Conspiracy Talk Archive August 30 2013

 

Use our posting form to send us conpiracy talk.

30 Aug 2013 17:10:25
If all the talk of WW3/NWO is true - nukes are going to start flying, the majority of the population wiped out, we're going to be sent back to dark ages etc. My question is this, what (if anything) can we do? Or Are we literally destined to just fall in line with the NWO/Agenda21 teachings?

Believable0 Unbelievable2

Yeah, nowt we can do mate. We are litterally powerless. The NWO and powers that be have us by the balls. We have to just sit here and watch the show.

Just watched a clip about WW3. Thing is, this stuff has been on the internet for years, predicting and telling us what is going to happen, how it will build up etc. And everything I've watched over the years seem to be coming together NOW! Everythging is falling into place and we are watching it helplessly.

Good Luck to everyone and their families, I 100% beleive s*** will kick off soon. very soon


Geordie Al

Agree3 Disagree3

Well, that's a cheery reply Al:) thanks all the same though. I've seen a few YouTube clips but I'm only really just scratching the surface. I'm not sure what to believe, on one hand I can see all the NWO videos/evidence but on the other hand, I've heard a million stories of what the futures going to be like - all with so called evidence.
I don't want to offend anyone but I'm just learning about this so I'm trying to keep an open mind.

Angrychef - I posted the original but forgot to sign my name again.

Agree0 Disagree0

It won't be nukes Al it'll be chemical. More localised, and easier to play the blame game. And with OBL/Gaddafi/Saddam gone, the media need to create a new villain.

Ryan.

Agree1 Disagree1

I don't believe they will use nukes at all, nobody wins if they do! though this doesn't mean our future isn't bleak cause it is. Now Russia, think about it they need to create different sides (one person can't pless chess alone), Russia is all in on it.
Have a look at the pnac papers, Project for the New American Century, and please don't look at the online 'encyclopaedia' beginning with 'W', the site is not trustworthy.

Murp

Agree0 Disagree0

I don't think it will come to nuclear war either, but I think it will be hyped up in the press as just that.

Much like the Colld War, the military-industrial complex can generate loads of fear which in turn will lead to even more arms being bought.

More fear = more (very expensive) weapons, which in turn = lots of $$$ for those powerful companies.

The banks will also be readily funding these purchases as well because whilst it's costly to those fighting the wars, it's incredibly profitable to those funding them.

I think we'll have a repeat of the Cold War. No actual fighting will take place but the mere threat of nuclear warfare will force countries to buy lots of arms.

ConspiracyKen

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Aug 2013 11:02:19
Buenos ding dong diddly dios free thinkereenos, does anyone know why Gasland has been blocked in the UK by Youtube?
I've even tried to upload it to my Youtube channel, in order to share it to Facebook, but to no avail.
Any answers, or a way to work around it, would be greatly appreciated.
Muchos gracias

Believable0 Unbelievable0

If you have a chrome browser use "hola unblocker", that should work!

Agree1 Disagree0

Gracias anonymous amigo

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Aug 2013 09:32:46
Ironies of history: last time a UK PM was defeated on a war motion was 1782, when MPs voted to stop fighting American war of independence. No oil in Syria I'm guessing, only poor men, women and children being systematically murdered. Paddy Ashdown stating he is ashamed to be British says it all for me.

Believable0 Unbelievable0

Don't get me wrong I am more than happy miliband said no, and I was a pleasure seeing cameron stuttering and flapping as he made his speech and answered questions knowing he was left out to dry and that was the final nail in his political coffin, but let's get one straight about miliband he is just as much as a zionist as cameron and he knew it would be political suicide if he went along with the PM on this knowing 90% of the people do not want to get involved in another middle east so called civil war, miliband knows the fallout of the blair weapons of mass destruction and will only go in with something concrete, as we know syria/egypt/libya are a premeditated cia/mi6 mossad funded terrorist attack to distable the middle east.

Agree3 Disagree0

A 10 minute clip detailing the evidence of syrian rebels using chemical weapons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMcYdqL6mjs

Agree0 Disagree0

Don't get me wrong the use of chemical weapons is an atrocity and someone should be held accountable.

However David Cameron, by his own admission, is not 100% sure it was/is Assad.

UK and US intervention, did they intervene with Mugabe and his brutality? As soon as there is any destabilisation in the Middle East which could affect the oil supply then they take the moral high ground.

I hate war of any kind and i'm glad Cameron lost, this time. What about other Arab Nations, where are they and why can't they intervene?

The UN has not finished any investigation and the evidence is sparse and inconclusive. ~ Mrs E

Agree0 Disagree0

Agreed mrs E, from what I can make out and by know means I am a expert on the middle east but the middle east is a melting pot of religions and ethnic divides in one country never mind the whole of the middle east, but one thing they all agree on is intervention from the west ie usa.
this voting not to bomb is only a delaying tactic the usa will draft in some minor nation like albania and call it a nato attack.

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Aug 2013 17:14:53
I've no support for either side. Assad's just another dictator who's outlived his usefulness and most of the rebels are aq types who we've used Assad to suppress and they'd be as brutal if not worse. But I do feel Ed has scored an own goal here. Yes he gets a small political victory over Dave, but its a victory based on people dying. let's not lose sight of that. Whoever is doing the killing people are still dying. And the sight of Labour mps cheering a political victory was repugnant. Cameron can and will play that card in the future how he the nasty tory tried to be humanitarian, and fluffy cuddly labour supported the dictator. Never mind the real agenda that's how Cameron will dress it up and the Murdoch media will spin it. Meanwhile the slaughter continues, Assad had dispersed his forces, and now we have stories of a school being napalmed. Are those mps still cheering? i'm not advocating getting dragged in to another mess especially for underhand reasons. But on a simple moral basis should we stand back and see this turn into another Bosnia or Rwanda? If we do intervene ut has to be for the right reasons and to impose a peace settlement.

Agree3 Disagree0

Franky, I don't know too much about the Middle East either but it does seem to be a cauldron of different Politics, Cultures and Religions. Throw in the crude oil with the wealth that brings and its very difficult to know if America's humanitarian intervention is as honourable as they would have us believe.

From what I can see Syria's allies, Russia and Iran are warning against any intervention stating there would be 'catastrophic consequences' and have said it would be a 'grave violation of international law'. Iran have, in the past, threatened to attack Israel in return.

We would all love to see world peace but whilst greed, power and evil exists, it won't happen.

America seems hellbent on 'intervening' unfortunately, I'm not sure what their true reasons are ~ Mrs E

Agree0 Disagree0

The planned attack of Syria will go ahead, I have no doubt about that.

The Governments/ 'controllers' want us to believe that this time every precaution is being taken and that only as a last resort will an attack actually happen.

I can almost guarantee that in a few weeks/ months time, Milliband will be in the press saying, 'well forceful action was obviously not our primary intention, just look at that first vote, but Assad has left us no choice'.

In the future they can use that first vote to show how they supposedly didn't want to attack in order to avoid another Iraq, where their desire to go in and destroy the country was so obvious.

They're trying to be more subtle about it this time.

Even if it's not made public that we're going to invade, you can sure as sh*t bet that there are already MI6 et al. there now to further destabilise the country and the Assad regime.

ConspiracyKen

Agree1 Disagree0

There is no justification for invading a foreign country. As long as the problem in any country is an internal one then said country should be left alone. If the people really disagree with their government/governance then it is up to them to do something about it.
However the situation in Syria reeks of foreign involvement and in my eyes the plotted destabilization of countries is just an unofficial invasion.
Wish strength to our Syrian brothers and sisters and a swift end to imperialism for the sake of all humankind.
Zari

Agree0 Disagree0

Mrs E the short answer is the usa are protecting their interests ie israel and puppet leaders who are favorable to the usa.

Agree2 Disagree0

If it wasn`t so tragic it would be laughable. The U. S. calls for action to be taken against Syria because (they used chemical weapons)!.
Very short memories they (U. S). have. From 1955 to 1975 the U. S. launched what was considered a chemical war against Vietnam and Cambodia killing 400,000 mostly civilians with Agent Orange, White phosphorous and Napalm!. Leaving a legacy of one million people disabled by these chemicals and after effects (childbirth defects).
What a thoroughly evil country would do that and conveniently forget, playing the worlds moral guardians.
Bep Kororoti.

Agree3 Disagree0

It may be true that chemical weapons were used. the latest theory is that the syrian govt. bombed theie own poeple and it was them who had drums of the chemical weapons and the bombs fell on them, hence not a wide spread of the gas

Agree0 Disagree0

30 Aug 2013 01:58:48
Just a quick question, If world war 3 broke out would we all be drafted by law? I could see millions refusing? What do you think

Believable1 Unbelievable1

I have served my time with the Armed Forces and I really wish I hadnt. I would point blank refuse to go back in. No doubt to draft people back in they would have to do something about the Human Rights Act.

Geordie Al

Agree1 Disagree0

No need for manpower if ww3 broke, strategic nuclear bombs would be enough.

Agree3 Disagree0

30 Aug 2013 18:22:11
Franky it depends on what the goal is. If its to wipe out most of the population by turning the globe into a terminator style ash tray whilst the elite spend the next century living underground in their bunkers then your right. But I can't see how they gain in that scenario. There are other, cleaner ways of gaining their aims, that aren't so destructive. A nice virus would trim the population down without wasting the environment and its resources. Mort

Agree1 Disagree0

What I meant by strategic is not just military targets it also includes food/water/power/medicines, the diseases and fighting ourselfs to stay alive would kill more people than any bomb.

Agree0 Disagree0

31 Aug 2013 10:21:42
That's my point, why use bombs when there are more devious ways that can be blamed on nature or an act of god. No need to bomb to create a shortage of resources when they are already doing this using means that appear more natural like climate change. Look at the increase in groceries, due to poor harvests. Its starting already slowly and subtly. All this fuss is distraction away from whatever else their upto. Think about it, all the focus is on Syria. Whilst they play geopolitics it sucks attention in. Mort

Agree0 Disagree0

Valid point mort.

Agree0 Disagree0

Who says it hasn't started? Perhaps this one's more gentle in it's impact for now.

Saddam was threatening to trade his oil in Euros and it's mainly the use of the dollar to price and trade oil that keeps the bankrupt USA afloat. Maintaining control and/or influence over oil producing states (Syria produces little, about as much as Libya) is key to ensuring that the dollar and oil continue to be linked.

The US is prepared for the dollar to fail, with reference to NSA, Martial Law being possible under law since 2012, FEMA camps and militarisation of the Police. But that's not an option they want to face and so they continue to hop from Middle East nation to Middle East nation with Iran the ultimate goal. If anything is going to cause Russia and China to show the aggression that the US has for the last 20 years, it'll be Iran.

P

Agree2 Disagree0

29 Aug 2013 23:08:18
was looking around youtube to look for something interesting and since I am a ufo nut I found something about 55 different alien races that have supposedly visited earth throughout history, now I am a believer we have be in contact with other species but something occurred to me while watching it was it claims demons/monsters like vampires/elves/genies/devil that have been documented either in folklore or ancient bibles are in fact alien species and in a strange kind of way that makes more sense.

Believable5 Unbelievable0

Plausible, bit like Chinese whispers. I feel the same about Greek gods (or any gods for that matter), angels etc, all pretty much faceless entities from the skies or flying. Just original star people IMO and most probably something to do with our creators.

Supasub

Agree2 Disagree0

You been watching ancient aliens?

Agree1 Disagree0

I have watched that in the past but I seen a youtube documentary, sorry can not find the link, very interesting thou.

Agree0 Disagree0

Hi Franky did you ever find the link to this doc as I would love to watch it thanks

Agree0 Disagree0

There u go mate stick with it, a bit slow to get into but lists aliens and times they have supposedly visited earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J_K5vHQnlQ

Agree0 Disagree0

Thanks Franky will give it a watch now.

Agree0 Disagree0

Dont no what to make of it franky sure could be very possible but whoever made this doc goes on about the annunaki and other aliens that created the human race but keeps using tearms BC and AD which is bull crap because if aliens created us (which I belive they did) then there is no christ so why the BC, AD crap why can't they just say 3000 years ago and so on.

Agree0 Disagree0

Forget the bc ad rubbish tmooney what makes it interesting for me is all the old tales about monsters could have been alien visitors.

Agree0 Disagree0