Just an interesting little perspective on the 'War On Terror'.
[Edit: As pointed out my maths we're f--ked so i've changed this a bit. The point was the same but it's worth editing and doesn't affect the
outcome of this post]
The Worlds Population is currently:
The current cost of the 'War on Terrorism' by America alone is:
- Figure not counting requested funds or future spending which is estimated at a Trillion dollers by 2010.
We could achieve this instead (number are ever rising):
- A fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 7 years
- A fully funded world-wide AIDS programs for 17 years.
- We could have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 57 years.
- We could have provided 8,333,938 students four-year scholarships at public universities
- We could have hired 2,979,265 additional public school teachers for one year.
- We could have built 1,547,911 additional housing units .
Bu where does the money come from?? Why aren't these things funded??
It's a pandora's box viewable through a glass ceiling.
This money doesn't actually exsist, only the interest does and we are paying it.
The most obvious reason would be the collapse of the global banking empires who are worth billions on paper and in interest owed to them on their
loans, but which really don't or never had the money to begin with. A bank will always loan more than it has to draw from because it relies on the
fact that at no point will more people withdraw than what they deposit, in that sense they can loan $5 for every $1 they actually have (small
example). They then charge interest on the money they've loaned. If they loaned $100 at 10% interest, when they've only really got $5 in the bank,
they've just made money out of nothing! Even if they never get the full $100 back and only the interest, aslong as it's more than what they
currently DO have, they've made money. The loans continue so that difference is never caught up on.
[edit: bad example for the financial experts here i know, but it demonstrates the point in a simplistic way]
When a bank collapses, it's usually because it can't honor withdrawals because it's not recieving enough interest or deposits. If this happens to
the World Bank funding America, goodbye America. So they need a way to generate money out of nothing.
Debt and interest is the only way this money can be created to fuel a war, printing more money only deflates the value of money,
War is business and WE are paying the loan.
To dry up a war, is to get out of personal debt.
Supporting war is creating more personal debt.
When a population is in debt, the people who control that debt are the leaders of that population.
When a government is in debt, the people who control that debt are the true government.
War is akin to throwing coals on a fire. It burns the economy bright for a little while but needs more and more to keep it going.
It's a circle of power that is using us as the pawns, the means. Instead of spreading the wealth and evening the playing field and still having
billions to spare, they continue to raise interest rates, raise our debts and borrow upon this to further their own power via our dependency for
If we all had money OR worked together to not need it, the powerful would fall because they are only powerful in an illusionary manner. They aren't
smarter than us, they aren't healthier, they aren't better looking, they aren't more talented, they simply control our debts and we are the dog on
their leash because of it.
The reason Oil is still the standard when it doesn't have to be is because there's still plenty of oil to turn into money. That's all, as simple as
that. We could develop other industries and other means but we'd be leaving a lot of money in the ground. Who does that benefit? Not you and me
that's for sure, we only consume it, not profit from it. Free energy doesn't relate to much money for wallstreet. Power doesn't come from an even
playing field so these options are supressed until the 11th hour when we have no choice and at that time in the future, money won't exsist, only
numbers on a screen or credits in an implanted chip.
Again, in the meantime, we're paying for it via our bodies, health and wallet.
If you are the big tree, we are the small axe, set to chop you down - Bob Marley
When you see that there's only a fraction of this population profiting from War when we are all paying for it, you got to ask who these people
When they are high up in the governments and high ranking 'think tanks', you see what is called 'the shadow government'.
When you read from these 'think tanks' that they need a 'new Peal Habor event' to further their 'military dominance (power, business)', you see
a faux war.
When you see a faux war, you see everything as purely business.
When you see business, you see big money.
When you see big money, you see power for a few.
If the powerful are profiting from war, yet debt is rising and interest rates are rising, why would you believe there's a threat from anyone except
those that are encouraging war, thus encouraging your rising debt?
Sure, it could be Bin Laden's plan to finacially wipe out the US by drawing them unwillingly into war via Terrorist Attacks but when he's only
hurting the little guy and helping the big guy, then he IS the big guy and they can only be one and the same. The alternative is, by helping the big
guys, he's expecting the small to rise up and take control. He's essentially trying to show us that by controlling our government, we wouldn't be
going broke fast and we wouldn't be dying. Doesn't that make him right then? Via a revolution in America because of the situation the rich and
powerful have put us in, we would be reacting directly because of Bin Laden's actions, making him the one who in effect would be responsable for the
American population re-gaining control of government spending and putting it back into the community rather than into the war machine. Could he be
telling the truth then when he refused to acknowledge 9/11 as his plan and his actions (making it an inside job)? Or could that have been a drastic
measure to hold a mirror to our society (making us responsable for our actions by turning us into a third world until we reclaim our government and
leave the Middle East alone)?
So which is it?
Do we continue to fight Terrorism and absorb debt and loss of civil rights in the hope of a Utopia after an undefined global group is defeated in an
unkown timeframe (Rumsfeld said it won't end in our lifetime)??
Or do we demand a government that looks after the population as a whole and which works UNDER us, not ABOVE us?
One is a dream, the other is a revolution.
Bin Laden, Al-Zarqawi are the new enemy of the new century so we are told over and over again, yet they are cash cows for the very people constantly
telling us we must stop them. Why? 3,000 dead in America is nothing compared to what could easily be over 100,000 dead post-9/11 by the US hands.
Isn't revenge achieved yet? Aren't we now the Terrorists when our emotions and our fears are dictating the lives of other nations?
Iran might get the bomb, but what is 1 bomb against Israels 200 or America's 5000?? Is that really a threat? Would Iran not realise it would be no
more if it used that bomb? Of course they would, so logically, they want a defense.
But what are they defending themselves from?
An invading force. Business under the guise of fighting 'Terrorism'.
War is Terrorism as is Business is Politics.
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
Why would you want to stop Terrorsim when it's making you rich?
Surely you'd want it infact to work more efficiently, more wider spread and in regions where more money will be generated, just like a business, you
want to franchise it, spread it, dominate markets with it.
Without a threat of an Enemy, there is no validation for War(business)
Pre-Emption is Terrorism. When it's unfounded as in Iraq, then there has to be another force driving it. Governments only talk in the language of
business. Proof of this is when they supported, funded, trained Bin Laden, sponsered Saddam, etc etc, it was good business at that point to do so.
Let's compare your odds of Death in America alone:
1 in 88,000 of a terrorist attack
1 in 1,500,000 of a terrorist-caused shopping mall disaster assuming one such incident a week and you shop two hours a week
1 in 55,000,000 in a terrorist-caused plane disaster assuming one such incident a month and you fly once a month
1 in 55,928 of death by lightening
1 in 20,605 in your clothes igniting
1 in 10,455 of dying in your bathtub
1 in 10,010 by falling from a ladder or scaffolding
1 in 9,396 due to excessive heat
1 in 8,389 due to excessive cold
1 in 7,972 in a drowning accident
1 in 6,842 in a railway accident.
Using odds of dying in a way that Americans can relate to, let's compare the above numbers to the odds of dying during your lifetime to homicide
from various forms of weapons.
1 in 197 of dying in a homicide
1 in 299 of dying in an assault from a firearm
1 in 5,330 of dying in an assault by hanging or strangulation
1 in 207,261 in operations of war.
This makes the threat no more valid than any other daily exercise. So why are we spending BILLIONS on it rather than fixing healthcare, education,
housing, environment etc etc??
When a population is smart, healthy and happy, they won't want to risk war, they won't be in debt and the divide of power between us and them is
reduced. Is 'No Child Left Behind' a deliberate ploy to lower the education of the population? Widen the gap? Make manipulation and propaganda
easier? An educated population doesn't fall for propaganda as easily as a person without the knowledge to see past the smoke.
Bush will never go broke, his debts will never hurt him, the same with the other 'elite' who run this world and are on the boards advising this
government, supplying this government and working against you for this government.
Yours will. They have us chasing our tails and they want us to believe 'Terrorism' is the cause we're chasing while they grow more powerful and
more wealthy at our expense.
Don't expect it to stop anytime soon while we continue to hate people we'll never meet, be scared of a threat we'll most likely never experience
and continue to stay in debt to the people scripting these fears.
The banks have been sponsering war since the banks first took control of monarchies and governments in Germany, France, UK etc etc and under the guise
of Terrorism, they are sponsering it again.
You can not enforce Freedom. America was founded on a revolution so do we expect Iraq or Iran to be able to thrive on freedom they haven't worked
Same goes in America, it's time for another revolution but we have to work for it, we have to earn it and it won't happen from removing 'possible'
threats, that is infact what's repressing any revolutionary movement.
Patriot Acts don't make us free.
Creating more death and destruction doesn't make us safer.
So who does benefit?
[edit on 24-5-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]
[edit on 24-5-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]
[edit on 24-5-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]