reply to post by spookfish
Before i post this, I want to warn people of the length and that there's not much payoff in terms of the discussion - certainly not in specifics,
but if you can ride with a long thought piece on the warning posted on language and accusation earlier. If you're looking for just the relevance to
this issue, it's mostly in the last couple of paragraphs. Hope his isn't annoying and if you feel it might be, skip to the end. I don't want to
waste anyone's time.
I've been out for several hours and just getting a chance to catch up now. First, I wholly endorse the idea that we need to moderate our language and
statements on ATS, at the very least to keep heat from coming down on the site in general. With that, I'll also say, as someone mentioned a couple of
pages back, that this site is certainly watched 24/7 by probably a number of intelligence agencies, even international ones and no one should even
think that what they say here goes unnoted. Having acknowledged the dangers inherent here to both individuals and to the ability to speak freely on
the internet about almost anything and everything, there is the issue that we do, up to this day anyway (and though it's been pretty dented) have
protections on free speech under the Constitution.
I'm never completely comfortable speaking up about black ops or government programs like MKultra, but I also have a solemn duty to speak up about
what I perceive to be injustice, or government abuse of our liberties, up to and including our natural right to our lives. I also believe that
programs like rendition, black torture sites and the CIA's 30 year exploration of how to grab hole of a human mind, the minds of a group or even the
minds of a whole society goes far beyond what is justifiable in terms of national defense. For me, out lives our not worth defending the moment we
become no more ethical or moral than our declared "enemies." Now on one hand what Jared Loughlin did is a clear example of were the hubris of
believing that what he or she is doing is justified by any higher cause, Ie. "killing in the name of . . ." as Rage in the Machine put it, is OK, is
simply not acceptable under any moral standards short of war. And murder (assassination/killing civilians) is unacceptable even in war for me. So is
violating treaties based on internationally signed treaties drawn up by a common understanding of human values. You do not violate the Geneva
Convention under any circumstances, even the fabled Jack Bauer scenarios. Once you come to the conclusion that you know what the "greater good" is,
you set yourself up for the classic fall that has marked all the "light bringers" in Christian beliefs (Lucifer), Greek Mythology (Prometheus or
Daedelus - although each one has subtle differences from Lucifer in ways) or any other religion or mythology that embraces such figures. The sin (if
you want to label it as such) or act of defying the gods leads to hubris; it is hubris. You know better so you will act where others don't or can't
see the righteous path. You end up with rogue elements in your military or intelligence groups, the Illuminati (or something like them), the SS, the
KGB, Mossad, CIA, ISI, the Golden Circle or any number of deluded despots, thinking of themselves as liberators, down through the ages. In our
culture the term is Luciferian and it comes to no good end.
If you believe, and I mean truly believe, in Democracy then you accept the idea that we can talk through our differences because we all have signed on
to the idea that we have a fundamentally civil society and can agree someone else's opinion is valid at least to the point where they have the right
to express it and struggle to see it operationalized just like you are doing and the majority will decide what they prefer. The kicker is you can
always go back and fight for your view again - without fear of getting a bullet in your head. Since, and even before World War II, every intelligence
agency, security force, and military has sought advantage by trying to game this system and influence minds by whatever means they feel is necessary.
We have done it extensively as have all of our rivals, allies and enemies, and these programs, ops and campaigns are pursued in the dark, in secrecy.
I'm not suggesting you agree with me or that there are an ideal way to deal with those who violate or threaten the precepts of Democracy or or
liberty. I'm not a pacifist, but I don't own a gun and I've not perpetrated violence against anyone since I was 8 or 9. I've also been threatened
in those years and managed to talk situations down instead of punching someone's lights out, though it didn't always result in a fast friendship.
Sometimes it did, though. My point is this, we all need a moral code whether religious based or simply on humanitarian principles and Intelligence
agencies or secret societies - and both operate under the veil of secrecy, of darkeness - haven't played by those rules over the years and ours have
proved no better than their's in many cases; just think about the School of the Americas, black sites, the spiriting of Nazi's out of Germany at
the end of World War II if you need a few examples. What did it lead to? Very likely the death of John and Robert Kennedy, certainly the deaths of
tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians around the world (and quite possibly millions), the torture of innocents including the men and women
experimented on by Ewen Cameron at McGill in Canada in his "sleep rooms," the violation of any even marginal definition of torture in American run
interrogation sites around the world, the dosing of unsuspecting citizens, soldiers and prisoners with '___', BZT and probably worse, rape and sodomy
in Iraqi and Afghani jails by U.S. military personnel and on and on. If you object to these things, the duty of a citizen of a democracy is to speak
Therefore, we should watch we say for our own sakes (to a point), and more important for the sake of our being able to continue to keep communicating
with each other on sites like this. Anyone who even marginally fantasizes that we could or should be able to talk about acts of violence to
individuals or to the government on ATS, GLP or any other site that discusses the possibility, and I think probability of conspiracies being afoot is
going to pose a danger to all of us. ATS would be the world's worse site for thinking you could use it to plan some kind of revolution and not have
someone come after you and everyone you know and love. It is not secure, nor is their probably any secure site on the internet where that could be
done. What we can do and what we have a right to do and what we should be willing to fight and die to do, if the need ever comes, is to speak out
against the eclipse of our rights as citizens, and the place we see them being undercut.. That does not define us as crazy or dangerous and MSM or
homeland security or whatever secret society happens to be the flavor of the day can shove it if they think that's the case. If you don't believe
that people conspire to attain power, to keep power or to overthrow power, you are the ones who live in a fantasy world unsupported by the facts.
Every policy organization, every intelligence agency, every organized crime syndicate every political party, every business association and many
secret societies do that every day of the week.
Lincoln was killed by a conspiracy; why were four people hung if he was not. Nixon and LBJ, Bush and Clinton all had "enemies lists." There
absolutely was a plot among bankers to overthrow FDR, as hair brained as it may have been. Puerto Rican revolutionaries did attack the Blaire House.
FDR did allow the US fleet at Pearl Harbor to be attacked with insufficient warning of what the latest decripted warnings of US, British and Dutch
Intelligence bing passed on to them. As a Freemason and president, Washington did write letters to friends expressing concern of Illuminati
infiltration of Mason temples in America. The Gulf of Tonkin was a manufacture excuse to escalte the Vietnam War. Wilson and Churchill both knew the
Lusitania was carrying ammunition in contravention of the law of the seas and the the Germans would attack it in 1916. All those aren't even much of
a controversy to most historians anymore because documents, investigations, hearings, etc. have borne out the truth. The dangers to America and
Americans are not "conspiracy theorists"; the dangers come from those who would silence our voices with violence, whether they be one mentally ill
individual, the police or the CIA. And their crime, besides murder or intimidation, is hubris - not the conviction to do the right thing, but the idea
that they alone know what the right thing is. In a democracy (or democratic republic) it is not their right alone to make that decision.
So beware what you say and beware for all the right reasons - respect, courtesy, for slurring the innocent, concern for the community or even yourself
- but if you believe that there's more that's going on than meets the eye, that alone does not justify silence. I don;t think we should pass on
talking about the possibility of CIA, Illuminati, NASA or any other involvement here, but we need to be aware that speculation pointed toward a
particular individual or agency puts us on ground that is uncertain, and may unintentionally cause harm without some solid evidence behind it. And we
need to think about WHO and HOW someone might be harmed in the process. Also, we need to be careful throwing around terms like mentally ill or nut
case, which I think almost no one contests that Loughner probably deserves such tags, but we don't know why he or how he got to that point. :Look,
even the CIA has admitted to trying to dose Castro with '___' to cause him to make a fool out of himself. Even that should be enough reason to wonder
who they might have actually succeeded in mentally damaging people to that point and beyond who don't have Castro's fame or protection, for the
purposes of creating a Manchurian Candidate. We know without question they funded research programs for a sum total of tens of millions of dollars or
more to do so. The assumption that they didn't succeed in those efforts if based on a pretty forlorn denial of circumstantial evidence that indicates
they very probably did. Granted it's not an open and shut or uncomplicated case by any means.
If we want to make that case we need to know a number of things; 1) someone already brought up background of Loughlin's chldhood and I'd also add
any other natural causes or indications of insanity rising from his life; 2) we need more evidence on the "two" Loughlin birhdates; it stretches
credulity to assume it was maybe his grandfather and they simply had the sam day and month of birth over 50 years apart; 3) how does thae NASA
connection play in; it's an obvious connection between Giffords, her husband and a congressional committee that makes decisions on NASA funding and
this mission goals; 4) why did the Giffords website have a link to Loughlin before he shot her; 5) as long as we're on motives, understanding the
focus on birds by Loughlin and the other possible wannabe shooter in Utah before him is intriguing in light of the mysterious bird deaths lately; 5)
the other suspect might have been cleared, but how was a cleared (what did they say about him) and is there anyone we're missing that might be
connected; 6) where does the occasional poster on Loughlin's military sevice or lack thereof get their evidence; we don know the military denies has
he had any, but it wouldn't be the first time they've done that to avoid embarrassment; 7) who was the primary target here (although, it seems
pretty sure it was Gabrielle Giffords and 8) what evidence, if any, do we have on when and how Loughlin became intent on shooting Giffords Finally,
9) is there any other evidence outside Jared being the son of Enoch in the Bible that links Loughlin to Luciferian agendas.
There's a ton of good work being done here so far, but it seems like in many ways the only thing we're close to settling is that there was a method
in the madness In this man and that he there's a kind of a code in his language, though I don't see a lot of agreement on how specifically that
might be interpreted. Everything i"ve seen on Gabrielle Giffords indicates she was wlll-liked by Democrats and Republicans and in that case a are
person in Congress. Are we missing some decision on one bill or another that indicates motive for hatred and attempted murder (or murder in the case
of some victims),
This may still be in a "brain storming phase" and the Nazi connection, which I failed to acknowledge before kind of keeps it there, but to move on,
we need to get methodical at a point. Thanks for the patience.