obsidian

It started off as a corporation then was given special status. It is not regulated or controlled by the government. Their stated goal is the "separation of the power to spend money from the power to create money". Which pretty much is remove the governments influence 4. Is the Bank of Canada a government department? No, it is a special type of Crown corporation. The Bank has considerable autonomy to carry out its responsibilities. "This process, whereby a central bank earns revenue in exchange for its role as the issuer of a country's currency, is called seigniorage." and there you have it, for profit banking. (all quotes from the bank of canada's website) I have been trying to find out exactly what this special type of corporation is and havent been able to find any legal definition. But it is not government owned. I suggest you read every faq not just the 1st two which reaffirm your beliefs and try to multi source and not just reference the bank of canadas website. “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies... If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." | Thomas Jefferson

Any country has the right to issue its own currency. However, many countries chose not to do so. Most of the money in circulation has been printed by private banks. Instead of the Canadain Mint or Treasury printing their own money the Bank of Canada does in its place. Despite the name the Bank of Canada is not owned or opperated by the government. The Bank of Canada is like any other bank: private and for profit. If our entire economic situation is dictated by a for profit bank can we really trust them to keep our interests in mind? Even worse is the fact that after 1971 the abdonement of the Bretton Woods Trade Agreement meant that money was no longer backed by bullion (gold/silver). In the past a country was limited in the ammount of money they could issue by the ammount they had, unless they chose inflation which isn't creating more money. Now money is oriented around floating exchange rates based on the world's reserve currency (USD for now..) instead of being based on actual tangible items and commodities (gold, silver, etc.). So in our current situation money is printed by the Centralized Banks and their owners then loaned to our governments. The government then has to pay interest on what is borrowed. Why do we do this? The money that is printed has no financial backing except for the paper it is printed on. Our money litteraly has no value and only gains value when we except it to. Our government can print their own money....why don't they? We the people end up paying the interest through our taxes when there is absolutely no reason to. :S :S “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our Banking and Monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a Revolution before tomorrow morning.” -Henry Ford “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” | Woodrow Wilson 1919: regarding his signing the 1913 Federal Reserve Act (which brought in the centralized banking to America) This is the very reason why we left for the new world, to escape the power of the centralized banks.

The treaty of versaille regulated how much steel they could get and pretty much forbid them from having an army. Then how did they get one of the most advanced armies with hundreds of planes and battleships. Could that really go unnoticed? I.G. FARBENINDUSTRIE was financed by wall street, and they financed Hitler (also made zyklon b ). All you need to do is follow the money. American General Electric also helped finance Hitler with campaign contributions. General Electric also accounted for 40% of production in heavy industry, 60% of radio communications through Telefunken (A.E.G. after 1941), and also has a 20% stake in the wire and cable market in Germany in 1939. Unlike what you said, they actually sold more during the war. And its just coincidence that American General Electric factories were not bombed in Germany (only 4 were partially destroyed and remained opperational). LIST OF A.E.G. FACTORIES NOT BOMBED IN WORLD WAR II Name of Branch Location Product 1. Werk Reiehmannsdoff mit Unterabteilungen in Wallendorf und Unterweissbach Kries Saalfeld Measuring Instruments 2. Werk Marktschorgast Bayreuth Starters 3. Werk F18ha Sachsen Short Wave Sending Sets 4. Werk Reichenbach Vogtland Dry Cell Batteries 5. Werk Burglengefeld Sachsen/S.E. Chemnitz Heavy Starters 6. Werk Nuremburg Belringersdorf/ Nuremburg Small Components 7. Werk Zirndorf Nuremburg Heavy Starters 8. Werk Mattinghofen Oberdonau 1 KW Senders 250 Meters & long wave for torpedo boats & U-boats 9. Unterwerk Neustadt Coburg Radar Equipment Standard Oil also gave Hitler 2 key components to his war machine which he could not have created without: Synthetic petroleum and rubber. Anthony C. Sutton does a much better job then I could and I suggest you read his book: Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wa...reet/index.html (free online) o and JBG u sure it wasnt a zeo-cost remark?

"You watch 'em...they're tricky...lol They play both ends against the middle like the cloak n' dagger experts they are." JBG why don't you call that a cheap shot to Russia? I am just saying American has been in enough black operations and has been behind many CIA invasion and coups that they should not maintain their perfect image. America can't always be trusted. Look at the war in Vietnam...false flag, there was no attack in the gulf of tonkin. Look at the war in Iraq...no wmd's=no reason for invasion. They also play both ends: the US financed the rise of hitler, they played iran against iraq, they financed "al qaeda", and they also helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution. I don't see how it was off topic as it pertained to repercussions and facts that are related the the straight of hormuz incident.

We'll see where the lines in the sand are drawn when/if it happens, anything else is just speculation. "And guess who refuses to give their most advanced weaponry to China ; Russia. And despite all the anti rhetoric, guess who is building up their southern and eastern defensive capabilities; Russia. " Who would give away their trade secrets when they're in it for profit? The US doesn't share all of its technology. Ofcourse they don't give them their most advanced hardware so they still have a customer. And could they not be building up its southern and eastern defensive capabilites to counter the increasing presence in the middle east? Russia has started sending its Navy into the Persian Gulf to counter the American Navy, why would they not do the same on land? They also restarted their long range bomber patrol for the first time since the collapse of the USSR. If a multi-theater conflict ever came about you think it will be NATO, EU, Israel, and Russia on one side verse who evers left? If they're all such good friends with that dream team I doubt anything could stand in its way. Russia has vocally spoken out against sanctions on Iran, the missle shield, and the American occupation of Iraq. Russia has started abdoning its USD reserves, same as China, and Iran. China has become increasingly frigid in US relations and no longer allows US navy vessels safe harbour in their ports. If NATO and Israel attacked Iran what do you think would happen? Nothing? Just curious, why would Russia prefer and alliance with America rather than China? Logically it appears to me China would be a stronger ally, especially in the future.

And most people can see that Russia and China are already allies in the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement (security, military, economic, etc.[pretty much an equivelant of NATO]) unless they only watch mainstream news...Where do you think China gets nearly all of its military technology: Russia. Guess where China gets most of its oil: Iran. How will China react when America cannot pay off its debts to them? It's more than a trillion dollars.

What makes the odds any less likely now? Just because it's on a smaller scale doesn't make it acceptable as the term "tactical nukes" alludes to. I'm not freaking out over this, its nothing like M.A.D., but it would trigger world war 3. Moderate American I can see you watch corporate news alot, you have the programmed fear of terrorists with nukes at football stadiums, lulz. "Aye...kids these days...lol. Never had a 10 megatonne warhead aimed at 'em..."-- Any of the soviet missles could be retargetted within a half hour, if they ever even changed (you should know that being ex-military Bush-Cheney). So the threat is still there; but we trust them to not attack. Russia's version of the SPP calls for the reestablishment of a bi/multipolar world. I've been following this soon to be conflict and it is escalating at an increasing speed. Anything the United States is doing Russia is trying to counter without starting a conflict first, they're installing their own missle sheild now to counter the Americans in Europe. Bush-Cheney knowing your ex military explains alot (military supporting military industrial complex, nice) atleast you didnt serve in the 1st Gulf War and get gulf war syndrome.

yup, just like the united states. China is considering building a military base in Iran to ensure geopolitical and geo-economic security in the region. Hmm, now it is that if you attack Iran you attack China literally (well soon enough). If anything just considering this option shows China's posotion of support and Iran. Russia and China have been opposing the sanctions on Iran. Russia just finished its last shipment of uranium to Iran. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA29Ak03.html

Russia has also just doubled its conscription while Bush has passed legislation that allows the US to supply allies with weapons in half the time. tick.tock.

Go to Google News Russia: Could Use Nuclear Weapons By STEVE GUTTERMAN – 4 days ago MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's military chief of staff said Saturday that Moscow could use nuclear weapons in preventive strikes to protect itself and its allies, the latest aggressive remarks from increasingly assertive Russian authorities. Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky's comment did not mark a policy shift, military analysts said. Amid disputes with the West over security issues, it may have been meant as a warning that Russia is prepared to use its nuclear might. "We do not intend to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand ... that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons," Baluyevsky said at a military conference in a remark broadcast on state-run cable channel Vesti-24. According to the state-run news agency RIA-Novosti, Baluyevsky added that Russia would use nuclear weapons and carry out preventive strikes only in accordance with Russia's military doctrine. The military doctrine adopted in 2000 says Russia may use nuclear weapons to counter a nuclear attack on Russia or an ally, or a large-scale conventional attack that poses a critical risk to Russia's security. Retired Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, formerly a top arms control expert with the Russian Defense Ministry, said he saw "nothing new" in Baluyevsky's statement. "He was restating the doctrine in his own words," Dvorkin said. Moscow-based military analyst Alexander Golts said that when Russia broke with stated Soviet-era policy in the 2000 doctrine and declared it could use nuclear weapons first against an aggressor, it reflected the decline of Russia's conventional forces in the decade following the 1991 Soviet collapse. "Baluyevsky's statement means that, as before, we cannot count on our conventional forces to counter aggression," Golts told Ekho Moskvy radio. "It means that as before, the main factor in containing aggression against Russia is nuclear weapons." Putin and other Russian officials have stressed the need to maintain a powerful nuclear deterrent and reserved the right to carry out preventive strikes. But in most of their public remarks on preventive strikes, Russian officials have not specifically mentioned nuclear weapons. Baluyevsky spoke amid persistent disputes between Moscow and the West over issues including U.S. plans for missile defense facilities in former Soviet satellites, NATO members' refusal to ratify an updated European conventional arms treaty, and Kosovo's bid for independence from Serbia. Like Golts, Moscow-based military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer said Russia plays up its nuclear deterrent because of its weakness in terms of conventional arms. "We threaten the West that in any kind of serious conflict, we'll go nuclear almost immediately," he said. But in the absence of a real threat from the West, he said, "It's just talk." Hosted by Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The Telegraph (U.K.) Nato 'must prepare to launch nuclear attack' Last Updated: 3:14pm GMT 23/01/2008 Nato must prepare to launch pre-emptive nuclear attacks to ward off the use of weapons of mass destruction by its enemies, a group of former senior military officials has warned. The document may be discussed at a Nato summit in April Calling for a major change to Nato's approach to defending its members and their interests, the authors of the report, which has been handed to Nato and Pentagon chiefs, said the first-strike use of nuclear weapons was a "indispensable instrument". The authors of the blueprint for reforming Nato are understood to include Lord Peter Inge, the former British chief of the defence staff and US General John Shalikashvili, the former Nato commander in Europe and chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff. "The risk of further proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the report said. "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction." The document reportedly includes Lord Inge's comments on the controversy surrounding nuclear weapons policy: "To tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence." advertisement The report called for a wholesale reform of Nato and a new pact between Nato, the US and the European union in order to tackle modern military and terrorist threats to the West. It warned the spread of nuclear technology meant there was "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world". Terrorism, political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism were major threats to the West, and organised crime, climate change and migration on a mass scale posed dangers to the way of life of Nato members. The report's authors also cited the weakening of global alliances, including the United Nations. The authors have proposed major changes to the way Nato operates, including abandoning consensus decision making so fast action can be taken without the threat of vetoes and caveats imposed by some nations. They also called for military action without ratification by the UN in cases where "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings". The report was compiled after authors were briefed by senior serving military officials who are unable to speak publicly about their concerns with Nato's military strategy. The document may be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April. The other three authors are Klaus Naumann, a German former military commander, Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch military official, and Jacques Lanxade, the former French admiral and chief of defence.

The main issue the West has with Iran is its nuclear program. Russia is supplying Iran its uranium and the majority of the technology. Russia has just doubled its number of conscripts while reducing the term to 1 year. Do they foresee something coming up in the next year? By autumn call-up will be "full-scale". http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.htm..._issue=11950147 NATO is now saying a nuclear first strike is a key option with dealing with its problems. If the US nuked Iran do you really think no one would do anything? It would become WW3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,,22...ed=networkfront Another China-Iran Gas deal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200961840...=googlenews_wsj China-Iran-Russian axis challenging the Unipolar world. http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4904 Russia, China, and Iran are energy partners. Bush has vowed to have peace in the middle east by the end of his term...how does he plan to attain this?

Even more Iranian oil deals with Russia, just on January 15th.. http://en.rian.ru/world/20080115/96933558.html Interactions between Civilizations and their Mutual Assistance Heartland Expanding, or The Shanghai Cooperation Organization Gen. Leonid Ivashov General Leonid Ivashov is the vice-president of the Academy on geopolitical affairs. He was the chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union’s ministry of Defense, secretary of the Council of defense ministers of the Community of independant states (CIS), chief of the Military cooperation department at the Russian federation’s Ministry of defense and Joint chief of staff of the Russian armies "....- To establish a second pole of global power with the life philosophy and attitude to environment different from those in the West, a pole assigning greater priority to spiritual and moral values, to collectivist tendencies; - To harmonize the relations between countries and civilizations; - To create a security system based on a balance of powers and potentials..." How much longer will the world stay unipolar? When it is America's sworn goal to remain the sole superpower through economic subjugation and military intimidation. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization aims to counter the SPP in the west. Are post-cold war relations as nice and fuzzy as they seem? Wake up your living in a dream. Russia withdrew its support of the US in anti-terror as soon as they invaded Iraq. Lets keep in mind Russia knows what the US is doing...they tried it in the 80's. If they controlled the geopolitical assets in the middle east they would of won the cold war, it was their motive between invading afghanistan. Gen. Leonid Ivashov also believes that there is no terrorism in the sense that American's are spinning terrorism. He also believes that the US are going to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=5309 But hey what does the ex former Chief of Staff of the entire Russian Armed Forces know...?

There have been many allegations and even more proof of torture against the United States and Israel, however, none as crediditable as the Canadian Government. In a training manual released for Canadian diplomats it stated Israel and the United States among other known nations used torture in its prisons. If this had been posted a year ago, which I know it most likely has, it would be disregarded as a "tinfoil hat conspiracy". Now that there's proof are we going to do anything about it? Can anything be done? Realistically, Canada did not put it there as a mistake and only removed it once it became public which it wasn't supposed to (as a result of American pressure). America and Israel have not made any comments. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7832

One of the main contributing factors to China's growth and Russia's regaining of status is the fact that they were able to get more oil. They were able to get more oil by trading with Iran. As China and Russia recieve oil Iran is recieving more military technology and hardware. Russia may not be as capable as the United States, but what has technology done for them in Iraq...Afghanistan...Both have experimented with directed energy weapons, Russia has the worlds largest thermobaric bomb (equivalent to a smaller nuke, no fallout), and Russia can outproduce the United States by making weapons at far cheaper costs. They still have all of their ICBM's hidden in silo's, they even have over 12 on a mobile train. Remember the United States invaded Iraq because she supposedly threatened the worlds oil supply (ie. supply to US) by having "weapons of mass destruction" which she didn't, the real threat was that Iraq started selling Oil by the Barrel in euros's instead of petrodollars(USD). Attacking Iran would be an act of war and would jeopradize Irans soveirgnty, which Russia and China have promised to protect. Attacking Iran would cause the exact same motivation that caused the United States to invade Iraq, a threat to Russia's oil supply. And its getting awfully close as I've heard before all options are on the table and Iran is now selling oil in euro's contrary to OPEC.

As I said before Russia and China are allies and members bound in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Iran is an observing member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and therefore and allie of Russia and China (a rather strong one considering the amount of oil traded between them). For the first time since the cold war Russia has put its long range bomberson patrol and is sending an aircraft carrier to the persian gulf. China has recently rejected any US naval vessel from entering her ports, even on a scheduled thanksgiving port call last year. Russia is building S-400 Triumf (SA-21 Growler) surface to air missiles that have twice the range of the U.S. MIM-104 Patriot, and 2.5 times that of the S-300PMU-2 to counter the US missile defense system in Europe. "We do not intend to attack anyone, but consider it necessary that all our partners clearly understand, and that no one has any doubts, that the Armed Forces will be used to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, including preventative action, and including the use of nuclear weapons." -The Chief of the Russian General Staff, Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, January 19th, 2008 An preemptive air strike or invasion with a later occupation would undermine Russia's "sovereignty and territorialial integrity of [Russia and] its allies. ; \

The illuminati represents the elite, the top of the food chain. They infiltrate and create many organizations that are pro NWO, like the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, Skull and Bones, The Bohemian Society, The Jesuits, and Freemasonry. Part of the new world order involves commodisizing everything, tagging every object would be very useful. There are many rfid/eas combonation tags in many of our products. I found a rfid in my xbox box, made by ALL-TAG (ironic eh?). They have even proposed putting them in currencies, which would ultimately lead to a digital currency. There are rfid's in canadian and american passports, and there will be with the Real ID Act cards (driver licenses) which have already been issued to some frequent border crossers at an additional expense. FEMA is currently building detainment camps, they have a capability to detain or hold around 2 million people. They have been recenty upgraded and there is no stated purpose. They currently monitor all telephone calls, selective internet monitoring, and increasingly in canada you will be on CCTV with facial recogniton. They're now installing CCTV camera's on TTC bus's and subway's. The fact that it doesnt prevent you from doing anything--yet--is the reason that you are so willing to disregard anything, you are appeased and it doesn't affect your life. It is affecting Iraqi's and Afghani's and many other repressed nations. Any organization that takes oath's of secrecy is insincere.

"The remarks came after the US Navy withdrew the allegation that Iran had harassed US warships in the Persian Gulf. " why are we discussing this? the navy already withdrew the allegation. it's still being spun though

How about 2/3 of Americas navy in the persian gulf? if you knew that america would invade a country with no factual evidence (wmd's...iraq) and the very same country is threatening you with words and its military presence would you not want to keep tabs on them? even after the NIE deemed Iran as a non threat Bush still beat on his war drum, he really should stop listening to AIPAC.....if iran was ever stupid enough to attack the US Navy why would they not use their cruise missles, "stealth-missles", ground effect flying "boats", or airforce? or how about even send armed patrol boats. hmmmmm patrol boats sound awfully familiar, another gulf of tonkin incident? which was admitted to be a lie... iran has allies, see the shanghai corporation. theyre in military alliance with russia and china, the 2 greatest threats to bush's NWO. the us navy is international shipping?

Just last week I saw the Amero being mentioned on financial t.v. What makes you think it is so far out there? Because it opposes everything you think your country stands for? The Security and Prosperity Partnership may not be the North American Union but it is definetly a stepping stone in that direction. It essentially is the North American Union without the title. Although they havent signed into agreement that they will create the amero, they feel the need to address "...increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home.", which a regional currency is their solution for. The Council on Foreign Relations has long been seen as a organization that spreads globalization at the will of the elite. They have released the document "Building a North American Community: Report of an Independent Task Force" which outlines their plans. They claim they respect national soviergnty, however, this is the same method in which the EU was born. It started with free trade partnerships and ended in a regional union with a common currency and no constitution. The CFR's goals are "Sponsoring Independent Task Forces that produce reports with both findings and policy prescriptions on the most important foreign policy topics; and Providing up-to-date information and analysis about world events and American foreign policy ". Prescribing foriegn policy eh? What do you make of this extremely influential group advocating NAU? canadian free press article on NAU/SPP http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/cover121406.htm http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=7628 he believes in the NAU, Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education. Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets. He has contributed to the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=6494 Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay is a Canadian economist who lives in Montreal who believes that the NAU is coming hell, even one of the proposed member nations ex president claims the NAU is coming http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/08/lkl.01.html "KING: E-mail from Mrs. Gonzalez in Elizabeth, New Jersey. "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?" FOX: Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea... KING: It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean? FOX: Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA. " BankINTRODUCTIONS.com, is a private research group and banking introductions services company based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Our vision is to provide you with helpful and supportive global banking information in order to protect your wealth from currency collapses and specific bank failures.(they report on the NAU/Amero) http://www.bankintroductions.com/amero.html CNN has covered both the Amero and NAU... the Fraser Institute released "The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Monetary Union" in 1999 http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.We...files/amero.pdf the fraser institute: "The Fraser Institute measures and studies the impact of competitive markets and government interventions on individuals and society. Our peer-reviewed research is distributed around the world and has contributed to increased understanding of how economic policy affects people. The Institute is an independent non-profit research and educational organization. We do not accept government grants or contracts for research. We depend on contributions from thousands of individuals, organizations, and foundations." ...the only tin foil ill ever need is for blocking the active denial system...

If you were in a position of power why would you not want to maintain it? If you had a family why would you not want to pass on the status? The new world order definetely exists, it's written on the one dollar bill for instance, novus ordus seclorum, it has been mentioned on TV by several presidents. If you chose to live in ignorance because it's more comforting then you most likely won't change your view. I stopped posting on this site a year ago because i found it impossible to have an actual intelectual discussion on these topics without getting spammed with bs, or getting side tracked. I'd like to say I'm suprised nothing changed but I'm not. Lets just talk about pitbulls........................................................................ .................................................................

;

Umm where is the proof? secretary of defense says they don't have any. "senior coalition analysyst" concludes there is clear evidence of Iran's involvement. who do you think knows more? oh wait lets see what a FORMER counter terrorism official. "It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," this article is all oppinion and no fact. the SoD even discredits this thread. is this not the same bullshit from Corporate US news that got them into the blunder that is Iraq? the whole article rests on an un-named analyst... note: they mention tracking a convoy then finding a SECOND car with explosives. 1000kg of c4 isnt that feasible for one truck as well.

The Silverstein admission, imo, is definetly the most credible. If it wasn't what he meant, why else would he say it? Then on the other hand, if he had accidently blurted that out, why wouldn't he just do a retake, which he surely could. I think there is too much propoganda on either side of the fulcrum to discern what really happened on that day. Not in my own mind, but for others. A lie is 100% untrue, conversely a "good" lie is 90% truth.

money=power power=root of all evil There is always competition, ergo there is always competition between humans to become the Alpha. Now we humans like to think we are smarter than all the animals, but each "unnatural" act fulfills a "natural" role. Our entertainement, food, and happiness are all neccessary to the individuals survival. All objects and nearly all feelings can be bought today. Happiness, pride, self-respect, admiration, respect, and satisfaction are dealt out by the millions upon millions each day. From the second we were born our brain is constantly accumalting data to launch ourselves into "human conscience". We observe then emulate. When we reach that level of sentient conciousness we then begin to notice the nuances of life. We realise our parents leave from 9-5. We ask them why and the parent answers "We leave to work, so we can survive". In that child's mind it is now set that we must work. This is enforced tenfold in popular culture(media). The child is also influenced by his peers who all think the same, who got their oppinions from there parents who all thought the same. By the time the child is no longer a child it is now concrete in his/her mind that he must make money to survive. During this time span the child also comes to the realization branded into his mind that "more anything=better". Now through adolescence the child may question what the world is, and why he does what he does. But he's to busy for that. The future's coming up fast; sports, music, friends, test's, exam's, university, etc. Right when a human is meant to find out who they are and find direction in their life they are bombarded with this bullshit. They get conditioned that they need to feel accepted and be like the rest of the group. They are encouraged to label themself as part of a group, rather than an individual with friends in a group. It is at this age humans are particularly succeptable to peer pressure. And whats the next best thing to 24/7 forced brainwashing?? You're right! The TV. Todays electronics now allow children to be conditioned in the comfort of their own living room, how splendid. The TV affects large groups of people at a time, whatever they see will trickle down through social networks eventually. When a city all has the same source of entertainment (tv, radio, local events) it breeds people who think the same, because they're exposed to the same things. On TV you do not chose an oppinion, you watch characters form their own. Suprisingly(NOT) most people agree with the portrayed oppinion. TV now plays the role of a father figure in our childs lives. THE WORST THING ABOUT TV IS...that it is one of those synthetic creations that appeases us biologically. We feed on the emotions that the actors experience. "Friends" was a popular show because it portrayed average people hanging out together everyday. Instead of going out to hang out with friends, one may instead watch an episode and begin to be appeased. TO BE CONTINUED

These people are crazy. I'm sure that many of their concerns(other than gays) are actually relevant, as I find myself concerned about the future. But this is rediculous, when confronted with a problem all they do is say they're hopeless, that we're hopeless, and blame god. They don't think they can do anything in the "real world" other than pray and spread the message that we're all going to die, skipping the whole "solution" phase. dumbdumbdumb