Wachovia, Bank of America into huge drug money laundering scheme....

page: 3
75
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
pardon my short response but
it's not

The War ON Drugs

it's

The War FOR Drugs




posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

However the banking system is i believe necessary for a global economy.


Is a global economy necessary? Or desirable?

I know it is to the mega wealthy, but what are the benefits to the masses of people? For whom life and the ability to make a living are often much more local? Do they benefit us? How?

Both major pushes towards one have resulted in economic chaos, which is then blamed on various other things, but are we so sure we are competent to run one? Do we know if they are inherently stable/unstable? Is the complexity inherently dangerous? (more vulnerable to breakdowns that can lead to collapse?)

I always wonder when people make statements like the one I quoted if they have properly considered and looked at the little data we do have whether or not it is right, prudent and proper for us to be moving towards globalization at all at this point in history.

After all, one of the arguments for it seems to be this;

www.iie.com...


There are no new multilateral negotiations of any serious nature being conducted anywhere. The situation is very serious if, like me, believe in the bicycle theory, which says you either move forward or you fall over.


Made by the same genius who said this;


There is no doubt that the anti-globalization forces now are in the ascendancy, at least on the policy front, and that it is particularly paradoxical and particularly worrisome that such is the case when the world economy, and particularly the U.S. economy, is in such good shape.


Less than a decade before another major collapse. One that this time cannot be blamed on moves towards protectionism or world war. These guys just arent as clever as they think they are. And the "bicycle theory" is exactly what one must follow..............if you are running a multi level marketing scheme, rather than a stable self sustaining economy. Sure they need new recruits. Every pyramid scheme does.

And then there is this;


A second part of the response has to be an honest recognition and admission that there are costs and losers. For too long, those of us on the pro-globalization side tried to ignore and deny this fact-but it clearly must be accepted and admitted. It follows from standard economic theory, and it follows from looking out the window and seeing the impact within many of our countries. This, in turn, means that something needs to be done to help deal with the costs and those who are losers. In broad terms, it requires better social safety nets in many of our countries and programs that will help the adjustment to dislocation, whether caused by globalization or other interrelated forces.


Who do you think the losers are going to be? I can tell you that you are already seeing them. The average citizens in industrialized nations. And it may well be better for the world to even out resources, so its more fair. But those of us who are taking the pay cut need to be clear on what we are doing, if we support that, and how far we are willing to cut, since those at the top of the heap are taking a bigger cut for themselves as well.

I think we need to question the wisdom of globalization at this point. While I do fall into the camp that would like to see a more even distribution of wealth among the worlds population, and an increase in standards of living in the third world, I dont want "equity" to come entirely at the expense of the lower and middle classes in the first world.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Quite simply a global economy has both benefits and terrible negaitves but only because of the current system. Benefits include increased standards of living for those in developing nations. Without a global economy no nation which is poor could ever hope to strive for improvement. A global economy gives them the opportunity.Slave shops as some peopel so ignorantly call them are actually better than the alternate jobs they had.

So yes a global economy is most certainly a good thing.

My issue is with how the banking institutions are run. I believe their account sshould be fully open to the public as any small company is. In the UK any LTD company has to provide their account sfor public scrutiny via companies house. Banking institutions seem to be largely exempt from this and i find it disgusting.

Everything regarding business should be public record. This would actually encourage further competition while increasing fair practice.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984


So yes a global economy is most certainly a good thing.



Well that was certainly a thoughtful and considered response. How do you see globalization working to raise the standards of living for peoples around the world?

Especially when those same guys, in the article you declined to read, say this;

www.iie.com...


We know that globalization does increase income and social disparities within countries. We know that globalization does leave some countries and certainly some groups of people behind.


While I may hope that someday people around the world can all enjoy a better quality of life, and you may have that agenda, that is clearly NOT the agenda of the people pushing economic globalization.

If you actually care to do more than make off the cuff statements that are likely backed by quite honest good intentions, I suggest you move past the propaganda for globalization, (raising the standard of living in the third world) and into a real intellectual examination of both the motives, and competence of the people selling you this propaganda.

Its not their intent to spread wealth and resources and standards of living more equitably. The only standard of living they are interested in is their own. The fact that some others will enjoy an increase in standard of living is incidental. Many will not. MOST will not. And there are good arguments that complex systems are inherently more unstable if you care to do some small reading in the area, as well as some historical examples ( the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond gives an interesting one) if you cared to look at those too.

These are not world governments, acting on behalf of their people, these are self interested individuals manipulating both governments and the worlds people on their own behalf.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Quite simply a global economy has both benefits and terrible negaitves but only because of the current system. Benefits include increased standards of living for those in developing nations. Without a global economy no nation which is poor could ever hope to strive for improvement. A global economy gives them the opportunity.Slave shops as some peopel so ignorantly call them are actually better than the alternate jobs they had.


And you should support those statements. Because most of the data I have seen does NOT indicate that moving from agriculture into sweat shop conditions is much of an improvement of their circumstances. Not in terms of hours worked per day, nor in terms of happiness.

Another question I have, is if you think it is a bad system, how are you so sure the banking end is the only problem? Perhaps you could outline your thinking on this.




[edit on 22-7-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I think the CIA involvement in drugs started organically.

During the 60's they really worried a lot about Communism. So, what better way to avoid Communism taking hold than to infiltrate the Hippy counter-culture. So they took over some drug operations.

The other part of "security" is NOT allowing a foreign influence to take control of your criminal element -- we did this effectively to the Soviet Union. Politicians in this country, don't suddenly get a mob hit -- unless of course they back a Union or stop a war, that is.

So controlling the drug trade is a means to prevent a 5th column. The problem is -- it's also a way to fund a lot of Black Hat operations -- and the money is good. The money corrupts the intelligence agency so that pretty soon, you get undercover drug enforcement agents getting tortured and killed because the CIA ratted them out. You get people who want to Legalize drugs marginalized.

The Drug War employs police, judges, attorneys, and mega-prison corporations. Business is booming. And that business gets influence and lobbies. It was corporate prison systems that pushed for the "three strikes and you're out" laws and the automatic mandatory sentencing -- more customers and more time. There was even a judge caught getting money from a warden for sentencing kids to long Juvenile detention regardless of merit -- meaning, some innocent people went to Juvie because this guy got some cash.


Likely, Special Forces are trading with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then the CIA ships those drugs out -- maybe to Ukrainian terrorists (Bush had a lot of inroads and "investments" from those parts). And then that money gets laundered in Dubai. Which also is the biggest funder of Terrorist groups -- but why stop that? When good old Middle Class folks like you and I try and fly the straight and narrow, and feel threatened -- we become supporters of MORE Drug Laws, more Military Build-up and all that is great for business.

If all the Drug Lords quit dealing drugs, and all the people our military bombs so that we can get cheap oil suddenly quit fighting back -- well, then, it's very likely that we wouldn't notice -- because for the sake of business, the CIA would produce Drug Dealer atrocities and false flags for us to worry about.


Ultimately, I think the MONEY from war and drugs has made it so that nobody really knows "who owns who" -- so we don't get any of the rich and powerful going after any other rich and powerful. They just don't want to fight in front of the kids.

So if BP owns a few politicians -- and some country like Turkey has a few politicians snorting crack over a dead ladies back -- and Saudi Arabia paid someone for nuclear secrets -- and Karzai's brother has some do-gooder killed for reducing the Opium flow -- and some FBI agent has convinced some pathetic homeless guy to plan a bombing ... it's all good for business. Just don't let the sham of the "War effort" fail. Just don't let anyone know that the ONLY ENEMY out there is the Foxes guarding the henhouse occasionally looking like foreign Foxes and dressing like faithful Hound Dogs when they go on TV.


>> I don't come to this site for the Chem Trails and Alien abductions -- I like coming here because there are a lot of people who "get it." The Biggest, most important conspiracies are what maintain the Status Quo -- NOT the Vatican hiding Extra Terrestrials, but the Vatican being involved in trading and selling orphans for political favors -- Not that I KNOW anything --it just seems like they could easily do it and it would work out really well for them -- you know, like the CIA being THE drug runners in the world.

Oh, the things Manuel Noriega could probably tell us if it wouldn't cost him his life.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Well that was certainly a thoughtful and considered response. How do you see globalization working to raise the standards of living for peoples around the world?

Especially when those same guys, in the article you declined to read, say this;

www.iie.com...


We know that globalization does increase income and social disparities within countries. We know that globalization does leave some countries and certainly some groups of people behind.


I would say the article is terribly biased. I would point to countries that had no chance of ever escaping their current situation without a global economy being present, like India, China and numerous others.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
While I may hope that someday people around the world can all enjoy a better quality of life, and you may have that agenda, that is clearly NOT the agenda of the people pushing economic globalization.


We must be careful in our agreement to not promote equal socialism while encouraging increased standards of living and minimum standards of treatment. That's a fine line.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
If you actually care to do more than make off the cuff statements that are likely backed by quite honest good intentions, I suggest you move past the propaganda for globalization, (raising the standard of living in the third world) and into a real intellectual examination of both the motives, and competence of the people selling you this propaganda.


The motivations are pathetic, these people are out for nothing than profit i have absolutely no illusions at all about that one. Please don't read into my statements as ignorant. I do however recognis that despite the profit driven motives they can and do increase the living of those involved.

It basically comes down to some poor individual being forced to work 16 hours in a factory with minimal breaks and working 18 hours in a field with no breaks under heavy physical labour. Neither is good but one is better than he other. And at least the other will give them the funds to put their children through school.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Its not their intent to spread wealth and resources and standards of living more equitably. The only standard of living they are interested in is their own. The fact that some others will enjoy an increase in standard of living is incidental. Many will not. MOST will not. And there are good arguments that complex systems are inherently more unstable if you care to do some small reading in the area, as well as some historical examples ( the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond gives an interesting one) if you cared to look at those too.


That book is horrible biased and i have read it, even the title gives away the agenda. Sorry but if a nation has a slow increase of overall wealth it tends to increase the standard of living at those of the bottom in due course (assuming a non corrupt government). If the government is corrupt it's difficult to change. Of course even with a decent government such changes are incredibly slow but just look at developing nations. They have gone from complete poverty to reasonable standards.

In fact if you look at the life expectancy of all developing nations you will find increasing life expectancy of most groups and that shows globalisation works. Again those who exploited the countries don't care about the people, it's just a positive side effect but it is a side effect i think is good.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
These are not world governments, acting on behalf of their people, these are self interested individuals manipulating both governments and the worlds people on their own behalf.


Abolutely and without argument and it saddens me to see it. But don't assume that just because someone defends globalisation that they are ignorant of such things.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

And you should support those statements. Because most of the data I have seen does NOT indicate that moving from agriculture into sweat shop conditions is much of an improvement of their circumstances. Not in terms of hours worked per day, nor in terms of happiness.



Life expectancy increases, social mobility increases and if you actually spoke to such people you will find that while such conditions are harsh they prefer them to what they had. If they didn't then they wouldn't fill the jobs! They realise that the jobs can help them educate their children and that can lead to them having better lives.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Another question I have, is if you think it is a bad system, how are you so sure the banking end is the only problem? Perhaps you could outline your thinking on this.


Forgive me i'm a little tired atm but i will try my best.

Quite simply i would do a number of things.

1. Expose the banks accounts, from start to finish like any other business. That way journalists and consumers can go through them if need be and strip them apart. This would encourage competeition, eliminate corruption and generally improve the service to consumers.

2. Encourage global trade. Right now limits are often put on global trade that cause terrible abuse.

3. Eliminate third world debt, simply cancel it. It cannot be paid back due to interest and it simply keeps nations down. By eliminating it we could encourage fair trade with various nations.

4. Properly regulate fair trade proposals. They're a joke atm and all it does is give consumers a feel good sensation while lining the pockets of banks and corporations.

That's about it, i hope it helped clarify my feelings. I apologise if it isn't complete i'm just not at my best atm.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Remember when the liquidity crisis was happening? "Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said that at the height of the global financial crisis, the financial system was kept afloat by billions of dollars of drug money."
www.thenational.ae.../20091217/GLOBALBRIEFING/912179988/1009/national?template=globalbriefing

Our federal government knows that the giant banks are laundering those trillions. The government takes a cut of the action. They just give them small fines on the business, no one ever goes to jail.

If it wasn't for the illegal drug based economy, the black market, we would have been in a deep depression years ago. None of the players want this cash cow to go dry, hence the continued fake war on drugs.

The only solution is to legalize drugs, period. Then abolish the corporation as a legal entity. Those two things, seemingly impossible, would go far in restoring our democracy.

Ever wonder why the 911 commission declined to follow the highjackers money trail?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Who ever said banking of honorable?

I believe it to be ridiculous. How do so many people make so much money doing nothing but holding it?

When you create nothing, you earn nothing.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I also think that the convergence of the CIA and the control of the Drug Trade is the reason why JFK died early and the Bush Family got control of politics.

When prohibition ended the Booze trade - that hurt Kennedy's dad, but forced otherwise entrepreneurial people to get into more profitable business; politics.

Prescott Bush however, was doing a good trade with the Nazis during WW II -- still hurting from the his failed attempt to reign in FDR. Banking with Buckenwald was probably more profitable than running booze.

But they lost a bit when Cuba went Communist. And the Patriotism in the Bush's came out -- because it's always better to get the government to kill people for you. So they engineered the Bay of Pigs -- which was first called by a code name of the boats they rented which was also the name of the Bush family oil company they rented the boats from.

Weeks into his Presidency, JFK didn't want to back an attempt to turn the cold war hot, and try and get the Bush's oil resources back with nothing to gain for the country -- so he sent NO military support, while on the face, trying to act like he was still in control. Just like Obama -- you can't look like there are wars that get started with your intelligence service and you have NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER -- so you don't fight in front of the Peons.

Bobby Kennedy, after that, took on a mission of taking out the Mob. They were having huge successes. The best I can make of it; a convergence of the CIA, misdirected Cuban Mobsters, some white supremacist groups out of Georgia who likely took out MLK, were probably orchestrated by the one family that straddles them all; The Bush Crime Family. They don't run it all, but with the Carlysle Group and Skull and Bones -- they are probably members of the board.

Cheney earned his way in by trading oil with Saddam and war profiteering and making Asbestos claims against his companies disappear with the supreme court and some "duck hunting." He's got his own private hit squad in Washington still active. He also made huge amounts of money helping rich people avoid taxes and offshore accounts -- a true patriot. So, having stolen a lot more than anyone else -- he was a shoe-in to join BushCo in office.

>> I don't think our Presidential campaigns are an exercise for Democracy so much as a Beauty Pageant for psychopaths. They audition on the casting couch for the "Powers That Be."

I don't think that there is some mind-boggling complex plan; it's the same plan that the Elite have always run; make sure you have an enemy so that you and your best enemy friend can steal from the people. So the World Banks fight economic instability by gobbling up all the money. The Pentagon makes money for Generals by clearing the way for any multinational who will pay the tab. The CIA kills anyone who might start an actual Democracy or increase pay to poor people until someone who thinks correctly gets into power and hires ONLY from the School of the Americas -- just to make sure they never go Commie.

Meanwhile, you've got the Likud party running the Mossad, and they've managed to get enough extortion and drug-addled pervs on their Photo gallery, that they get to push whatever they want through congress and even have dual citizenship with lots of our Military and Government.

--- there's no over-arching scheme here; just get the poor to fight each other for religion, prejudice, economics, or make something up -- and then sell them the weapons. All the connected people are sold out to someone and it doesn't matter which country, what purpose, or what nonsense they sell to the public about "saving the children by passing this invasive law or that." If they started enforcing the law on ONE group -- then that group likely has something on them.


Therefore -- the only people going to prison who have power, are those who break the cardinal rules; letting the peons understand the game, robbing from the rich, or giving more power to the people. As long as you don't break those three sacred rules -- you get to keep whatever you can steal.

Sell the kids Lead Toys and make sure you get a grant to distribute "Just Say NO" stickers -- right?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Just goes to show just how corrupt America and many others are. It's time for change. S+F^_^



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by zzombie
 


"Mike Ruppert's documentary released about 6 years ago gave a lot of details on the CIA's involvement in the drug trade.

According to Ruppert, Wall St. Launders 500 Billion to 1 Trillion per year in Drug profits.

LAPD Narcotics Detective Mike Ruppert confronts CIA director about Drug Smuggling on CSPAN. Watch the first few minutes. "

I am also a fan of Ruppert's latest film "Collapse".

It is well worth a watch.

Shutting down most of the 3,900+ wells in the gulf is going to help
Mr. ruppert's prediction come to pass sooner than even he thought.

Most of them are in water deeper than 50 feet.

I get the part about not allowing drilling in extreme deep water
at extreme pressure, but they over reacted limiting it to 50 ft of depth.

That is going to impact oil prices big time.

And that will in turn impact everyone.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

I would say the article is terribly biased.


My fault for saying "article." This is a speech given by C. Fred Bergsten at the 2000 meeting of the Tri-Lateral commission in Tokyo. Its actually not by a reporter reporting on what they are doing. It is a speech by one of the proponents of, and architects of economic globalization is saying to the others.

en.wikipedia.org...


C. Fred Bergsten (born 1941) is an American economist, author, and political adviser. He has served as Assistant Secretary for International Affairs at the U.S. Treasury Department and has been director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, formerly the Institute for International Economics, since its foundation in 1981.



Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I would point to countries that had no chance of ever escaping their current situation without a global economy being present, like India, China and numerous others.


Escaping it to what is what I wonder? India has a population problem, China has had a government problem, we have had a consumption problem which we are now exporting all over the world. China still has a government problem, with freedoms being very limited. India still has a population and poverty problem, and the world has had a resource pinch. I guess I just dont see how exporting our bad behavior all over the globe, without addressing any of the underlying issues, is better for any of us. China just surpassed us in energy consumption,

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Both countries are trending towards the development of a wealthy (ish) urban group and increased poverty in rural areas.

www.asianscholarship.org...

So although the "nations" are doing better on paper, the people those nations represent are not all doing better. And sustainability is a big question. Once a countries resources are used up, what will the people be left with, besides whatever byproducts have been left behind (Nigeria) and a government that has been corrupted by the bribery and sometimes outright toppling of the previous democratic governments that the economic forces used to get access to the resources in the first place?

Dont you think it is just a little naive in light of what we see around us to believe that these banks can be convinced to forgive debt the debt owed these economic forces to "help them out" particularly in light of the fact their motive has never been to "help" anyone but themselves? The "debt' often times is in place for one reason and one reason only. To control the actions of these governments, and allow access to the targeted resources.

en.wikipedia.org...


In September 1999, Bechtel signed a contract with Hugo Banzer, the elected president and former dictator of Bolivia, to privatize the water supply in Bolivia's 3rd-largest city, Cochabamba. The contract was officially awarded to a company named Aguas del Tunari, a consortium in which Bechtel held a 27.5 percent interest. Shortly thereafter, claims surfaced that water rates in that city went up an average of about 50 percent.[5] Both of these actions resulted in the Cochabamba protests of 2000. Many had to withdraw their children from school and stop using doctors because of higher costs for water. Martial law was declared, and Bolivian police killed at least 6 people and injured over 170 protesters. Amidst Bolivia's nationwide economic collapse and growing national unrest over the state of the economy, the Bolivian government withdrew the water contract.

In 2001, Bechtel filed suit against the Bolivian government, citing damages of more for $25 million. Bechtel argues that its contract was only to administer the water system, which suffered from terrible internal corruption and poor service, and that the local government raised water prices. The continuing legal battle attracted attention from anti-globalization and anti-capitalist groups. This topic is explored in the 2003 documentary film The Corporation and on Bechtel's website. In January 2006, Bechtel and the other international partners settled the lawsuit against the Bolivian government for a reported two bolivianos, after intense protests that followed a ruling on jurisdiction favorable to Bechtel by the secretive International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes.[6]



Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
We must be careful in our agreement to not promote equal socialism while encouraging increased standards of living and minimum standards of treatment. That's a fine line.


Indeed. We must also be careful of infecting the world with unsustainable hunger for "things" in order to coerce them into capitalism they neither asked for, nor voted for, and which will leave them in the long run worse off than they are now. I think the standards of their treatment are clear. Those who are of use to the economic forces are rewarded, at least temporarily, and those who are not are further marginalized, and their resources plundered, their environments often degraded to the point that returning to their former lifestyle when the economic machine moves on to greener pastures is no longer an option.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I do however recognis that despite the profit driven motives they can and do increase the living of those involved.


Some few. How many is it okay to sacrifice to elevate the standard of living for a few in a given nation or globally? That is a foundational question we need to ask ourselves. 3/4 of the worlds people? 1/3? 1/2? None? As many as it takes?


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
It basically comes down to some poor individual being forced to work 16 hours in a factory with minimal breaks and working 18 hours in a field with no breaks under heavy physical labour. Neither is good but one is better than he other. And at least the other will give them the funds to put their children through school.


I did some serious digging, and could find nothing to indicate agrarian lifestyles require 18 hour days. Hunter gatherers seem to work 3-4 days a week, 5-6 hours a day, it seemed to me many non mega farmers seemed to come in at around 8 hours a day, (Portugal) and only 240 days a year.

epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu...

I guess I just dont see the improvement. They also have to give up the community, and social support systems to take advantage of urban life, and in the US this has led to problems of its own, that we deal with with social security, child care, etc. In some countries, children are allowed to work, and so get little education, and in others, the education is so they can work. Which is sort of circular argumentation.



Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
That book is horrible biased and i have read it, even the title gives away the agenda.



He is looking at collapses, but he is examining the mechanics, and also looks at successes. I didnt find it horribly biased. It certainly rises to the level of science written for a lay audience, and is not science fiction.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
If the government is corrupt it's difficult to change.


I think you are overlooking the fact that globalization causes governmental corruption. Even here in the US.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
In fact if you look at the life expectancy of all developing nations you will find increasing life expectancy of most groups and that shows globalisation works.


Most life expectancy increases worldwide have had to do with infant and child mortality rates being lowered. Antibiotics and access to health care for pregnant women and children have done wonders for the averaged life spans of nations. Which has also increased population in many of those nations, and helped contribute to hunger, and environmental destruction.



Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Abolutely and without argument and it saddens me to see it. But don't assume that just because someone defends globalisation that they are ignorant of such things.


I dont assume ignorance. I just think when someone makes a statement they should support it. You have. I disagree that the data supports your argument in many cases, but it is nice to hear why you think the way you do, rather than just having a pronouncement. I know on ATS short posts are more fun to read, but some issues merit real consideration, and debate. Especially issues like imposing globalization on the world whether it is asked for or not. And forcing it down the throats of those who resist it.

I personally think people should have the right to choose, nations should be allowed to develop their own solutions, and many of the problems you cite as being solved by this round of globalization were caused or exacerbated by previous rounds. And we are causing more by the day, all with no real plan, and the shadiest of motives. (Making the rich richer damn the costs to everyone else.)


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

If they didn't then they wouldn't fill the jobs!


Do they want it because they wanted it? Or do they want it because they have been propagandized to want it?

www.pbs.org...

What do we give up? And what do we really gain? I think its hard for some of us to quantify that if this type of society is all we have known. And when we are so propagandized to believe it is the only thing worth having.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Laws are for the little people. The truth is, if you can break the law in a big way, (make enough money to buy influence) you can legitimize anything. Murder. Drugs. Theft. Genocide.

As long as your crimes are directed at the innocent, and not at other criminals who can also buy influence and legitimize their crimes. That, might get you in trouble.


Very well stated. I'm surprised though, that anyone is surprised by this 'new' revelation! They have been crooks throughout history, in cahoots with the military and religion.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Great movie plot


... But where is the 'concrete' evidence?

I’m not a disinfo agent - But I am entitled to my own opinion even if it isn’t inline with the majority.

Whilst reading the article and some posts in the thread, I find that it’s all very creative, but limited in fact.

I kinda speculate that it could be happening, but the lack of evidence, the fact that there isn’t more on this (other then a few badly written and imaginative articles), I just can't ground this as truth.

If these people were trusted investigative journalists, i.e. have a couple of proven cases under their belt. True to their words - Don't except pay offs (There are still some out there
) then this would be a great case!

Likewise, why do so many of you believe this straight off, with out investigating yourself. This is pure speculation and nothing else.

One of the first posters says something about, every American knowing that the CIA launder cash and smuggle drugs and basically "run the show" - If this were actually true... Then it would be 'X' times bigger then 9/11 and current possible UFO cover up. But it clearly isn’t.

Anyway... JMO



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Now i understand why the banks, are having low interest rates, probably to get extra profits to launder and we never know it, but it could be. You may never know, but the CEOs and presidents know it or do they?

This could be true or not, but thats my opinion.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   
What do you all think those bankers are doing in their "private meetings"?

Talkin about next weeks football game? Well maybe, if they can smuggle drugs and money in the stadiums, which they are probably doing in the press boxes at half time.Trading taxpayer money for blow.





Edit-sp

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Common Good]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MaxBlack
 


Where are your sources for this?

I've read news articles and heard testimony from people regarding the CIA being involved with drugs, but what you just said goes beyond all of that. Maybe you just guessed and put your own ideas into it?

Give references.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kliskey
 



Cases can be built with circumstantial evidence too, not just hard evidence. While I dont agree with Ruppert when he seems to indicate that the Democrats are somehow less involved than the Republicans, (although he did acknowledge Clinton was dirty) that could be due to the time frame the video was made in. He may not feel the same now. I dont know.

But spend the 2 hours and 17 minutes to watch the video posted. Its pretty damning, as GreenBicMan says.

Its sometimes hard to get concrete evidence when the law allows the accused to protect in "secret" and "top secret" all the evidence of their actions. When the accused IS the law, and they have almost unlimited resources. But the circumstantial case is pretty good.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Kliskey
 


There is a great deal of information out there on the CIA's involvement in drug smuggling if you want to put in the effort to become informed.

Look up CIA involvement in drug smuggling surrounding the Contra's and Noriega. Also look at CIA involvement in smuggling of drugs from Cambodia. The money is still getting laundered somewhere, and world banks are pretty much inbred these days. With the evidence out there it is hard to believe that they don't all have their hands in the cookie jar.





new topics
top topics
 
75
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join