Conspiracy Talk Archive December 18 2011

 

Use our posting form to send us conpiracy talk.

18 Dec 2011 23:02:04
i suggest you all read this! Montauk and the secret government

www.bibliotecapleyades.net/montauk/esp_montauk_15.htm

Azza

Believable2 Unbelievable2

Having read it, sure sounds like the old TV program the Time Tunnel. With some 2012 propoganda thrown in.

Agree0 Disagree0

Used to love the re-runs of Time-Tunnel in the 70's. It was, back in the day, the most expensive TV program made.
Unfortunately the re-runs on kids TV from Tyne Tees ( my region at that time) where never in order, very infuriating

Agree0 Disagree0

18 Dec 2011 17:30:47
Regarding the radioactive material found in russian airport, does anybody think this radioactive package that was on its way to Iran is a fix in order to give American and Nato and excuse to attack Iran?

Halewood Red

Believable0 Unbelievable2

I think the fact it happened in russia speaks volumes.

But remember the Iranians are not exactly innocents either. Just look at them getting a mob of soldiers dressed in civvies to smash into the British Embassy.

Agree2 Disagree0

Britain isnt exactly innocent either,wherever there is conflict....Britains is there.

Agree5 Disagree3

Never said we was, but there's a bit too much of this "O poor innocent Iran" rubbish going on. Their up there as one of the top 3 worst state sponsors of terrorism and yes i am counting the yanks in that.

Agree2 Disagree1

I wasn't suggesting that Iran was innocent but do you think that they would have better ways off getting the material in. I just thought maybe they were making it public so when they started attacks they could have a good excuse for doing so

Halewood Red

Agree1 Disagree0

So why is it ok for us (uk) and USA to have nuclear weapons, but when someone else does, it's an atrocity and we must intervene?
Getting more ridiculous as each day passes!

Peace

Jay
Glasgow

Agree3 Disagree0

If I may, countries like Britain, America and France are all stable democracies. I can't really see us or the French ever using them. Even Russia is more stable than previously under the Communists.

Then you have places like Pakistan which are very unstable, North Korea which is becoming unstable and Iran which is ran by a loon. So a far more scary prospect is unstable countries having technology like that.

I'm against nuclear weapons per se and i think its the responsibility of the current nulcear powers to stop the spread. Russia and China should get on board help get rid of them in these other states and then once thats done start on the path of getting rid of their own!

Agree4 Disagree2

I see what your trying to say, but honestly, do you think we, the French and USA are really that stable? I doubt it very much so, even mainstream media is showing all of our economy's falling apart.
Also, if we dont need them like you say, why do we have so much? All I'm saying is, that its very hypocritical to go around disarming the world of nuclear weapons while your own stock grows larger!

I hate that my country is part of this huge bully boy alliance with the yanks, arming small country's then invading and bombing them.

Peace

Jay
Glasgow {Ed001's Note - do you not think the media is deliberately trying to stop the country from coming out of recession by telling us all the time that we are in one? That's the way it seems to me. Every time spending picks up in the shops, the news has numerous items on double dips etc until everyone gets nervous and stops spending.}

Agree0 Disagree0

Spot on ed!

Peace

Jay

Agree1 Disagree0

Agree with you edd and jay, as for the iran leader being a nutter,its being drip feed to us he is dangerous ,reading books and watching old footage about the 1960s, castro was that supposed nuttter , i will say no more.
frankyscouse

Agree1 Disagree0

Ed001 i hadn't realised that, but now i think of it that does seem to happen.

Jay i just meant that we are more stable than a place like Pakistan where there's a military coup every decade, North Korea which now has a new untested leader and Iran which is a very strange place. The people aren't entirely happy with there lot, the leadership isn't prepared to give them anything. Its funny. As i said i'd like to see nuclear weapons gone altogether of course. Its just we having started this arms race off have a responsibility to end it. That means sorting the poorer countries out first then getting rid of our own. i think its abd how much the developed countries spend on them never mind a country like India with millions in poverty.

Frankie, i get where you are coming from re Castro, but Castro never had any real nuclear ambitions or would have used them unless an actual invasion want on.

Ahmadinejad though is well, lets just say the cheese has well and truly slid off his cracker. I knew a guy at Uni, a Russian, and he's had dealing in iran and he says its a fact the guy aint got a full deck. And the Russians are the ones who are supposed to back him and if there a bit wary...!

Agree0 Disagree0

"If I may, countries like Britain, America and France are all stable democracies. I can't really see us or the French ever using them. Even Russia is more stable than previously under the Communists.". A ridiculous statement. There have been two nuclear attacks, Hiroshima and Nagasaki - both carried out by America, a supposedly stable democracy.

{Ed033's Note - This "stable democracies" stuff comes straight from the BBC propaganda machine and Russia is still under the Communists. Believe it or not Britain, America and France are under the Communists as well as the NWO agenda is essentially communism where a tiny elite have everything and everyone else has the same i.e. nothing.}

Agree1 Disagree0

So y exactly is the head of iran nuts? the only speech i seen was him sayin 9 11 was inside job which doesnt seem that nuts 2 me, btw im in no way stickin up 4 him im jus cluless?

Agree0 Disagree0

"A ridiculous statement. There have been two nuclear attacks, Hiroshima and Nagasaki - both carried out by America, a supposedly stable democracy. "

That was in the War, and hoe many have the yanks used since? er 0. cos they saw what the effect was.

The point i was making was that the western nuclear powers are more stable than a place like Pakistan where there is a military coup every decade. When did the military last overtly run Britain or America?

Ok Russia is a different kettle of fish and i can see them sliding back towards communism, but even then the Russians never used nuclear weapons.

As fir the Iranian president, my ex Uni Russian buddy has worked in Iran, can't say specific details, and he says the guy isn't the full shilling, what you see in public especially on state media is very carefully orchestrated. They are very wary of the dude especially given past public (and private) statements and his nuclear ambitions, this is why the Russians always act more conciliatory to them. Next time i'm in Moscow i'll ask Roman for some stories shall i?

Agree0 Disagree0

Your russian buddy who worked or works in iran describes the iran president as not the full shilling?a bold statement inplying he knows or someone who knows him?
frankyscouse

Agree0 Disagree0

Lets just say he isnt the full shilling, what about cameron?
he made a very stupid comment after Gaddafi's death which shows he also aint the full shilling.
he said the every victim of the i.r.a should be rembered when Gaddafi died because of the use of Libyan semtex. quite a statement to make when he arms almost half the globe.

peace

Jay
Glasgow

Agree1 Disagree0

Excellent reply jay.
frankyscouse

Agree0 Disagree0

Franky he's done a lot of work over there both for the Russian Govt and a couple of private companies. As such he knows a few people in certain Iranian govt circles and most of the senior Embassy Staff. Russians being hard core drinkers tend to get pissed off duty and swap stories. Some of which he hinted at to me but he wouldn't go into details as in his words you never know who is listening and he didn't want to drop any of his buddies in it. The general impression i got was that he has a very carefully cultivated public image designed to appeal to certain sections of the public, no different from any western politician, however underneath this is the real man and he's a bit trippy. Some of the stuff that has appeared in the media before about him being a bit screwy are, i am , assured quite correct. Next time i am in Moscow i'll ask after the 3rd bottle of stoly.

Jay i get where you are coming from, don't think we arm half the globe, i am sure america and russia have bigger arms sales than us. Also i do think the victims of the ira do get forgotten but thats another argument.

Agree0 Disagree0

Fair play m8, I may have exaggerated a little, but it's known that we sell arms, hence Camerons statement being quite hypocritical.

Peace

Jay
Glasgow

Agree0 Disagree0

Cheers feller for explaing your buddy.
frankyscouse

Agree0 Disagree0

18 Dec 2011 15:46:28
I watched a youtube conference last week, (cant remember who was talking) but he mentioned the so called riots a few months ago, and he said that london liverpool manchester in fact everywhere, did you actually see anyone rioting?. We saw looting, we saw that tv getting ripped off the wall three times an hour every hour, we saw buildings burning but no petrol bombs thrown, going back to the toxteth riots when i was 12, we all seen the rioters on cameras/video but with all the cctv we have now, sky itv bbc show a few shops getting robbed and a crowd watching, the mainstream media done their job because people on social network sites calling for the army and real bullets, tezting the water for a police state me thinks.
Frankyscouse

{Ed033's Note - The following link is similar to what you describe above - www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=80&part=1

Believable1 Unbelievable1

Didnt the government claim it was public disorder at first so that they wouldnt have to pay compensation?once boris picked up a sweeping brush thats when we knew the streets where safe.

Agree0 Disagree1

I think its a bit more than paying compo my friend, i think its get our country in such a state that everyone will be begging for the army or the very least all police to be armed, then the **** will hit the fan, gradually our voice has gone threw the decades from the unions being dismantled to getting taxed by everything except oxygen, as a country we all need to wake up, be more like the french, if they don't like anything there goverment does they All strike. Frankyscouse

Agree5 Disagree4

To the people who disagreed with my last point, iwould like to know why you don't agree. Frankyscouse

Agree0 Disagree2

I don't know either franky but please stop giving them ideas especially taxing oxygen i for one hope they have not already seen this as i fear they will be voting it in as i type I just wonder how they would implement the tax against animals and plants. lol

Agree2 Disagree0

I never clicked disagree but i will have a go.

Basically striking never achieves anything it only costs you support. The last major successful strike in this country was the 1974 general strike which toppled the Heath govt and in the end that only caused the downfall of the unions as it helped the rise of Thatcher. When the NUM tried to repeat '74 by coming out in 1984 they had an enemy who was far tougher than Heath and she used to to break the unions. Its taken the unions 30 years to recover and there's only the public sector ones left. The over 50's fat cats that run these public sector unions remember the glory days and all they care about is getting revenge on the Tories for the 80's and trying to give Cameron a bloody nose. They will fail because like '84 they don't have widespread support, if anything they have less than they did in '84. Incidentally mnay families of the striking miners from the '84 strike are still in debt to this day.

Onto your example of France. Do you think constantly being on strike has achieved anything in France? By allowing people to retire in the early to mid 50's they have pushed up the welfare state budget massively over the years and now they cannot cope with it. This is why France is starting to creak. This is why Sarkozy wants to raise the retirement age because he knows they can't afford it. But the barricades will soon be out and they'll be on strike, maybe even win concessions and France's debts will carry on going up. So yeah the Fench have had their fun out of striking but never considered the long term consquences and now the chickens are coming home to roost because Socialists can never do long term sums.

Agree3 Disagree0

A few good points you have made,there has to be a balance,the unions has no power today that is why the private sector can do what they want and the working class have to take it,as for your miners still being in debt, thats my whole point about the french, what ever beef they had with there goverment they ALL backed each other, so if we were like that back in the late 70 when the miners went on strike everyone would have backed them, interesting you mentioned miners , we inport our coal even thou we have the resources here,as for the french i like there spirit, our country had it once, frankyscouse

Agree1 Disagree0

Franky it was the miners that started off the '74 strike, all the other unions did back them and it caused the collapse of the Heath govt. in 1984 the miners tried to repeat the trick and do it again, this time the other unions did not stand with the NUM.

Many working men ended up massively in debt through that strike. Where was union solidarity then? They backed the '74 strike cos they did very well out of it. In '84 they left the miners to face Thatchers crackdown. Crack police riot units bused in to smash into working guys twice there age, but the other unions did nowt to assist, barely even helping wives and young kids out in a time of need.

I come from an (extinct) mining family.

I agree there has to be balance, but i get the feeling that a lot of the modern union big wigs couldn't give a toss for the members, their too isolated away from the rank and file with their massive salaries and big houses, they've become what they once fought against, o the irony. They just want to stick it too the Tories but don't realise they have no support. They claim it was some sort of success to have 2 million out on the streets. It did nothing for them, look at how some of them have been back tracking in recent weeks.

Don't get me wrong i like France, but they always kick off over the wrong things, they've had it soft for 40 years and now its a crisis they can't cope, as usual.

Agree2 Disagree0

Mate i am not backing any goverment, they are all bent and on the take, and i take your point about the miners,i just want the working classes to have a voice because now days we moan but no action, we just bend over and everyone looks after number1.
frankyscouse

Agree1 Disagree0

Yes i agree Franky, but the Labour party was supposed to be our voice and what happened?

Tony the Tory went sucking up to the middle class to get elected whilst Gordon went bunging well off middle class doctors and teachers tax credits whilst scraping the 10p tax rate which hit the low paid working class. Now i expected that off the Tories, not my own party which is why i did not vote for them at the election and i told my sitting Labour MP that to his face. He ended up losing his seat (with re-drawn boundaries) by just 6 votes. Think it was the 2nd closest seat in the country.

Now Labour have Milliband the younger in charge, another middle class posho who doesn't know what life is like and he's a clueless muppet. Now i expect an Ed will say no mp's do know what life is like, but once Labour had people like Blunkett for example who were working class in origin, and who had respect of the core Labour voters. Now we have what?

Agree3 Disagree0

U mention 1 decent politician that sez it all,i would rather vote for the raving looney party. and i mean that.
frankyscouse

Agree1 Disagree0

Franky mate it was a struggle to get Blunkett. But thats the sad state of the Labour party and to a lesser extent the LD's.

{Ed033's Note - Ed Milliband's nickname in political circles is allegedly Forest Gump.}

Agree0 Disagree0