If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Ah I'm sorry. I do quite like the unholy three description though.
It's all thier fault. We have no USSR to blame. So the Muslims will do. The system will always look for a scapegoat for thier problems rather than admit they are wrong. As such, we should expect this. The mass media perpetrates this for the system, the people blinded by the system from an early age believe it and eat it up...
Ignorance Prevails!
This story wasn't frontpage news because soldiers were attacked, it was there because it was "Muslims wot dun it".
You mean in the 50's?
Yeah, and afterwards.
I wouldn't say that Muslims are the "new Jews", considering that with every story put out by the press which may be interpreted as anti-Muslim, invariably there will be another trumpeting the glories of multi-cultural, multi-faith societies...undoubtedly domestic conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims will escalate in the future, and I have no doubt this is intended by those who are pulling the strings.
I hate to break it to you, but there is no secret illumanti pulling the strings. Mass migration happened for a number of reasons - partially economic, partially social and partially as part of the end of Empire and the responsibilities which came with it.
And multi-culturalism means different things to different people and one fails to see how the leadership of this country benefits from increased social and economic tension (especially as Joe Bloggs is less at risk from terrorism than the political elite)
Secret Illuminati? :rolleyes:
With further war against Islamic states looming - Iran, Syria, Lebanon and no doubt a few others - it's not too difficult to work out how increased social tension will assist the elite.
To be honest I don't see any real evidence of any puppet masters, just half-baked and often confused political attempts to deal with problems and make the previous guys look bad.
Western governments work within a paradigm, i think that's obvious when you observe how the operate and what policies are being pushed, currently and historically.
As for UK leaders all doing the same thing...they operate within the given paradigm...do you think British PMs operate without 'direction'?
You don't see any evidence of big money influencing government? Planned assassinations of dissidents by the state?
I don't think it's a big leap to accept that shadowy forces are often working behind governments, especially considering what former US presidents, notably JFK, have had to say about such dangers.
Yep Western leaders seem to believe in a democratic mixed economy. Now this paradigm could be because there's a secret group pulling the strings or more likely its because they believe its the right model and so do the voters
Certainly business has some influence - but that's all it is. Its certainly not power and Govts of all hues have definetely gone against business interests (eg minimum wage)
Actually I can't say I have.
there may be an exception in Northern Ireland where there are examples of the SAS shooting IRA men where either it may have been possible to arrest them or the IRA were manouvered into a situation where they could be legally shot (Loughall). There are other examples where intelligence has turned a blind eye towards the loyalists murdering republicans, republicans murdering loyalists, loyalists murdering loyalists and republicans murdering republicans. There is also some (but not as watertight as some believe) where terrorists murders have been allowed to go ahead if it meant jeopardising a source. And of course junior RUC, UDR and Regulars have been involved in direct murders. However, there were the special circumstances of a low intensity civil war going on and so I struggle to same that translate to mainland politics.
What did he say? I know eisenhower warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, but he died peacefully in his bed. And the conspiracy theories around JFK are again not as solid as some think (and even if they were there is no commonly agreement on who did suspects ranging from the CIA through the Mafia to Cuba and/or the KGB)http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Yep and human being humans make mistakes, have poor intelligence (of the information kind), bad planning, compromises which please nobody etc,etc.
Or unfortunate accidents ?
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20061007/2006-10-07T205727Z_01_L0763562_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RUSSIA-MURDER-DC.html
And what happens when leaders, or populations, refuse to follow the model of 'democratic mixed economy'? Think Indonesia...
Having a paltry minimum wage is hardly going to bother big business interest. Very rarely will you ever see any leader or party, which is active and accepted in the mainstream of politics, making serious challenges to big money.
Well, Tony Benn was subject of an MI5 assassination plot decades back. It all came out after Airey Neive, who was part of it, was killed by the IRA.
David Kelly's death was certainly not suicide either - that much is clear if you look at the case.
Then, statistically, there's the highly dubious deaths of numerous US scientists working in certain fields.
There are other examples of course - JFK, MLK and so on - but that's another debate.
JFK on youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs-x0-ffP0Q
As you say, Einsenhower also warned of the MIC, and there have been others - leading industrialists etc - who talked of shadow governments decades and decades back.
Looking at the world today...it couldn't be otherwise.
Give us a clue (PS aren't we talking about the UK)
I've written plenty of letters to various big businesses (either myself or for Ministers) in which we rejected their lobbying.
But the other thing is that doesn't mean politicians are in the thrall of business - succesful business means a better economy which means people are better off. Now you may disagree with that, but plenty of people including many Ministers think that's true.
To a certain extent that's off the subject as well. You can believe that business plays too big a role in influencing Government, but still think that the concept of them activelly controlling Government behind the scenes isn't true.
evidence please.
I have. A man who was almost certainly about to loose his job, feared he was about to loose his pension, had come into the public eye and was beuing hounded by the press gets depressed and commits suicide. Its also worth bearing in mind with Kelly that he wasn't against the war - he didn't think that Iraq had WMDs, but he did believe they had broken UN resolutions
Not really
http://www.911myths.com/html/microbiologists.html
Princess Diana etc, etc. whenever someone dies suddenly there seems to be a human need to create a rational and claim it was all a conspiracy, when in fact tough shit sometimes just happens. There's nor organised plan or secret covert group. the world is full of cock-ups and mistakes - that's life
Doesn't proove a thing.
I dunno, a bit of critical thinking suggests to me that there is no secret societies controlling our lives and Government.
On secon thoughts you don't need to bother http://www.answers.com/topic/airey-neave
Benn discounts it himself. And Neave being dead can't sue for libel