This is a serious thread, despite my reputation. Try to fight the trolling/spamming urge, and just consider the things I reveal here, ok? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
9/11/01 was a tough day in America. What was the goal? Assume for a moment that aircraft were hijacked and hit the towers and pentagon, and that the towers were built with a fatal flaw in design. Ignore the how of that day for a moment. Why? Who? The only people proven to be involved were the hijackers themselves. Who were they pawns for? Who stood to gain? Strategically, the attack was guaranteed to do two things. Cause outrage among the populace, and instill a desire to hit something. Patriotism flourished, and in the days immediately following 9/11, you'd have been hard-pressed to find a citizen who DID NOT want to invade somewhere. Any strategic thought put into this event would have identified the Pearl Harbor parallel. So. Who stands to benefit from an angry US thrashing about blindly? Our military machine was built on fighting a war of movement on open ground. We have the best tools in the world to project power by sea, and take and hold open ground. Urban environments were not previously something the military heavily trained in. Nor peacekeeping. Nor policing a populace. Nor fighting guerrillas, despite the experiences of Vietnam. Does the military itself benefit from this shift in tactical thinking? That's debatable, but I say no. The military is aware that if it has to train people for all possible tactical environments, they get a jack of all trades, but master of none. An interesting development regarding training costs, and upkeep of soldiers is the development of the 'robot warriors'. Limited now, but the first Aircraft was pretty limited, as well. So far-America is disoriented, and retraining it's military, and working on replacements for wet hardware on the battlefield. What else has happened? A nation notorious for its freedoms, and for fighting against socialist ideaologies, has given up a number of freedoms in return for more security. Socialism is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. Maintaining socialism and growing it, however, requires certain limitations on freedom. Privacy laws must be altered or sidestepped to appropriately sanction socialism. This has been achieved, and those who would have normally howled against this, were all in favor of sacrificing freedom. A masterful bit of manipulation, I must say. Who benefits from a socialist US with the aforementioned situations? What about the war on terror? The war on terror is a useful tool for someone who wants to test and try new things. The absence of the Soviet Bear put many at a loss. Hard to justify military expenditures with no known enemies. Suddenly, a boon, we have an enemy that is formless and global. New security measures must be developed to aggressively deal with these enemies. Does anything positive come of such a war for anyone? Perhaps. The power in the ME is now militarily Iran, with the US available to stand in direct opposition. Israel is put into an awkward position, with Iran's nuclear ambitions. To attack Iran, it would have to get the go ahead from the US military. The US then stands as a wall between the two. Not for much longer, however. I wonder how close we are to finding an alternative to oil from the ME? Now-we have a socialist America, with a military trained to fight urban warfare against insurgents, preparing to exit Iraq stage left, without real fear of it going up in a Jew vs. Muslim war of religion, because if it happens, it's no big loss to the US. How long has this been building? Have the US leaders deliberately steered the US towards this situation? I say no. President Bush and Bill Clinton both launched military actions based upon suspect intelligence. As did the first Bush, and Reagan. That's my lifetime, I'm not to familiar with Carter's foreign policy decisions, except for the hostage situation in Iran. I would suggest that America has been slowly guided, by inches, by someone within or without the Intelligence services towards a goal. What does it all mean? We have a popular president to be. He will be able to make sweeping changes with the support of congress. He is a symbol of change, and how great change is. But change to what, from what? He is grossly inexperienced, and probably a bit naieve, if a pleasant orator. He is an idealist, and a symbol of hope. The last person like that suggested we go to the moon because it was hard. I hope I'm wrong about the future path. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. In the event of sweeping social change, with a decrease in freedom, and open use of implants to combat civic issues like illegal aliens, domestic terrorism, "better and more freely available" healthcare, and identity theft, we may have a problem. The military is prepared to take and hold the cities and countryside. The soldier that refuses to follow an order is easily replaced with a machine. I see 2 paths. Path 1: He is assassinated in his 3rd year in office. Rioting ensues. Domestic terrorism occurs. The military is called upon to secure the media and forms of communication, and to put the populace into protective custody via Martial Law. (FEMA has the power to set the constitution and bill of rights aside in times of National Distress). Now we have a corporate police state. Path 2: He is not assassinated. Sweeping changes occur. The government is portrayed as "just here to help". The military is put on "civilian assistance" duty. Quietly, freedom of speech dies, as well as freedom of the press. By 2016, we are faced with a situation of whether or not to allow Obama to run for office again, a la FDR. More than likely, the citizens of the US will Acquiesce, and dissenters will be.. altered through the implants used for the previously mentioned purposes. I am keeping my eyes wide open. What other countries are facing such problems? The UK I know has a new national ID card. They are far down the socialist path already. Implantation isn't that big a jump. Western europe is working towards becoming a global entity. Socialism prevails there as well. Implantation would probably be only lightly resisted. Eastern europe and Russia pose a problem, sort of. With US's eyes turned inwards, a number of territorial wars could break out. Middle East? The spark has been deftly set to that keg of dynamite already. India/China? No one to stand in either's way to move on whatever they feel like moving on. Perhaps a new manifest Destiny? Australia/Japan/Korea/New Zealand? Without the US involved, they are flying blind. Australia and Japan, at least, would probably embrace implantation. True Globalism and control by 2020 is what I see. Fight it or embrace it, it is coming. Thoughts are welcome, refutation or agreement both. Try to keep the insults to a minimum. The only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one first. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The above is an example of a pattern I have noticed in doing study on the various topics I mention above. It's like a big Jigsaw puzzle, but there's no box to go by, and all the pieces are cut into squares of similar size. Complicated I know. Address the issues I raised individually if you like. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ham, I have to say that your post is interesting. But that being said, as I read it, I was immediately reminded of so many "historians" who molded and twisted actual events into whatever they happened to feel about the present or the future. I.e., they used history to try to show/prove some "theory" of their own. History isn't a continuous string of events that are, necessarily, connnected one-to-the-other as most historians would have us to believe. Some events do, in fact, happen because of some other event, but it's not always easy to figure it all out. Or, worse, historians flounder around until they find some "pattern", then they write their silly books. The problem is that some of those "connections" that they find are only in their heads, and not in the actual events themselves. See? That's fairly presumptive, ain't it? In fact, it's my best guess that Osama just wanted to strike at the US and it happened to be one that they might be able to do. I'm not at all convinced that al-Queda realized what a shit-storm they would stir up. And I'm betting that they're damned sorry for doing it. One, it did little real, actual harm to the USA; and two, no one in their right mind would have willingly brought down such power and destruction on their own heads. Al-Queda has suffered greatly from the Twin Towers, and they've also made it damned difficult to operate anymore anywhere in the civilised, at least western, world. I think that projects something onto the military that's actually a problem with politicians and the public, NOT the military. In World War II, the US fought a war and won it in only a few short years against a difficult force. And we fought a lot of it in urban areas, contrary to popular belief. Had we fought in Vietnam in the same way, we'd have won it in less than a year. But see, the military wasn't permitted to fight in the way that won wars, the politicians wouldn't let them because they were scared! Scared of what the Russians or the Chinese would do. Well, bullshit! We could have fought them, too! Oh, sure, people constantly say things like, "You can't fight wars like that anymore" or other such garbage. In effect, all you're saying is ...we want to lose wars now, not win them! We fought the Germans on French soil, in the French towns and cities, in exactly the way we should have fought the Vietnamese. And in the same way we should be fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq ...to win the war! Think of the Muslim extremists as the Germans in France and Italy and Belgium ...not much difference. We liberated the French, and could and should have liberated the Afghani and the Iraqi. Instead, we pissed around and tried to please everyone in the world all the time, including our enemies! You say we can't fight in urban environments? Fallujah proved otherwise! And in the battle for Fallujah, neither the politicians nor the public had any say in it ...and we won in just a few days! Had politicians been given any say in it, Fallujah would still be a pit of vipers that it was prior to the battle. And lest you forget, it's exactly the way we fought in French and Italian cities all during the war in Europe. So don't be saying silly things like, "oh, geez, you can't do that now". The difference, my friends, is winning a war or losing it. Public opinion? Fuck public opinion! The "public" has seldom been right about anything in it's long history of being. No. Unfortunately, America's leaders (and I mean the whole government) try to be all things to all people and to attempt to please all people, all over the world, all the time. There is no "steering" involved, it's all just feint and parry on a constant basis. They're afraid to actually do anything. President Bush has done more "steering" than has been done by our government since World War II. All of the others basically played the feint and parry tactics, and accomplishing very damned little in the process. First, let me say that I'm not entirely in agreement with your thoughts on socialism in the USA. I don't think it's going to be so easy once the public begins to realize how misused their taxes will be ...giving to special groups of people and in unequal amounts. I don't think Americans will allow it. We just don't have that will to submit to such government controls on our freedoms, even if they're percieved freedoms. As to the globalisation, I don't think that will actual ever come about because of the vast differences in world cultures and economies. I think globalisation will be much what it is now ...select nations doing business with other select nations. Global? Nope, not unless your idea of "global" is just a few nations involved. Before you begin to talk of golablization, I think you should take a closer look at the world ..it's a world in conflict. And I'm not just talking about war or armed conflict, I'm talking about major disagreements about numerous issues both in their own nations as well as with others. Baron Max
I guess I need to chop this up into more digestible bits and spread them about. I was hoping that one thread could discuss this topic, but the more I think about it, there seem to be many subtopics that lie within.
As nice as it sounds, I just don't believe that one can take such a simplistic view of the world and all the events. It's much too interconnected to make any firm decisions about which of many events led to some other event. It could be something so simple, so mundane, that ultimately "causes" some other events, which then becomes something "known". See? You might easily miss those tiny, mundane events in favor of placing the "blame" onto something else! Nope, history is, in fact, interconnected, but it's far, far more complex than any of us can possibly imagine or try to pin down. And, by the way, breaking it down into smaller parts will only confuse things more. Which is, by the way, what historians love to do. And that's where they usually get into trouble. You can't take a picture puzzle and throw away some of the parts and still expect to form a picture of the puzzle. And that's exactly what historians do regularly. :shrug: Me, too. But then by that time, I'll be dead and probably won't care! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
Max-You sound like my father talking now..."What do I care? I'll be dead!" sniffy-No, I'm not. I'm looking at the fall of Tsarist Russia and Rome around the time of Julius Caesar. I'm applying technology to similarities in events, and drawing a conclusion. Without prior examples, I'd be basing this on nothing, which would be comforting in the fact it had not happened in other situations. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I disagree. Never again will all of the conditions and situation ever be the same as they once were. It's impossible for history to repeat itself. That's just a silly little saying that has no basis in fact or in evidence. Similarities? Maybe, but how can one judge that accurately? Baron Max
Ham, with all due respect, you are mentally ill. This is a paranoid rant with little connection to reality.
Eh, not so much. I may be crazy, but I know when I'm speculating vs. hallucinating. Delusions seem much more "real". If you want to hear about paranoid delusion, here's one for you. The same police officer has gotten gas at the local convenience store every time I have for the past month. I think he's after me. Here's another-the monitoring devices placed on the street in my neighborhood are to try to catch me speeding, and summon the police. As far as reality goes, reality is relative to the person experiencing it. I am not experiencing the above things, only see potential links between events. If I was on a diatribe, convinced of the accuracy of my speculation, why in the world would I post it publicly, rather than going to the media with it? I'd complain about the media not hearing me out, here, in that case. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I generally agree and I had not thought of the training for urban fighting angle before. I would add that there has been a global centralization of power, resources and media that makes the kind of pattern you are talking about easier to follow through on.
The first sentence is ad hom, whatever Hamstatic's openness about certain facets of his life. The second sentence is a good place to start substantiating.
Oh, but your post was so huge and I am so lazy tonight. Power is getting concentrated. Instead of 150 media outlets it is 65 reaching every American - numbers made up. How does this help fascism. If you can limit diversity of information sources you can lie more easily. The same pattern is happening in pretty much every industry. This is creating an open oligarchy. You've got these very rich people controlling a large amount of the resources of the world. I see a trend towards increased surveillance. This is both via technology and legislation. I see intelligence and police forces getting more and more power in relation to citizens of 'Western' nations. I see weird exceptions in the legal system - no court appearance arrests, extreme rendition where prisoners are whisked off to other countries where they are tortured, assaults on the right to privacy, etc. - that make it easier for a fascist state to take over. I see efforts to group countries together - the European Union and the Union of american countries and the making of common currencies, again allowing central control. I see increased direct ability of corporations to demand that other countries do things. No need to send in armies, just go via trade organizations, the IMF, etc. I see a willingness on the part of the population to give away their rights and accept more police and military presence in reaction to easily fabricated events. I see the most powerful nation in the world has the highest % of its population in prison. I see an expansion of mercenary armies. I see the privitization of anything, which means that areas of life once accountable to legislators and government oversight is reducing as we type. I see the complete undermining of oversight facets of government. I see an incredible increase in the ways in which our every movement can be monitored: cell phones, credit cards, gps in cars, etc. There's a lot more, but to summarize in general I see the technological and propagandistic means to bring in fascism. I see an ever more concentrated power in the hands of the few - who are corrupted by it. I felt like the election was shallow and fixed. I mean on paper I like Obama much more than Mccain. I might even like him better as a neighbor, though MCCain might be fine for that. But it just seems like the old good cop bad cop routine and I just do not buy the authenticity of the whole thing. What, was every neo-con think tank member or advisor high on LSD the days they were choosing a VP for McCain? How about that convenient assassination plot not long before the election to bring out the 'we are not racists swing voters? etc. Something is afoot.
And then there were two. Something to consider- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_implant_(animal) and http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-205.html Interesting stuff. Did you know that all the data that you need to function in the 1st world can be put into a small chip? Ever seen the ads for AMEX Blue? Wild. Funny how shortly after the USSR ceased to be, we found ourselves in a new fight, and that it was ended before a new election. I wonder what events transpired before the Tsar found out Lenin was against him. Lenin needed something to occupy the interests of the Tsar's military, didn't he? weird stuff.
To be perfectly honest I disagree with the assertion that implantation is of any use. Implants can be removed or the signals that are received manipulated. Technology in the Biometrics industry negates implantation by just taking active readings of a person through "All ready deemed safe" radiological systems. For instance I personally think the National ID card is a farce, the card itself and information contained on it is just a token of what the system the money is truly being raised for. You see the testing phase implies a "Black Ops" usage which until now has only been heard of from Conspiracist's or people that have judgementally been classified as infirm. Obviously the funding of such equipment can't go un-noticed, it might do for a while but not when every Government has it's changes in regards to the civilians that take up those seats of power. So eventually the funding for such projects need to be re-routed. Since such projects deal with Biometrics then it calls for the use of a Centralised Database on the Citizen of the Country (and it doesn't rule out Internationals coming through the system either). It's not much different than the US having the index fingerprints of people travelling through their country, however a true 3D Biometric representation of a person (not just a fingerprint, face, height, Retina amongst other things) is something that nobody can truly escape (Even plastic surgery will not remove all variables from the equation.) I guess I'm saying there is no need for implants. Of course the main problem with these "Biometrics" systems is if they aren't done "Passively" but by using "Active Doppler" methods the biometrics itself of the person can be altered, this is obviously a concern after all we've all heard stories of Manchurian Candidates which can range from "Clandestine Spies" to "Would be Presidential Assassins", These are of course Hollywood depictions however it's more to do with Espionage and Generating Destabilisation for one or other course of action. I guess you can say that some countries are slowly eroding our rights away and the only thing we can do is agree, disagree or move away.