I'm not interested in strong language. I'm interested in things being what they are. If something is not theft, I'm not going to call it theft just because I'm angry about it.
I am calling it what it is. They are theives!
These are the ancestors of the same people behind colonialism. What they do now is being termed 'neo-colonialism'. With colonialism they invaded and they stole
Monty python has that sketch where they say ''what did the romans ever do for us?'' This is particulalry poignant because it comes from a british comedy group living through the disintegration of the british empire
You might hear some apologists for colonialism say things like ''but britain created the railways and the docks in india so they aren't all bad''
But they are not taking into account that they created those railways and docks so that they could more efficiently steal and transport the resources of india out of the country eg logs, metals and minerals etc
These are the descendent of the same people who were behind the trans atlantic slave trade...they had a triangular trade going where they took goods from Britain to Africa where they then took slaves from there to the americas where they then picked up sugar which they then transported back to the UK
I mentioned in a previous post in this thread how they have once again got a triangular trade going through consumerism and war. they produce stuff from oil, they lend money to people to buy the stuff, they use the profits to create weapons which they use to acquire the oil
One way they do this is to go to officials in a poor country and they say ''take this loan from the IMF to build something eg a dam (thereby getting in debt to the bankers) and give us access to your resources and in return we will make you personally rich (the money won't reach the average people though). If you do not agree to this we will kill you''
The official will often agree to this. The resources are removed from the country, the offical makes a small personal fortune and the average people on the street see no profit. these people are not even given a say in the matter. They could quite reasonably say that their natural resources are being stolen from them. The offical could say he/she is being extorted
Yes Kuwait probably stole oil from Iraq, and then Iraq invaded them, and then we had Desert Storm. Why the setup though? Why didn't they just directly invade Iraq?
There's no probably about it, they did it!
The reason they always need a pretext is because they need the peoples support because we are the work force behind their economy, so they must 'manufacture the consent' of the workers. if however they can replace us with robots then they don't need us anymore and we become 'useless eaters'
This is why they use their corporate media to lie to us so that they can manufacture our consent...this is what propaganda is for
If the US public begin to see the world the way i do then their system cannot stand....its that simple....all support would be withdrawn. they must stop the public from thinking like people like me if they want to keep the stealing, the extortion, the killing, the wars, the debt, the environmental rape and everything else going
I'll tell you why. Extortion gets you UN support authorizing a coalition of 34 nations. Theft does not.
They set the UN up. the rockefeller family donated the land in new York for the UN offices to be built on. It is the prototype for their world government they are trying to build. They had a previous attempt with the league of nations
They don't really care about getting UN approval though. They have shown that they will act unilaterally without UN approval and did so in Iraq
It is a fundamental UN law that a country cannot attack another country without having been attacked first. This is why they had to stage 911 so that they could say ''hey look we just got attacked....now we can behave however we like''
There was no connection between saddam hussein and 911 though so the US politicans pushing the war lied and their war was illegal
[video=youtube;nE2SdF1fN4s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE2SdF1fN4s[/video]
It is now leaking out that there was saudi government involvment in 911 and in time it will leak out that the israelis were also behind the scheme working with elements within the US.
They needed justification in the eyes of the american workers/public to commit the crimes against humnaity that they have been committing ever since whether it is invasion, occupation, rendition (torture), murder, rape, drug running and so on
If they kidnap someone ('rendition') and move them to a country, where torture is allowed by law, to torture them is that then acceptable because it is 'legal'?
if they keep prisoners without trial in guantanamo bay out of the jurisdiction of US courts that would require them to give them a trial is that acceptable?
if they register their corporation as having an 'office' in a building in the cayman islands even though hundreds of other corporations are also registered as being based in the same tiny building and therefore don't have to pay any taxes whilst struggling americans do...is that acceptable? I mean its 'legal' under their laws (which they make)
If they get the approval from a frightened official which they have threatened to take a countries resources, often polluting the environment in the process, are they 'stealing' from the people of that nation? I mean its 'legal' right?
If they pass laws that ban the public from protesting so that the public can't stand up for themselves...is that acceptable...i mean its 'legal' right?
If J.P.Morgan and Goldman sachs pay some fines for their corporate missdeeds which are only a tiny percentage of the amounts they looted by their illegal activities is that ok for the government to then stop investigating any further? (they have bought the governments silence)
if they want to wage war against a foreign government but don't want to be seen to be doing it themelves so they pay mercenaries or at least a group that has similar goals and then arm them (eg they have armed islamic fundamentalist groups in syria to fight against assad) does that mean that they are still responsible for the beheadings, rapes and murders that are then carried out?
if they train, arm and fund paramilitary groups to be death squads to kill civilians that are against their policies (eg in guatamala, iraq) are they still responsible for the rapes and murders that then ensue?
If they say they don't work with terrorists yet they work with the government of israel which has had two terrorists as Prime ministers and have also worked with 'al qeada' groups with John McCain recently being photgraphed in Syria with known terrorists...is that acceptable?
If they want to use military force but don't want the US public giving them a hard time for the deaths of US soldiers is it any different for them to use 'private defence contractors' like blackwater who are essentially mercenaries often made up of ex US military personnel?
So there are two courts here: their legal courts which they manipulate and control and the court of public opinion which when informed can see these people for what they are and isn't afraid to call them on it using entirely appropriate language
But yes, things are stolen as well.
They are doing far worse
