japie said...
If you seriously think that there is no clandestine cohesive policy amongst the mega wealthy of his world that surpasses blatant historic imperialism in all forms then you must be living under a very large rock in a very secluded forest!
So how many people are in this single clandestine group that control the world ?
Lets add 'em up in the most minimal form :
1 per media publisher
1 per political party
1 per religous sect
1 per intenet browser
1 per government agency
1 per air traffic control tower
1 per scientic research laboratory
1 per university department
everybody in the CIA, FBI and every other secret service
Everybody who is super rich
...........
Seems a lot of people to be in a clandestine group and remain clandestine, unless they are the majority, in which case why remain clandestine ?.
And their motivation ? they are not all super rich surely ?
I am not saying CIA haven't sold drugs, but they do it for a specifc purpose at a specific point in time. I am saying there is no global method statement that maps out what a single cohesive clandestine world controlling group will do for the next period of time.
I am saying there was no decision made to first have the CIA deal in drugs, then when that was going along well to engage in Chemical warfare, then when that did its job to set 'mini' nuke bombs in some big buildings.
Every person and group in power has their own agenda. They are splintered groups that evolve, change and mould. Not even saying that each agenda isn't simialr, but it is similar by default, to be rich and in power there are only so many ways of doing it. I am saying I can't believe all the rich powerful people sit down around a big table and agree on what each will do and when.
The British never actually set out to build an empire. In 1650 a british pirate was raiding spanish ships in the carribean plundering the gold the spanish had plundered from the Incas. The english needed gold to fund an immenant war with the Dutch, a war over trading routes to the west indies and control of the building slave trade. Supporting english pirates for a cut of the plunder was a good way to fund the war. The english state then sponsered this 'terrorism' and the British Empire took off from there.
In 1650 the British never had a single grand conspiracy to control 25% of the worlds land mass. Within 200 years they had acheived it. Not by single cohesive design but by a bit of good luck, a bit of state sponsered piracy, a bit of undercover poking of pre-exisiting angst between various other peoples to stir up trouble to asssit their own agenda, a bit of local warlords seeing alliegence with the British gave them more power of their own.
We talked about Twiggy earlier.
6 years ago he was a broke and destitue man. Now he is reportly Australia richest man. I am saying they was no plot developed 8 years ago for Twiggy to become Australia's richest man. It occured because he had the balls to do what nobody else had the balls to do, some good and clever mates who believed his vision and a bit of luck he got producing ore before the GFC hit. If it hit 12 months earlier, he would probably be a broke and destitute man again. I have no doubt he said things that weren't quite right, to enable his share price to rise and his borrowing power to increase. In fact he went to court for it.
Looking at the first theory suggested here I happen to believe Osma only exists because of the CIA. They funded him, trained him, armed him because it suited them for him to be fighting the Russians during the cold war. They didn't do it so 25 years later they would have a figure they could hold up as the devil incarnate to justify something they might want to do.
Why does Osma have to be protected by the CIA just because they can't find him ?
If you spent 30 years in one place fighting and hiding every single day might you not be better at it than somebody who hasn't ? particularly when the person who hasn't taught you every trick they know.
Why has US failure got to be some conspiracy hidden from the masses and not just a mistake they made in training the Mujahaddeen in the the 1980s and a current failure to now find him because he is better at hidding than they are at looking. US failure certainly isn't unique.
I do struggle to see why my argument against organised global conspiracies is poposterous but 'mini' nukes aren't.
Mine is an argument based on facts that have occured before, 'mini' nuke theory is based on science fiction of a 14 year old.
.
