Originally posted by Rasputin13
This should serve as a clear reminder to everyone... DON'T EAT PAINT CHIPS!!!
Is that what those were? They looked
like corn chips. They did put me on the toilet for quite a while though, so maybe you're right.
Now, all kidding aside. How many people here honestly believe that Bush's backdrop was a signal, and that Constitutional Rule is
Of course I don't believe that. I believe that the backdrop was a signal and that what is imminent is a crushing blow against whatever slim danger of
a return to the constitution may exist.
In order to plan and execute such a fundamental change, it's going to take incredible planning and extensive involvement by MANY people. Even
if Constitutional Law is around the corner I can't see Bush using a backdrop, ala-Osama bin Laden tapes, to send a signal to "begin."
My take on the symbol is pretty simple. Bush uses it to scream loud and clear to those who understand "I'm losing too much control". Whoever got
the message then ordered the bombing of the subways in London to obscure the American face of the war on terror and take some of the pressure off of
Bush. It reminds me a bit of a Bin Laden video that came out some time ago where he was dressed in white and gold, as only analyst pointed out,
looking very much like a diplomat. I think that was a similiar cry from his side, "Take the pressure off, you're ruining things over here."
If he's doing this as a secure way of communicating to his co-conspirators, and with the intent of covering his tracks, then how did they plan
this grand conspiracy to begin with?
Our world is generally not run by people who just woke up one day, ran for office, and won. There are powerful families that send their children to
prestigious schools where they can join influential organizations. There is ample opportunity to learn the language while you are not in public life,
and even if somebody spilled the beans on that language, nobody would believe it because it's so vague.
Later these people are in power. You flash a sign that says help, and somebody else unilaterally cooks up a plan to help you, gives a false reason for
it, executes it through his nation or organization's covert capabilities, and it's done.
Think about military hand signals. Everyone knows the signs before you go into action. Everyone knows what to do in a given situation. You don't have
to spell everything out to everyone in the squad when the stuff hits the fan, you just give the appropriate signal or command and everyone does what
the situation requires.
Everything is already in place. Less risky more intricate deceptions have put in place everything that is needed. The war on terror- somewhat
transparent and often betrayed by leaks, but not damning to the true objective because they didn't get together and say "ok we're gonna start a war
on terror to bring about one world government" or anything like that. They covered their motives with lesser crimes like seeking strategic or
economic advantages at the expense of others.
So hypothetically, if Tony Blair has a problem related to the real agenda, which he can't safely communicate by standard methods without the risk of
giving away too much information (for example, purely hypothetical in every sense, if public support for his secert masters in the British Monarchy is
running way to thin, and he needs something stir sympathy and support) All he has to do is display a sign of some kind in the language of symbolism.
No discussion of the motives of the plot is necessary. Somebody can come to his aid by staging an attempt on the Queen's life under wholly unrelated
reasons. If it comes out, you've still got a huge scandal of incredible proportions, but not one that reveals the fact that the Prime Minister is
subservient to the Queen and endangers the master plan.
What I'm suggesting is a very basic symbolic language used to convey the most basic but supremely secret of ideas, upon which less sensitive and more
detailed planning and action can be based.