giant craters, in addition with eyewitness reports that helicopters were carrying out the attacks.

Throughout history we see the tactic of divide and conquer being used to enslave populations and swallow formerly sovereign countries by piecemeal. From the British stirring up aggression between different Indian tribes in order to foment division, to modern day Yugoslavia where the country was rejecting the IMF and world bank takeover before the Globalists broke it up and took the country piece by piece by arming and empowering extremists.


And so to Iraq, New York Times November 25th 2003, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations writes,

"To put most of its money and troops where they would do the most good quickly - with the Kurds and Shiites. The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad.... American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences."

Gelb argues for allowing the rebellion to escalate in order to create a divided Iraq.

And in 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote: "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."

So if the plan is to keep the different sects at each others' throats then who benefits from the chaos created by the endless bombings? President Bush's slip of the tongue when he stated, "it'll take time to restore chaos and order -- order out of chaos, but we will" seems less farcical in this light.

Plans for 4,000 NATO troops to replace US troops in Afghanistan will likely be mirrored in Iraq and the country will be used as a launch pad for the coming invasions of Syria and Iran.

It is certain that any reports coming out of Iraq accusing occupational forces of being behind car bombings will be brutally censored.

The Pentagon admitted before the war that independent journalists would be military targets and since then we've seen more journalists killed in Iraq over two and a half years than the entire seven year stretch of US involvement in Vietnam.

In many cases, such as that of Mazen Dana, an acclaimed hero who was killed after filming secret US mass graves, journalists are hunted down and executed because they record something that the occupational government doesn't want to reach the wider world.
Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena's car was fired upon and an Italian secret service agent killed after Sgrena was told by the group that kidnapped her that a threat to kill her if Italian troops didn't pull out of Iraq wasn't made by them. This means that Rumsfeld's Ministry of Truth in Iraq is putting out false statements by fake Jihad groups to try and maintain the facade that the resistance is run by brutal terrorists under the direction of Al-Qaeda/Iran/Syria or whoever else they want to bomb next.

Every high profile kidnapping brings with it eyewitness reports of white men in suits and police carrying out the abductions.