OK AM I WRONG HERE ?

OK AM I WRONG HERE ?

Yes, I think you missed the link back to Roswell

If all you say is true how is it corbyn got so close to winning power? Surely these organisations have the so called power to ensure somebody as anti corporations as him would not even get a sniff of downing street.

To play devil's advocate on this...

Surely the logical answer is already in the question.

He didn't get in, but allowing him to get close supports and re-enforces the illusion of a democratic choice.

Who is more likely to rise up and break free - the slave that realises he is imprisoned and oppressed or the slave who is convinced he is the master of his own liberty and choice?

Yes, I believe you are wrong.

Yes, I believe you are wrong.

Thank you Chief

Interesting read
http://silentcircle.co.uk/the-pan-europ ... an-people/

I don't believe America was complicit in the 9/11 attack as no President would want to be stained by a foreign power infiltrating America's sovereign territory.

Sorry if I seem like I'm picking on you here dude but this isn't quite right.

The now declassified files on Operation Northwoods which was a planned false flag against Cuba had eery similarities to 9/11 including replacing hi-jacked planes with military drones painted to look the same, fake passenger lists and an attack on US soil. Whilst the plans never came to anything as they were rejected by Kennedy they definitely set a precedent for the planning of such an attack by the US - it begs the interesting question of what happens when a president has less morality than Kennedy, someone like for example George W Bush?

Other false flags by the US to legitimatise their entry into war that actually happened and are now a matter of record include The sinking of Maine (Spanish-American War), the sinking of the Lucitania (World War 1), The Gulf of Tonken Incident (Vietnam War). Whilst admittedly none of which were on US soil all did involve the sacrifice of US citizens for political reasons.

Also there is no real wealth in Afghanistan, Syria and other middle Eastern countries who don't have massive oil reserves and I'm a bit confused by how America is supposed to benefit from cheap Labour flooding into Europe?

Afghanistan is home to the worlds largest opium fields which go into 90% of the heroin worldwide - which is a multi-billion dollar industry, while Syria is crucial to both the Qatar/Turkey pipeline (which is backed by the US) and also the Iran/Iraq/Syria pipeline which is backed by Russia). Both have to go through Syria which is why Syria is hugely important and also why Russia is so involved there as a solid Gas and Oil supply via Iran will make them less reliant on the Ukraine.

However, I agree there is a problem with a small elite controlling a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth but they do that by using far easier and less destructive methods than going to war.

Final point (i promise ) is that separate members of the Rothschild family have back different sides of every major war since the Napoleonic war (which incidentally was the war that gave them the opportunity to acquire the Bank of England). Whilst for us normal folks War is a horrible, messy and painful thing, for the elites it's just another way of making money and gaining ever more control of power.

Again sorry for picking on your two posts - not personal I promise - just we obviously have diff. views on this is all!

I have read your points but I'm still not convinced they add up to enough for the USA to go to all the trouble of deceiving it's population and sending it's military to war for the potential benefits which you have named. In relative terms they have small monetary value and are simply not worth the bother.