We are living in an undemocratic (globally) society where the prevalent form of government is fascism, where it is the "merger of state and corporate power" -according to Mussolini. In addition, policies are being implemented not to further the interest of the common people, but to further enrich the power and wealth of this corporate-political elite. At the same time, surveillance societies are being set up globally to check any dissent or opposition. In this context, public opinion engineered by the MSM is designed to keep the masses distracted on a diet of entertainment and infotainment (what an insult!) and to prevent this "true nature" of society from being perceived.
This group of people does not care about human concerns. If they can earn more profits, they'll sacrifice human life (Like Bayer corp, when it sold HIV-infected drugs to Europe with the approval of the FDA and the corporate-induced carnage in the Congo).
If society doesnt wake up to this fucked up reality, the planet and humanity will be fucked and it'll be all YOUR (in the broadest sense) fault.
And you havent answered my earlier questions.
Where do you get the impression that I follow state media and what do you mean by "exposing yourself"?
Where do you get the impression that I follow state media and what do you mean by "exposing yourself"?
So you do not follow state media?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:....
My advice is to stop exposing yourself to our state media.
....
Once this point is reached, there is no point in following state media already.
You should do the logical thing and stop following state media.
You said that remember? So explain yourself, merely curious.
No I don't. But where did you get the impression I did?
But where did you get the impression I did?
I assumed from your frustration that you did.
I seem frustrated already? Damn, I must never watch state media.
Originally posted by Atobe:
The billions spent by Obama and McCain were from contributions voluntarily given by US Citizens to the individuals or political party of their choice and regulated by legislations as to the amount given - WITHOUT any political RECRIMINATIONS from the political party that succeed in the process to form the next Govenment.In our Singapore environment, the incumbent Ruling Political Party is afraid of the overwhelming support of Singaporeans given to the Alternative Parties, and will create all measure to prevented financial and morale support to be given by creating an environment psychological fear of recriminations after the election.
In a mature political environment like the USA, large corporations and huge public personalities freely and openly support the various candidates of their choice WITHOUT any consequential recriminations.
Do you seriously think that politics in Singapore do not cost BILLIONS as well ?
The incumbent Ruling Party will spend BILLIONS of Public Money in so many different ways, and no less than the obvious dubiously named economic progress payments as the Elections date gets closer.
In terms of proportions, is it not shameful that for a small country of 4.5 million residents of which 3 million PLUS are citizens, only less then half the population will actually participate in the election process - due to the shameless shenanigan of the incumbent political party in hampering a genuine election process ?
For all the seeming cost expended, it is encouraging that the political process in the USA managed to have an overwhelming turnout of their eligible population that is far bigger in numbers than Singapore - and which truly give legitimacy to the incoming President-elect Obama.
Correct. We don't actually know how much the PAP spent on elections simply because our media is not doing its job as a free media! It will never do any investigative reporting and will only tell us what the PAP wants us to hear.
The learned Chee Soon Juan destorys once the strongest opposition
party in Singapore.Thanks.Full Stop.
Strongest opposition party ever in Singapore was Barisan Sosialis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barisan_Sosialis
Oh yeah, the party that got arrested before the 1963 elections under the ISA for being communists.
Another lesson for Singapore, don't easily believe accusations of "terrorists"-the new "communists", since in both cases, it could just refer to dissidents and political opposition.
Under the the "Violent Radicalisation and Homegrown Terrorism Act", HR 1955 awaiting senate vote in the US:
"The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual..."
What is the difference between force and violence in the physical sense? Or are they supposed to mean two things?
Besides the sense of physical violence, force could mean:
1. Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech.
2. A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior
Substituted into the definition of HR 1955, these two definitions of "force" makes HR 1955 seem designed to criminalise dissent. Now, is this too far-fetch'd a conclusion to reach?
So when people call for the killing of terrorists, without realising that it is governments that sponsor terrorist attacks in the first place, it all becomes a big farce.
without realising that it is governments that sponsor terrorist attacks in the first place, it all becomes a big farce.
Governments sponsoring groups to fight other states is common.
But government sponsor groups to fight itself is rare, so your view is exaggerated in my opinion.
False-flag operation.
Derived from the time where troops from one country would fly the flag of another country and attack their own troops so that a so-called act of aggression could be repulsed as self-defence.
Hitler dressed up prisoners as Polish soldiers and had them attack a German radio station so that he could start WWII by invading Poland.
The US Govt staged 9/11 so that they could expand police powers and invade Afghanistan, launching an imperial war for natural resources.
You got to think in terms of "problem, reaction, solution". Engineered solutions to solve engineered problems.
The US Govt staged 9/11 so that they could expand police powers and invade Afghanistan, launching an imperial war for natural resources.
No solid evidence, only speculation.
You got to think in terms of "problem, reaction, solution". Engineered solutions to solve engineered problems.
That is a common theme pushed by internet conspiracy propagandists.
You seem to be greatly influenced by them.
Originally posted by freedomclub:False-flag operation.
Derived from the time where troops from one country would fly the flag of another country and attack their own troops so that a so-called act of aggression could be repulsed as self-defence.
Hitler dressed up prisoners as Polish soldiers and had them attack a German radio station so that he could start WWII by invading Poland.
The US Govt staged 9/11 so that they could expand police powers and invade Afghanistan, launching an imperial war for natural resources.
You got to think in terms of "problem, reaction, solution". Engineered solutions to solve engineered problems.
conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy...
I think these internet conspiracy propagandists is having a very bad influence on some people who are not that critical of information on web.
So this is one bad thing about internet.
It gives anyone a platform to spread their propaganda.
Official story: 19 hijackers, 15 of them from Saudi Arabia, hijacked four planes and crashed two of them into WTC 1 and 2, collapsing them. One into the Pentagon. One crashed in Pennsylvania.
Problem with official story #1: Some of the alleged hijackers are still alive, reported the BBC
Problem #2: If 2 planes crashed into the Twin Towers, then what caused WTC 7 to collapse in the same exact manner almost 8 hours later?
Problem #3: Why did eye-witnesses report ground-level explosions that totally wrecked the lobby of the Twin Towers?
Problem #4: If the jet fuel weakened the support structures of the Twin Towers, then according to the official pancake theory, why wasn't the steel core left standing? Instead, the steel cores were photographed after the collapse as having been cut diagonally (by thermite, thermite residue found by 9/11 researchers).
Problem #5: If a plane hit the Pentagon, then where is all the debris, including the tail section, fuselage and especially the engine made of titanium which couldnt have been destroyed by the flames? And why was the hole made in the Pentagon not big enough for a jet liner? What hit the Pentagon?
Problem #6: If the government's official story is true, then why did the CIA/FBI confiscated all CCTV cameras around the Pentagon immediately after the crash and refused to release them except for 5 frames, which is inconclusive?
Problem #7: If a plane crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, then again, where is all the debris and human bodies? Shouldnt there be the wreckage? Go check out the photos. In fact, a cornerer said that it wasnt a crime scene because there were no human bodies.
Problem #8: Why did Dick Cheney order NORAD to stand-down when it was known that hijacked planes were in the air?
Problem #9: What a coincidence that more than 6 anti-terrorist exercises were taking place on 9/11 envisioning the same scenario.
Problem #10: Why did the US Govt invade Afghanistan, blaming Bin Laden for 9/11, when 1)war plans for the invasion already existed before 9/11 and 2)the FBI does not list Bin Laden as responsible for 9/11 because of lack of evidence.
So, given all these inconsistencies, the official story just doesnt stand. It is more likely that it was another false-flag operation carried out by the CIA/MI6/Mossad or a combination, to set into motion global change, which we have experienced.
So, given all these inconsistencies, the official story just doesnt stand.
I agree that there are a lot of loopholes in official story, but to push:
It is more likely that it was another false-flag operation carried out by the CIA/MI6/Mossad or a combination, to set into motion global change, which we have experienced.,
we need evidence.
Originally posted by skythewood:
conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy...
Again, another instance of media conditioning.
A conspiracy is defined as two or more people planning in secret to commit an illegal act.
If someone believed there is a conspiracy, it does not mean he is crazy or suffering from mental instability.
Why do we have anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws? Are you saying that our legal system is based on crazy premises? That could get you charged for libel (Oops, I shouldnt be saying that).
Nowadays, people think "conspiracy" and immediately switch off. Got to hand it to the media, such efficient conditioning to prevent people from questioning the official story.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:So, given all these inconsistencies, the official story just doesnt stand.
I agree that there are a lot of loopholes in official story, but to push:
It is more likely that it was another false-flag operation carried out by the CIA/MI6/Mossad or a combination, to set into motion global change, which we have experienced.,
we need evidence.
And if the official story doesnt stand. The justification for the War on Terror just doesnt stand. Is your saviour president-elect "change" willing to open an honest investigation into 9/11 to question the corporate-political agenda of a War of Terror that increases profits?
I conjectured that it was carried out by intelligence agencies. Comparing the official story with its loopholes, one is likely to believe that the government is hiding its involvement in 9/11.
Did you watch that documentary before posting it?
I conjectured that it was carried out by intelligence agencies.
That is conjecture.
Did you watch that documentary before posting it?
It's quite a good documentary.
Well what was the point of posting that link? What views did that documentary put forward?
Yes, its conjecture. But the evidence that destroys the official story suggests a totally different scenario, along the lines of government involvement. If the official story doesnt hold, if the 19 hijackers are not the real culprits, then who is responsible? Either the government or a third party terrorist group that we havent heard about.
..............................................