The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[Deranged Rhino]

This is the wacko conspiracy thread so I'd like to thank Third for staying on topic.

Coming from someone who has demonstrated he has no understanding of how the IC functions, let alone which agencies comprise it, it's no surprise you label this thread as such. You're asleep. One day you'll wake up and see you've been lied to for years. You've been kept ignorant, angry, and confused because the "wacko" conspiracy (which is extensively documented w verifiable sources) is actually reality and the reality you think of as real is in fact the mirage.

 

You've been had. This thread can help wake you up if you're willing/able to think for yourself and see beyond the programming you've been under your entire life.

[Deranged Rhino]

*********

 

Slightly off topic for this thread (but not entirely) -- still it's worth checking out.

 

(Scahill on fascism in America)

 

Edited January 22, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[Benjamin Franklin]

Coming from someone who has demonstrated he has no understanding of how the IC functions, let alone which agencies comprise it, it's no surprise you label this thread as such. You're asleep. One day you'll wake up and see you've been lied to for years. You've been kept ignorant, angry, and confused because the "wacko" conspiracy (which is extensively documented w verifiable sources) is actually reality and the reality you think of as real is in fact the mirage.

 

You've been had. This thread can help wake you up if you're willing/able to think for yourself and see beyond the programming you've been under your entire life.

 

Remember when you had the Illuminati handing Hillary the presidency?

 

I'll go ahead and not believe your conspiracies since they change with the tides.

[Deranged Rhino]

Remember when you had the Illuminati handing Hillary the presidency?

 

I'll go ahead and not believe your conspiracies since they change with the tides.

 

Link?

 

Oh right, there is no link because what you're saying is an invention of your imagination. I've never said anything about the illuminati other than I'm NOT an illuminati guy.

 

I know you're asleep and that's okay, but try to at least be honest. There is plenty of room to have a reasonable conversation about a very controversial topic without injecting blatant falsehoods into the equation.

[DC Tom]

Link?

 

Oh right, there is no link because what you're saying is an invention of your imagination. I've never said anything about the illuminati other than I'm NOT an illuminati guy.

 

I know you're asleep and that's okay, but try to at least be honest. There is plenty of room to have a reasonable conversation about a very controversial topic without injecting blatant falsehoods into the equation.

 

*ahem* "Alternative facts."

[GG]

Link?

 

Oh right, there is no link because what you're saying is an invention of your imagination. I've never said anything about the illuminati other than I'm NOT an illuminati guy.

 

Then exactly which powers you claimed were set for their coronation of Hillary?

[/dev/null]

 

Remember when you had the Illuminati handing Hillary the presidency?

 

I've never said anything about the illuminati other than I'm NOT an illuminati guy.

 

 

Rhino has a valid point. He is more of a Reptoid kind of guy

[Deranged Rhino]

Then exactly which powers you claimed were set for their coronation of Hillary?

Not the !@#$ing illuminati

 

I know you struggle with intellectual honesty when discussing things that threaten your jingoistic world view, but I've never said anything about the illuminati other than saying I don't believe in it.

Rhino has a valid point. He is more of a Reptoid kind of guy

*ahem* "Alternative facts."

[GG]

Not the !@#$ing illuminati

 

I know you struggle with intellectual honesty when discussing things that threaten your jingoistic world view, but I've never said anything about the illuminati other than saying I don't believe in it.

 

If not the illuminati, then who? We were treated to 15 months of posts that powers behind the scenes orchestrated the entire election, and Hilary's coronation was the last step.

 

So who are these powers?

 

Simple question.

[Deranged Rhino]

If not the illuminati, then who? We were treated to 15 months of posts that powers behind the scenes orchestrated the entire election, and Hilary's coronation was the last step.

 

So who are these powers?

 

Simple question.

Gee. If only there was a long, detailed, fully fleshed out post complete w dozens of sources about that very thing.

 

 

...which is more than you've ever offered by the way. You're still running from direct questions posed to you back in September.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[/dev/null]

So who are these powers?

[Deranged Rhino]

Also not true. At least in real life and on PPP.

 

In speculative talks for fun, then I'll entertain that all day and night

[GG]

Gee. If only there was a long, detailed, fully fleshed out post complete w dozens of sources about that very thing.

 

 

...which is more than you've ever offered by the way. You're still running from direct questions posed to you back in September.

 

Here we go again.

 

You never had a detailed fully fleshed out post. You keep trolling about the Deep State or the Dark State or whatever the flavor of the day is, without any coherent explanation of who exactly is behind it, and most importantly, who wins in your doomsday scenario and what do they get when they win.

 

And, as it's become a routine tradition. Your question to me would be easy to answer, if you actually ask it. So, what's the question?

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

Here we go again.

 

You never had a detailed fully fleshed out post. You keep trolling about the Deep State or the Dark State or whatever the flavor of the day is, without any coherent explanation of who exactly is behind it, and most importantly, who wins in your doomsday scenario and what do they get when they win.

 

And, as it's become a routine tradition. Your question to me would be easy to answer, if you actually ask it. So, what's the question?

 

His refutation of my point is that I said "illuminati." He's not denying that he lectured us for months about the conspiracy to elect Hillary. His conspiracy group has another name. I've heard it but can't place it off the top of my head.

 

Which is just the way they want it.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Here we go again.

 

You never had a detailed fully fleshed out post.

 

I sure do. Right in this very thread. It's literally 10 pages long, complete with dozens of sources including many primary sources. It's even right at the top of the thread, so it's real easy to find.

 

Like I said, intellectual honesty clearly isn't your thing.

 

 

You keep trolling about the Deep State or the Dark State or whatever the flavor of the day is, without any coherent explanation of who exactly is behind it...

 

Blatantly false.

 

and most importantly, who wins in your doomsday scenario and what do they get when they win.

 

Maybe the reason you're making such a fool of yourself right this very moment is because you keep injecting things into the discussion I've never said and then claiming I said them. You do this a lot. It's a desperate move and, as I've said, intellectually dishonest.

 

"Doomsday scenario" is something I've never said nor proffered. That's your own erroneous interpretation of my position which, as we've seen, you have never bothered to consider because it's unsettling to your narrow minded view of the world and geopolitics as a whole.

 

That's fine, of course, you're free to think and post what you want. But you'd be a lot cooler if you did so with at least a hint of honesty.

 

 

And, as it's become a routine tradition. Your question to me would be easy to answer, if you actually ask it. So, what's the question?

 

The US directly bombed Syrian troops during the cease fire in Syria in September. This was done with the explicit purpose of helping ISIS/AQ forces retake a foothold in Aleppo, shredding the cease fire, and preventing peace from holding with Assad still in power. Doing so risked killing Russian troops stationed at the Syrian FOB and bringing us into a direct conflict with Russia.

 

The US said it was an accident.

 

This was a lie and the event itself was indeed a war crime by any metric.

 

You disagreed.

 

I've asked you numerous times what other possible explanation for a 3 hour sustained bombing campaign, during a cease fire, in an area of the city JSOC knew like the back of its hand, could there have been other than the administration's desire to prolong the conflict in Syria until they got results more favorable to their geopolitical strategy?

 

 

 

You're a smart man, no question. You also are passionate about your beliefs which should be applauded. But you've continually demonstrated in your interactions with me that you'd rather be dishonest and closed minded than have a real discussion about topics that are upsetting to your world view.

 

That's a shame. But one day you'll wake up and see you've been had and I'll be there with a drink for ya'.

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

 

 

That's a shame. But one day you'll wake up and see you've been had and I'll be there with a drink for ya'.

 

Straight out of the Dwight Drane school.

 

Keep changing the predictions. One of them is bound to be right eventually.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin

[GG]

 

I sure do. Right in this very thread. It's literally 10 pages long, complete with dozens of sources including many primary sources. It's even right at the top of the thread, so it's real easy to find.

 

Like I said, intellectual honesty clearly isn't your thing.

 

 

Blatantly false.

 

 

Maybe the reason you're making such a fool of yourself right this very moment is because you keep injecting things into the discussion I've never said and then claiming I said them. You do this a lot. It's a desperate move and, as I've said, intellectually dishonest.

 

"Doomsday scenario" is something I've never said nor proffered. That's your own erroneous interpretation of my position which, as we've seen, you have never bothered to consider because it's unsettling to your narrow minded view of the world and geopolitics as a whole.

 

That's fine, of course, you're free to think and post what you want. But you'd be a lot cooler if you did so with at least a hint of honesty.

 

 

The US directly bombed Syrian troops during the cease fire in Syria in September. This was done with the explicit purpose of helping ISIS/AQ forces retake a foothold in Aleppo, shredding the cease fire, and preventing peace from holding with Assad still in power. Doing so risked killing Russian troops stationed at the Syrian FOB and bringing us into a direct conflict with Russia.

 

The US said it was an accident.

 

This was a lie and the event itself was indeed a war crime by any metric.

 

You disagreed.

 

I've asked you numerous times what other possible explanation for a 3 hour sustained bombing campaign, during a cease fire, in an area of the city JSOC knew like the back of its hand, could there have been other than the administration's desire to prolong the conflict in Syria until they got results more favorable to their geopolitical strategy?

 

 

 

You're a smart man, no question. You also are passionate about your beliefs which should be applauded. But you've continually demonstrated in your interactions with me that you'd rather be dishonest and closed minded than have a real discussion about topics that are upsetting to your world view.

 

That's a shame. But one day you'll wake up and see you've been had and I'll be there with a drink for ya'.

 

So you have your panties in a wad because the US bombed Syrians and called it a mistake? It probably wasn't a mistake but retribution over Syrians continuing to shell civilians and aid convoys despite the cease fire attempts.

 

This is a clear case why people are laughing at you. There isn't a single plausible scenario where the US military and coalition forces would be actively supporting ISIS/AQ. Yet you keep insisting on it. What's the end game?

 

You know, what? I'm glad someone in the chain of command decided to pop the Syrian f'kers after what they have done in the region.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

So you have your panties in a wad because the US bombed Syrians and called it a mistake? It probably wasn't a mistake but retribution over Syrians continuing to shell civilians and aid convoys despite the cease fire attempts.

 

No, my panties were in a wad because it took you 4 months to answer a direct question... and you still got it wrong.

 

 

This is a clear case why people are laughing at you. There isn't a single plausible scenario where the US military and coalition forces would be actively supporting ISIS/AQ. Yet you keep insisting on it.

 

 

You know, except all the information about that bombing in September, and the primary sources from wiki leaks referenced above, and Tulsi Gabbard's own discussions on the topic, and the over 55 special operators I've interviewed in the last three months (all of whom were on the ground in Syria)...

 

There's literally pages of primary source material out there that make this case overwhelmingly if you actually take the time to look.

 

"When a foolish man hears the truth, he laughs out loud at the very idea."

(paraphrased of course)

 

 

You know, what? I'm glad someone in the chain of command decided to pop the Syrian f'kers after what they have done in the region.

 

Of course you are. You're an avowed neocon who believes regime change is achieved by simply wishing for better lives for people of the world. Killing a few Syrians, even if it meant risking killing Russian troops in the process and triggering a war is fine by you. You've made that point abundantly clear.

 

It's just a very shortsighted and sad position to hold.

 

You've aligned yourself with the losing side of this battle. That's why your fall is going to be the hardest one of them all.

 

 

Straight out of the Dwight Drane school.

 

 

Now that I'm aware of who he was, I can firmly say this isn't true.

 

He was an end-times guy, that's not at all what I believe in nor my thesis in this thread.

 

...Just for clarity.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[GG]

 

No, my panties were in a wad because it took you 4 months to answer a direct question... and you still got it wrong.

 

 

You know, except all the information about that bombing in September, and the primary sources from wiki leaks referenced above, and Tulsi Gabbard's own discussions on the topic, and the over 55 special operators I've interviewed in the last three months (all of whom were on the ground in Syria)...

 

There's literally pages of primary source material out there that make this case overwhelmingly if you actually take the time to look.

 

"When a foolish man hears the truth, he laughs out loud at the very idea."

(paraphrased of course)

 

 

Of course you are. You're an avowed neocon who believes regime change is achieved by simply wishing for better lives for people of the world. Killing a few Syrians, even if it meant risking killing Russian troops in the process and triggering a war is fine by you. You've made that point abundantly clear.

 

It's just a very shortsighted and sad position to hold.

 

You've aligned yourself with the losing side of this battle. That's why your fall is going to be the hardest one of them all.

 

 

Now that I'm aware of who he was, I can firmly say this isn't true.

 

He was an end-times guy, that's not at all what I believe in nor my thesis in this thread.

 

...Just for clarity.

 

If that is the big question you've been asking, you're barking up the wrong tree. I never denied that US and coalition air fighters hit Syrian troops. I'm just laughing at the suggestion that they did it to start WW III.

 

So when all else fails, try the neocon trope. Are you claiming that Obama is a neocon?

 

Or what about that pipeline? Tell us about that agin.

 

Or is the war to help Chevron & Enron? Remember that they had Hillary in their pocket. All they needed was to wait for her coronation, and then one of the CEOs would be named Secretary of State, and the take over would be complete. Oh the horrors.

 

You're in too deep within your own screen play. Take a step back and see how ridiculous you've looked over the last 15 months.

 

Middle East is a mess because it's been a mess throughout the written history of mankind. It didn't help the US that it was led by the most feckless president in a generation and that's the main reason why the situation is so messy. There's no grand conspiracy to why the US is doing what it's doing. Obama screwed things up and then had nothing but bad choices as a result.

 

Sometimes, it's as simple as that.

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

If that is the big question you've been asking, you're barking up the wrong tree. I never denied that US and coalition air fighters hit Syrian troops. I'm just laughing at the suggestion that they did it to start WW III.

 

So when all else fails, try the neocon trope. Are you claiming that Obama is a neocon?

 

Or what about that pipeline? Tell us about that agin.

 

Or is the war to help Chevron & Enron? Remember that they had Hillary in their pocket. All they needed was to wait for her coronation, and then one of the CEOs would be named Secretary of State, and the take over would be complete. Oh the horrors.

 

You're in too deep within your own screen play. Take a step back and see how ridiculous you've looked over the last 15 months.

 

Middle East is a mess because it's been a mess throughout the written history of mankind. It didn't help the US that it was led by the most feckless president in a generation and that's the main reason why the situation is so messy. There's no grand conspiracy to why the US is doing what it's doing. Obama screwed things up and then had nothing but bad choices as a result.

 

Sometimes, it's as simple as that.

 

I forget where DR is on 9-11. Did Elon Musk's UFO fly into the twin towers? I cant keep the conspiracies straight.