Post by gape on 21.01.2005 at 18:46:10
http://jibjab.com/lowband/default.htm
| Svet pogovorov | |
|
http://www.gape.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl
General >> Kako spraviti Slovenijo na pravo pot >> AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 http://www.gape.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1005565336 Message started by gape on 12.11.2001 at 12:42:16 |
|
|
Title: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 12.11.2001 at 12:42:16 no tole bi nadaljevali od tule: http://www.gape.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=slovenija&action=display&num=1000216680&start=119 |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 12.11.2001 at 12:56:56 no zdej si nam pa povedu mike huh |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by kolesar on 24.11.2001 at 13:57:15 al pa tud ne ;) |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 26.01.2002 at 15:34:53 da mal stare potegnemo vn :) če slučajno kdo še vedno dvomi da so si ameri sami sprogramirali wtc, je tuki eden od odgovorov zakaj: http://www.gape.org/gapes/prispevki/ameriski_proracun.htm |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 09.02.2002 at 16:30:47 Kdo bo pisal zgodovino? dve različici resnice protiteroristične vojne www.gape.org/gapes/prispevki/teror_resnici.htm ena taka, druga drugačna ... obe zasnovani na dejstvih ... |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by kolesar on 10.02.2002 at 13:06:15 .. ki so prilagojeno razložena...;) Dejstva se pokažejo mnogo kasneje, da jih lahko sprejmeš kot factna dejstva, posebno pri tem ko sprašuješ kdo bo pisal zgodovino. Zgodovina se piše sproti- interpretacija pa je druga stvar... |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 10.02.2002 at 14:53:32 o kolesar; si se vrnil? |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by kolesar on 16.02.2002 at 14:06:10 ;) ... no in ker ta naslov lepo ustreza tudi zdajšnjim dogodkom na OI, se mi zdi kar nekako groteskno, da se Američani ponašajo z zmago nad rusko zbornajo v LAke Placidu... Hehe Winter in flame. PA še hokejisti so ga prižgali. Ogenj namreč. PA dobršnjo mero neodobravanja med evropskimi pristaši športa tudi. ME pa res zanima, če bodo tudi nocoj lahko rekli isto: premagali smo Ruse. ;) A kolikor sem uspel videti ruske igralce, igrajo izvrstno, sploh če vemo, da so igrali kar takoj tekmo, brez ogrevanja-mislim treningov. Američanom se bojda slabo piše. In čez kakih 20 let, bi bile lahko OI spet v Moskvi. DA vidim ruske hokejiste prižigat ogenj. America in flame. DRugič. Toda takrat od jeze in ogorčenja. Ne od ponosa in napihnjene pomembnosti- tako kot sedaj. ;) |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Andres on 02.03.2002 at 00:51:08 Iz novic danes Quote:
Bush ki je bržkone še bolj zabit kot Nixon je torej pripravljen jedrsko napasti Iraq. In mi gremo z njmi v pakt. Brez mene. Sale mulekum Alah;) Andres |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by comp on 02.03.2002 at 19:36:49 Američani so že napadali sami sebe. Zaradi jedrskih poskusov nekje v Ameriki,je baje zaradi širjenja radioaktvnega dežja že umrlo 22000 ljudi od raka. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by ana on 04.03.2002 at 07:46:09 hujše je tisto, ko so se spravili na imunske sisteme ljudi: enostavno so iz aviona pošpricali celo mesto, prej predhodno obvestili ljudi o nekakšni preventivi, potem so pa več let spremljali obisk ljudi pri zdravnikih: zakaj so prišli, starost ljudi itd. Menda naj bi sindrom spomladanske utrujenosti izviral iz takih poskusov, a to je samo vrh ledene gore. Za prenašalce so uporabljali tudi okužene komarje itd pač sodobne grozljivke čez sto let bomo že vedeli, koliko je res in koliko ne hja, človek je bil vedno kanon futer, pa zgleda, da bomo še nekaj časa. Do kdaj, je pa seveda tudi naša izbira. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Andres on 04.03.2002 at 19:39:04 Še sto stvari, ki bi se jih našlo. Alergije recimo. Čudno, da jih naše babice, celo naše mame niso imele v tako pogosti obliki kot mi. In seveda AIDS. Slednji je bil bojda umetno narejen v laboratoriju Pentagona. Naši se pa Amerikanom v rit ližejo. Joj joj joj. ::) Andres |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Andres on 04.03.2002 at 22:25:40 In še trditev Phila Shneiderja, ki je delal na skrivnostnih projektih ameriške vlade: "AIDS je bil narejen kot biološko orožje. Sestavljen je iz izvlečkov ljudi, živali in Nezemljanov." Andres |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by vida on 05.03.2002 at 09:09:41 ...po vsem tem kar vemo je pravzaprav čudno, da ljudje to še prenašajo(mo)...! |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 11.03.2002 at 21:17:21 očitno še ne bo umrl tale thread še malo razmišljanja, to pot izpor tipkovnice ivana mohoriča Je CIA vedela za napad na WTC? ... Pomisleki na rob Porodili so se pravzaprav že na tragični dan, a jih je vsak zavestno odrival na rob, ker so se zdeli skoraj neverjetni. Vsaj za pamet navadnega smrtnika, ki mu človeško življenje nekaj pomeni, če mu že ni sveto. Zdaj, ko na stvari gledamo z določene časovne distance, pa postajajo vse bolj nadležno vsiljivi. Da so teroristi barabe, se pač vsi strinjamo. Da jim ni nič sveto, razen njihovega prepričanja, razglašajo kar sami. Da vsaka njihova akcija temelji na filozofiji čimvečjih učinkov, jim verjame cel svet. A kljub temu se je prvo letalo zaletelo v nebotičnik četrt ure pred deveto uro, ko se začne reden delovnik. Če bi se to zgodilo samo pol ure kasneje, bi se število žrtev najmanj podeseterilo in dosežen bi bil "maksimalni učinek". Je res šlo samo za "slabo časovno načrtovanje" ali morda samo za nestrpnost ugrabiteljev, ki jim mirno lahko pripišemo vse naglavne grehe in nečednosti civiliziranega bitja razen ene. Kdor lastnoročno pilotira letalo v gotovo smrt prav gotovo ni strahopetec, kot je George Bush grmel z govorniških odrov in na tiskovnih konferencah, kjer je praviloma preslišal (sicer redka) vprašanja, kako je mogoče, da ameriška vojska skoraj uro po začetku tragedije, ko sta gorela že oba nebotičnika in sta z radarjev kontrolnih stolpov izginila vsaj še dva aviona, ni bila sposobna ubraniti niti svojega generalštaba. Je Pentagon res tako slabo opremljen, da ne premore niti ene protiletalske rakete? In če lahko na Manhattnu predvidevamo "slabo načrtovanje", tega v primeru Pentagona nikakor ne moremo trditi. Vsaj z ameriškega stališča. Teroristi so jim uničili ravno tisti del, ki je imel najstarejšo opremo, ki je bila na seznamu zamenjav na prvem mestu, a je zaradi slabega stanja v državni blagajni morala čakati boljših časov. Zdaj to seveda ni noben problem. ... http://www.ivanmohoric.net/clanki/wtc.html |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by ana on 12.03.2002 at 07:44:32 Amerika je vedela tudi za predviden napad na Pearl Harbor, pa ga ni preprečila, niti ni umaknila ladij in ljudi uporabila ga je v svoje namene |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 12.03.2002 at 09:48:32 ... če so oni za vse to vedl, al lahko rečemo da so tud nami nardil to isto? al je to že mal tu mač? |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by ana on 12.03.2002 at 10:36:02 gape wrote on 12.03.2002 at 09:48:32:
sorry, ne vem, kaj si mislil z 'da so tud nami nardil to isto?' |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 12.03.2002 at 10:52:27 zatipku sm se ::: 'sami' |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 26.03.2002 at 23:08:32 no k sm zadnjič (pa še kdaj drugič) govoru o tem da so to sami nardil Nenadejana pomoč teroristov Prav neverjetna so bila razmišljanja, da je ameriška vlada sama izzvala ali si celo izmislila omenjene napade, samo da bi lahko povečala vojaške izdatke in državo potegnila iz gospodarskega nazadovanja. http://www.gape.org/gapes/prispevki/pomoc_teroristov.htm zdej pa niso več tolk zlo neverjetna (men že prej niso bla). še par faktov iz te scene: VOJAŠKI STROŠKI V ČASU BUSHA http://www.gape.org/gapes/prispevki/vojaski_stroski.htm Od lanskega septembra so ZDA močno razširile navzočnost svoje vojske v Aziji http://www.gape.org/gapes/prispevki/navzocnost_zda.htm ozaveščanje pa drugič ... |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Marjana on 17.04.2002 at 10:34:05 Za malo razburkat in trenirat mozgane: Avtorji spletne strani trdijo, da se na Pentagon ni zrušilo letalo in vas pozivajo, da ga najdete: http://www.mladina.si/dnevnik/18811/ In še: Media compilation #53: Now We See The Naked King - But Nobody Is Laughing -- http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/Archives2002/MediaCompilation53.htm http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm Ah, strani še pa še... |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 23.07.2002 at 18:30:36 no, če zdej pogledamo za eno leto nazaj ... enroni in WorldComi in podobni bi se verjetno že takrat začel sesuvat, pa se niso, so se pa zdej ... in plameni so mnogo večji zdej, kot so bli pa prej ... WorldCom strašnejši od Enrona http://dpp.delo.si/Apps/WebObjects/DeloGPortal.woa/43/wo/XM4VwcbSZtM92K9RoGejUlRxlDy/0.6.0.1.4.0.3.2.1 in menda da znajo bit še večji ... |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Blisk on 02.08.2002 at 15:01:56 Fantje, če mene vprašate, je Osama ameriški plačanec, ki je dobil velike dnarje, da je naredil sranje, ali po domače, Bush je prodal tistih 5000 ljudi, za višje cilje, to pa je gradnja vesoljskega obrambnega ščita, večja prodaja orožja (ki ga pridelujejo Bushevi prijatelji, oz. Familija Osama) in pa s tem so tudi porinili v ozadje recesijo, ki bi lahk precej zamajala predsedniški stolček. Preveč gre vse na roko Bushu, prav tako, pa podpora za napad na Irak. Ja Bush se bo res potrudil, da bo zapisan v zgodovini kot največja budala na svetu! Po moje, ga bojo prej naštudirali, čeprav veljajo amerikanci za najmanjinteligente ljudi, pa kljub temu mislim, da ga bo parlament skinal in razpisal nove predsedniške volitve pred koncem njegovega mandata. Razen, če bo ata Bush spet potegnil kake veze za svojega neumnega in zgrešenega sinkota malega Busha. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 02.08.2002 at 15:57:27 tko nekak ja ... |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 09.09.2002 at 21:27:12 no očitno slovenci nismo tolk u kurcu kar se poneumljenosti tiče, no ja, vsaj gledalci studia city ne ... namreč, je blo dons vprašanje kako že (če se zmotm bom popravu) kdo je večja nevarnost za svetovni mir bush ali sadam itak zmagu je bush - 88 % ljudi je glasovalo da je on nevarnejši. sicer pa bliža se obletnica ... še 2 dni .... pa bo eno leto kar se je tale thread začel takrat je gape prjavu: plo je znoru za bin ladna gape še vedu ni takrat |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by SeK on 13.09.2002 at 23:58:52 gape wrote on 26.03.2002 at 23:08:32:
Bodimo no na realnih tleh. Če bi Bush kaj takega naredil bi že zdavnaj letel. Glej Clinton je samo za žensko preveč gledal pa je že imel strašne probleme. Če bi pa Bush kaj takega naredil, bi pa to prej ali slej prišlo v javnost. Je pa res to, da je že Clinton po nekaterih atentaih po vsem svetu hotel uničiti Al Kaido pa mu ni uspelo. In res je bila "smola" da ameriški agentje zaradi birokracije niso uspeli prijeti osumljenca, o katerem so že imeli vse dokaze. Bolj pomembno se mi pa zdi prvo duhovno vprašanje. Torej kaj jauz lahko naredim? Ja res, kaj mi vsi lahko naredimo? Jaz vem, da imam prijatelje v ZDA in da jih lahko bodrim. In vem še to, da lahko prosim našega skupnega Očeta, naj nakloni svetu mir. Da zmolim ob kakšni priložnosti kakšen Oče naš, Zdravo Marijo. Da bo naša molitev, nadlegovanje, prošnja, ganila obličje Očeta, da nam da mir - dobrino, ki je dar božji. Sek |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Andres on 14.09.2002 at 05:19:01 Quote:
Le toliko glede Busha. Če Amerika nebi imela osla za predsednika tudi terorizma nebi mogla imeti. Pač bolnik na na nepravem položaju. Ker je bil Clinton neprimerno bolj zdrav do tega takrat ni moglo priti. In to je tudi razlog zakaj Gore ni smel biti predsednik ZDA. Je preveč zdrav, da bi vodil neko državo, ki temelji na korpuciji in mednarodni pralnici denarja. In imeti predsednika kot je Bush in to še v Ameriki povrhu je naravnost fantastično. Se bom spomnil na Gorenca in en njegov mail v času, ko je bil Putin izvoljen za predsednika Rusije. Gorenc mi je napisal, da če bo Bush predsednik lahko nastane še svetovna vojna. Dva idiota vsak na svojem koncu sveta, pa oba imata preveč pooblastil. No, Sek. Kje je ob takšnih časih bog, ko se gre za celotno svetovno prebivalstvo? Ga pri volitvah ni zraven, al sam takrat, ko je treba v cerkvo it? Miljoni vsako sekundo molijo oče naš, orožja pa je vedno več. Od časa prve proizvodnje Winchesterk pa do danes se je Oče naš zmolil tolikokrat kolikor je MIljard ljudi na svetu pa še z miljardo pomnoži. No no, nekje pač nekaj ne more biti tako kot uči sveto pismo. Vse torej ni v molitvi, al pa le, da ta ne funkcionira za vsako stvar. Andres |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Pegaz on 14.09.2002 at 14:33:12 Bolš, da pustimo Buša u K, ker bi blo bolš, da se mi začnemo ment, kako bomo ušli, al, kaj bomo naredili, da nas ne bo prah pokopal pod sabo. Jst že skoz govorim, da bo šlo vse u K..K..K..K..K.. Pa to še ni vse, počakte, ko se bo zemlja razpizdla in bo vse zrukal potres, ne hecam se. Tud Slovenijo to še čaka. Uni bodo vse naredili za denar, hočjo vse zbrisat z obličja Zemljice, zato se bi mi rajš prikonektal na Zemljo, pa une skenslamo. Sej je velikanski podvig, ampak-- NAM GRE POČAS ZA NOHTE!!! |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 16.09.2002 at 16:03:21 ena chain vrajanta 700kB http://www.gape.org/sonce/svetpogovorov/WORLDTRADECENTER.PPS |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by picola on 17.09.2002 at 04:14:31 Midva s tipom sva en dan mela debato o tem,kako bi se dalo nardit kej v zvezi s to temo...In sva pršla do zaključka,da dokler bomo še vedno delal tako,kot bodo oni hotel,potem bo samo še hujše.Kaj naredi človek,ko ga nekdo zatira?Postavi se po robu.In tako se moramo VSI postaviti po robu.Ko bomo dosegli to,potem smo bližje miru in bližje temu,da ne bomo več samo marionete v rokah vodilnih ljudi na Zemlji.Hja,štrajkat bi blo treba it!VSI NAENKRAT.Mogoče glupa ideja,mogoče pa ne... |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 25.11.2002 at 13:19:04 Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Kali on 13.02.2003 at 03:59:04 "I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there." Mother Teresa THE WORLD WILL KNOW THE TRUTH John Pilger in New Statesman (London) 16 December 2002 > > John Pilger reveals the deranged agendas of the ruthlessly power-and-profit-greedy people directing the current American administration, most of them relics from the Reagan-Bush Sr. cold war era. Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W.Bush said what America needed was "a new Pearl Harbor". Its clearly spelled out aims have very conveniently come alarmingly true, according to JohnPilger in the New Statesman. "The threat posed by US state terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in this secret document written more than a year before the Sept. 11 events,and accidentally exposed recently. What was needed for America to dominate most of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event -like a new Pearl Harbor". "The attacks of11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor",described as "the opportunity of ages". The extremists who have since ruthlessly and effectively exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan,when far-right groups and "think-tanks" were established to avenge the American "defeat" in Vietnam. "One of George W. Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total war", I then dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . .This is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now." & "Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld,defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, Iewis Libby,Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary,and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American state terrorism. "The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, force and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48 billion so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. "It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target.And so it is. As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. WWhile the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." How has this grand strategy been implemented? "A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and based onlong interviews with senior members of the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated. "On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism". Iraq was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state, persuaded Bush that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible". Afghanistan and the Talibans, created, trained and funded by the CIA, was chosen as the softer option.; "If Jonathan Steele's estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000 people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives. "Time and again, 11 September is described as an "opportunity". In last April's New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote that Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called together senior members of the National Security Council and asked them "to think about 'how do you capitalise on these opportunities' ", which she compared with those of "1945 to 1947": the start of the cold war." Note: If anyone wishes to investigate in depth and detail all the extraordinary unexplained anomalies and blatant inconsistencies in the official story about September 11, I recommend the website http://208.187.163.46/completetimeline/index.htm "Since 11 September, America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. "Bush has scrapped the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if necessary". "Under cover of propaganda about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that undermine international treaties on biological and chemical warfare. "In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception". According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian euphemism as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require "counter-attack" by the United States on countries "harbouring the terrorists". "In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United States. This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign - complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans - as justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but with resources undreamt of in 1963 and with no global rival to invite caution. "You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that truly dangerous men,such as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney, have power. The thread running through their ruminations is the importance of the media: "the prioritised task of bringing on board journalists of repute to accept our position". "Our position" is code for lying. Certainly, as a journalist, I have never known official lying to be more pervasive than today. We may laugh at the vacuities in Tony Blair's "Iraq dossier" and Jack Straw's inept lie that Iraq has developed a nuclear bomb (which his minions rushed to "explain"). But the more insidious lies, justifying an unprovoked attack on Iraq and linking it to would-be terrorists who are said to lurk in every Tube station, are routinely channelled as news. They are not news; they are black propaganda. "This corruption makes journalists and broadcasters mere ventriloquists' dummies. An attack on a nation of 22 million suffering people is discussed by liberal commentators as if it were a subject at an academic seminar, at &which pieces can be pushed around a map, as the old imperialists used to do. "The issue for these humanitarians is not primarily the brutality of modern imperial domination, but how "bad" Saddam Hussein is. There is no admission that their decision to join the war party further seals the fate of tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocent ordinary people condemned to wait on America's international death row. Their doublethink will not work. You cannot support murderous piracy in the name of humanitarianism. Moreover, the extremes of American fundamentalism that we now face have been staring at us for too long for those of good heart and sense not to recognise them. "Remember, if you send this on to just 10 others and all down the chain each one follows the same simple procedure, THE WORLD WILL KNOW THE TRUTH: That the present US administration is threatening in an unprecedented way not only the peace and survival of millions, but the entire planet and all life on it. Other nations MUST speak up to put a stop to this madness. The press is in the pay of the destructive powers and will not tell us the truth, so the Internet is our only way to access and spread the truth. LET'S USE IT!" "Unless we change direction, we are likely to end up where we are headed." Old Chinese Proverb |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Kali on 19.02.2003 at 01:50:28 A piece from acclaimed author John le Carré The United States of America Has Gone Mad America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press. The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world's poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions. But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are told. The US defense budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer's pocket? At what cost - because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people - in Iraqi lives? How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election. Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I'm dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam's downfall - just not on Bush's terms and not by his methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy. The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America's Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist. God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another's, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas. Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God's work. In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that "somebody" was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr's cry: "That man tried to kill my Daddy." But it's still not personal, this war. It's still necessary. It's still God's work. It's still about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed Iraqi people. To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won't tell us is the truth about why we're going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil - but oil, money and people's lives. Saddam's misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn't, won't. If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart's content. Other leaders do it every day - think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt. Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if he's still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes' notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America's need to demonstrate its military power to all of us - to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad. The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair's part in all this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it. He can't. Instead, he gave it a phony legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can't get out. It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain's opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that's Britain's tragedy, as it is America's: as our governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way. Blair's best chance of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in his holster unfired. But what happens when the world's greatest cowboy rides back into town without a tyrant's head to wave at the boys? Blair's worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy. There is a middle way, but it's a tough one: Bush dives in without UN approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special relationship. I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect's sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can't explain is how he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair has to show up at the altar. "But will we win, Daddy?" "Of course, child. It will all be over while you're still in bed." "Why?" "Because otherwise Mr Bush's voters will get terribly impatient and may decide not to vote for him." "But will people be killed, Daddy?" "Nobody you know, darling. Just foreign people." "Can I watch it on television?" "Only if Mr Bush says you can." "And afterwards, will everything be normal again? Nobody will do anything horrid any more?" "Hush child, and go to sleep." Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: "Peace is also Patriotic". It was gone by the time he'd finished shopping. The author has also contributed to an open Democracy debate on Iraq at www.open Democracy.net |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by tomi on 19.02.2003 at 21:43:03 Heh, škoda, da kakšni proameri nikoli ne preberejo kakšnega podobnega članka... No ja, verjetno itak ne znajo brat... Quote:
Krhm, o tem pa bi se še dalo zelo debatirat... [glb]Btw, kaj ima kdo kakšen članek, ali serijo člankov, ki bi opisovali svinjarijo ameriških vojn od prve, druge svetovne vojne dalje? Po možnosti v angleščini in čim več ekonomskih in političnih podatkov, imam seminarsko o tem...[/glb] [glb]Pliz!![/glb] |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by DylanDog on 19.02.2003 at 21:48:37 žal ne, razen "seznama" kao.... · 1890 ARGENTNINA – vojska zaščiti ameriške interese · 1891 ČILE – marinci se spopadejo z nacionalističnimi uporniki · 1891 HAITI – vojska zatre upor temnopoltih delavcev na otoku Navassa · 1893 HAVAJI – marinci pomagajo devetim ameriškim poslovnežem zrušiti neodvisno kraljevino · 1894 NIKARAGVA – vojska okupira Bluefields · 1894/95 KITAJSKA – marinci se vključijo v kitajsko-japonsko vojno · 1894/96 KOREA – marinci med vojno bazirani v Seulu · 1895 PANAMA – marinci se izkrcajo · 1896 NIKARAGVA – marinci se izkrcajo v Corintu · 1898/1900 KITAJSKA – vojska zatre »boksarsko vstajo« · 1898/1910 FILIPINI – vojska otočje loči od Španije; 600.000 mrtvih · 1898/1902 KUBA – vojska otok loči od Španije; okupacija; zaliv Guantanamo še vedno ameriški · 1898 PORTORIKO – vojska loči otok od Španije; še vedno ameriški teritorij · 1898 GUAM – vojska otok loči od Španije; še vedno ameriški teritorij · 1899 SAMOA – vojska se vključi v prestolonasledniški boj · 1899 NIKARAGVA – marinci se izkrcajo v Bluefildsu · 1900 HAVAJI – aneksija; vsi Havajčani čez noč postanejo Američani · 1900 SAMOA – Amerika in Nemčija si razdelita otočje; Ameriška Samoa zdaj ameriški teritorij; priključevanje posameznih otokov trajalo do 1925 · 1903 PANAMA – vojska prežene okupatorsko Kolumbijo; Amerika takoj dobi koncesijo za izgradnjo panamskega kanala, ki je 1914 končan; preide pod kontrolo Amerike, vključno s 16-kilometersko cono ob kanalu · 1903 HONDURAS – marinci posežejo v revolucijo · 1903/04 DOMINIKANSKA REPUBLIKA – vojska med revolucijo zaščiti ameriške interese · 1904/05 KOREJA – marinci se vključijo v rusko-japonsko vojno · 1906/09 KUBA marinci se izkrcajo med volitvami · 1907 NIKARAGVA – vojska ustvari protektorat · 1907 HONDURAS – marinci se vključijo v honduraško-nikaragvansko vojno · 1908 PANAMA – marinci posežejo med volitvami · 1910 NIKARAGVA – marinci se izkrcajo v Bluefildsu in Corintu · 1911 HONDURAS – vojska med državljansko vojno zaščiti ameriške interese; Honduras je med letoma 1911 in 1925 doživel 6 ameriških invazij · 1911/41 KITAJSKA – vojska ves čas prisotna · 1912 KUBA – vojska zaščiti ameriške interese; okupacija · 1912 PANAMA – marinci se izkrcajo med volitvami · 1912/33 NIKARAGVA – okupacija; bombardiranje; spopadi z gverilci · 1913 MEHIKA mornarica med revolucijo evakuira Američane · 1914 DOMINIKANSKA REPUBLIKA – mornarica se z uporniki udari za Santo Domingo · 1914/18 MEHIKA – spopadi z nacionalisti; marinci 1914 naskočijo Tampico in Vera Cruz; konjenica generala Pershinga naskakuje vojsko Caranze · 1913/34 HAITI – okupacija; bombardiranje; spopadi z uporniki; ameriški investitorji preženejo francoske, nemške in britanske · 1916/24 DOMINIKANSKA REPUBLIKA – marinska okupacija · 1917/33 KUBA – okupacija, protektorat · 1918/22 RUSIJA vojska se petkrat izkrca (v Murmansku, Vladivostoku itd.), da bi vrgla bolševike · 198/20 PANAMA vojska po volitvah nastopi kot policaj · 1919 HONDURAS – marinci se izkrcajo med volitvami · 1920 GVATEMALA – vojska se spopade z unionisti · 1922 TURČIJA – vojska se v Smirni spopade z nacinalisti · 1922/27 KITAJSKA – vojska poseže med nacionalističnimi vprašanji · 1924/25 HONDURAS – vojska se izkrca med volitvami · 1925 PANAMA – marinci zatrejo generalni štrajk · 1927/34 KITAJSKA – marinci razporejeni vsepovprek · 1932 SALVADOR – bojne ladje udarijo po upornikih · 1945 JAPONSKA – dve atomski bombi; okupacija · 1945 NEMČIJA – okupacija · 1945 KOREJA – okupacija; zatiranje progresivnih sil · 1946 IRAN – izgon Sovjetov; grožnja z atomskim orožjem · 1946 JUGOSLAVIJA – mornarica pritiska po sestrelitvi dveh ameriških letal, ki sta kršili Jugoslovanski zračni prostor (prvo sestreljeno pri Zagrebu, drugo, ki je letelo iz Avstrije v Udine, pa na primorskem) · 1947 ZDA – ustanovljena je CIA · 1947/48 ITALIJA – Amerika zrežira volitve · 1947 URAGVAJ – bombniki; grožnja z atomskim orožjem · 1947/49 GRČIJA – vojska režira državljansko vojno; bori se ne strani neofašistov; Grčija postane klient · 1945/49 KITAJSKA – vojska poseže v državljansko vojno – na Čankajškovi strani; evakuira Američane · 1948 NEMČIJA – grožnja z atomskim orožjem; varovanje Berlinskega letalskega koridorja · 1945/54 FILIPINI – vojska režira vojno z levičarskimi uporniki in nastavlja svoje marionete · 1948/54 PORTORIKO – vojska režira zlom boja za neodvisnost · 1949/53 ALBANIJA – neuspešno rušenje komunistične vlade · 1950 EVROPA – CIA lansira radio Svobodna Evropa, ki oddaja za železno zaveso · 1950/53 KOREA – vojna s komunističnim severom; grožnje z atomskim orožjem · 1950 SEVERNA KOREJA – CIA pakira atentat na Kim II Sunga · 1953 IRAN – CIA izzove socialne nemire, zrežira državni udar, zruši demokratično izvoljenega ministrskega predsednika Mosadeka in nastavi šaha Rezo Pahlavija · 1954 VIETNAM – Franciji ponudijo atomsko orožje · 1954 GVATEMALA – bombardiranje; grožnja z atomskim orožjem; vojska naredi invazijo, ker nova vlada nacionalizira posesti ameriških korporacij; CIA s pomočjo eksilantov zruši demokratično izvoljeno levičarsko vlado Jacoba Arbenza; sledila so desetletja, v katerih je umrlo in izginilo več kot 100.000 ljudi · 1955 INDIJA – CIA pakira atentat na premierja Nehruja · 1956/57 EGIPT – vojska poseže v sueško krizo; grožnja z atomskim orožjem; marinci evakuirajo tujce; CIA pakira atentat na premierja Naserja · 1956/58 BLIŽNJI VZHOD – vojska se zasidra v regiji; poskusi rušenja sirijske vlade · 1958 LIBANON – okupacija; marinci se spopadejo z uporniki, da bi rešili predsednika Chamouna · 1958 IRAK – grožnja z atomskim orožjem; Irak posvarijo, da naj se ne dotika Kuvajta · 1958 KITAJSKA – grožnja z atomskim orožjem; Kitajsko posvarijo da naj se ne dotika Tajvana · 1958 PANAMA – vojska se spopade s protestniki · 1957/58 INDONEZIJA – CIA skuša zrušiti Sukaranovo vlado – skuje tudi serijo neuspešnih atentatov na Sukara in lažni »erotični film« s katerim ga izsiljujejo · 1960 KUBA – CIA začne z neuspešnimi atentati na Fiedela Castra Nadaljujem spodaj. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by DylanDog on 19.02.2003 at 21:50:25 · 1960 ZDA Amerika lansira prvi vohunski satelit · 1960/75 VIETNAM – vojna; bombardiranje; grožnje z atomskim orožjem; poskusi rušenja strička Hoja; več kot MILIJON mrtvih· 1961 KONGO – preveč levičarskega premiera Patricija Lumumbo zrušijo in ga na zahtevo ameriškega predsednika Eisenhowerja usmrtijo. · 1961 LAOS – Kennedy začne »tajno vojno» proti komunistični gverili · 1961 KUBA – CIA vodi propadlo izkrcanje 1.400 eksilantov v Prašičjem zalivu · 1961 NEMČIJA – grožnja z atomskim orožjem med gradnjo berlinskega zidu · 1962 KUBA – grožnja z atomskim orožjem med kubansko raketno krizo · 1962 LAOS – militarizacija med gverilsko vojno · 1963 JUŽNI VIETNAM – CIA pakira atentat na predsednika Diema · 1964 PANAMA – vojska poseže ob krizi s prekopom · 1964 GVAJANA – Ameriki uspe po enajstih letih zrušiti vlado preveč neodvisnega Cheddija Jagana · 1964 BRAZILIJA – CIA zrežira državni udar in rušenje preveč levega predsednika Goularta; formiranje »vodov smrti« · 1965 INDONEZIJA – CIA asistira vojaškemu udaru; Sukarno pade, vstopi Suharto; v čistkah umre MILIJON ljudi, pretežno »komijev« · 1963/66 DOMINIKANSKA REPUBLIKA – bombardiranje; marinci se izkrcajo med volitvami, zrušijo Juana Boscha, prvega dominikanskega demokratično izvoljenega predsednika po 1924, in nastavijo proameriško vlado · 1966/67 GVATEMALA – zelene baretke se spopadejo z uporniki · 1967 BOLIVIJA – CIA asistira pri likvidaciji Che Guevare · 1967 VIETNAM – CIA lansira program »Phoenix«, s katerim naj bi nevtralizirala vietkong; program vključuje tudi atentate, likvidacije · 1967 GRČIJA – CIA in vojska zrežirata vojaški udar in padec liberalne vlade Georgeja Papandreouja · 1969/75 KAMBODŽA – tajno bombardiranje s tepihi; kaos; stradanje; CIA skuje serijo neuspešnih atentatov na predsednika, princa Norodoma Sihanukaka, ki ga 1970 vendarle zrušijo; več kot MILIJON mrtvih · 1970 OMAN – vojska režira Iransko invazijo · 1071/73 LAOS – vojska režira južno-vietnamsko invazijo; bombardiranje s tepihi · 1973 BLIŽNJI VZHOD – grožnja z atomskim orožjem med vojno · 1973 ČILE – CIA destabilizira Čile, režira vojaški udar in eksikucijo demokratično izvoljenega predsednika, levičarja, Salvadorja Allendeja; v nadaljevanju puča usmrtijo več kot 3.000 »subverzivcev« · 1975 KAMBODŽA – marinci napadejo otok Tang, da bi osvobodili trgovsko ladjo Mayaguez · 1975 VZHODNI TIMOR – ameriška vlada Indoneziji prižge zeleno luč za napad z ameriškim orožjem; do 1989 umre več kot 200.000 ljudi (tretjina prebivalstva) · 1976/92 ANGOLA – CIA asistira upornikom, ki jih fura Južna Afrika · 1979/92 AFGANISTAN – poligon, na katerem je Amerika merila moči s SZ; MILIJON mrtvih · 1980 IRAN – grožnja z atomskim orožjem med krizo s talci & islamsko revolucijo · 1981 LIBIJA – mornarica med manevri sestreli dve libijski letali · 1981 PANAMA – CIA pakira atentat na generala Torrijosa, šefa države · 1981/92 SALVADOR – vojaško svetovanje; preleti; spopadi z uporniki; tajna vojna; podpiranje desničarskih »vodov smrti« · 1981/90 NIKARAGVA – vojaško svetovanje; podpiranje izgnanih contrasov in režiranje invazij, CIA skrivaj nastavi mine v zaliv, rušenje revolucije · 1982 IRAN – CIA kuje atentat na ajatolo Homeinija · 1982//84 LIBANON marinci izženejo PLO in podprejo falangiste; mornaricaobstreljuje muslimanske in sirijske položaje · 1983/89 HONDURAS – vojska gradi baze ob meji · 1983 GRENADA – destabilizacija; vojska priredi invazijo in zruši vlado Mauricia Bishopa · 1984 IRAN – mornarica pred Zalivom sestreli dve iranski letali · 1986 LIBIJA – letalski napad; bombardiranje Tripolija(40 mrtvih, tudi Gadafijeva hči); režiranje atentatov na Gadafija · 1986 BOLIVIJA – vojska asistira pri čiščenju kokainske regije · 1987/88 IRAN – mornarica poseže v iraško-iransko vojno, jasno, na iraški strani; bombardiranje · 1989 LIBIJA – mornarica sestreli dve libijski letali · 1989 DEVIŠKI OTOKI – vojska zatre črnske nemire · 1989 FILIPINI – mornarica z letali zaščiti vlado pred udarom · 1989/90 PANAMA – invazija; vojska zruši nacionalistično vlado in aretira Noriego, predsednika-diktatorja-dilerja; bombardiranje; več kot 3.000 mrtvih · 1990 LIBERIJA – vojska evakuira tujce med državljansko vojno · 1990/91 ZALIV – 540.000 vojakov se premakne v Savdsko Arabijo, Oman, katar, Bahrajn in Združene arabske emirate · 1991 IRAK – vojna; bombardiranje; blokada; več kot 200.000 mrtvih med invazijo, do danes MILIJON IN POL! · 1991 KUVAJT – bombardiranje; vrnitev kuvajtske kraljeve družine · 1992/94 SOMALIJA – okupacija med državljansko vojno (via ZN); bombardiranje; spopadi z uporniki; bitka za Mogadiš, nafta · 1992/94 JUGOSLAVIJA – vojaška blokada Srbije in Črne gore (via Nato); bombardiranje · 1993/95 BOSNA – bombardiranje srbskih položajev · 1987/94 HAITI vojaška, pomorska blokada po udaru 1991; vrnitev »svetega« diktatorja Aristida; CIA ves čas kurila vode smrti · 1995 HRVAŠKA – bombardiranje srbskih položajev v Krajini pred hrvaško ofenzivo · 1996/97 ZAIRE – marinci v begunskem taborišču za Hutuje · 1996 IRAK – CIA poskuša likvidirat Sadama Huseina · 1997 LIBERIJA – spopadi med evakuiranjem tujcev · 1997 ALBANIJA - spopadi med evakuiranjem tujcev · 1998 SUDAN – raketiranje farmacevtske tovarne · 1998 AFGANISTAN – raketiranje kampov za urjenje islamskih gverilcev · 1998 IRAK – hudo bombardiranje po odhodu inšpektorjev · 1999 JUGOSLAVIJA – bombardiranje, raketiranje (via NATO); v času kosovske krize · 2001 MAKEDONIJA – razoroževanje albanskih upornikov (via NATO) · 2001/02 AFGANISTAN – bombardiranje; raketiranje; invazija; okupacija; več kot 3.500 mrtvih · 2003 ..?? No Comment… U S of wAr LP, Dylan Dog |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Harry on 19.02.2003 at 22:48:34 In kje si vse tole staknil? Mater so bli aktivni tile jenkiji. Zadnje leto je bolj siromašno, zato pa jih še bolj srbijo prsti. Doma naj bojo in se med sabo raketirajo, če jim je to v užitek. LP Harry |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by DylanDog on 19.02.2003 at 22:52:45 Mislim da je še veliko tega a ne vemo, in veliko česar nikoli ne bomo izvedeli..... Nekako jih moramo ustaviti, I hope... Ker grejo preko vseh meja..... so šli že dolgo nazaj...... |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Harry on 19.02.2003 at 23:00:43 Jaz tudi mislim, da je ogromno svinjarij še prikritih. Veš kaj mi je pa novo? Da sta bili v Jugi sestrteljeni dve njihovi letali. To mi je pa ušlo. Le kako jih zaustavit? Če pa ne j....jo ničesar. Če pogledaš kakšne proteste so imeli doma med Vijetnamsko vojno, pa vseeno ni zaleglo. In danes so še večji, močnejši. Včasih so vsaj mal Ruse cvikal, danes pa morajo biti Rusi tiho. Lp Harry |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by tomi on 21.02.2003 at 10:04:27 [glb]To mi delaj!!! Hvala!![/glb] Kaj pa mi znate priporočat kakšen dober vir o povezavi amerike in zahodnih vlad z prostozidarskim velikim načrtom in teorijo prostozidarske zarote... Rad bi sestavil nekaj, kar bo moje sošolčke v depresijo vrglo ;D Tudi samo po možnosti v angleščini... |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Kali on 21.02.2003 at 12:07:49 Očitno jih boli tudi za lastne ljudi, so že naročili 75 000 vreč za trupla!!! :o |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by tomi on 21.02.2003 at 12:32:58 To ni nič v primerjavi s tem, kolikor si obetajo od nafte... Takrat bodo lahko kupili vreče za celi svet! ;D |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 21.02.2003 at 13:01:40 hnjehhh tomi, to boš pa težko najdu ... mislm to o teoriji zarote & stuff ... tega ma še največ andres, čeprov tud ni neki u jedro kar se tiče amerov in prostozidarjev. je pa skor zihr to res, pač to da so prostozidarji ustanovili USA z nemajhno pomočjo židov. zdej al je to kar se je izciml dobr al slabo mora vsak presodit sam ... men se zdi slabo, bom reku tko, definitvno bi iz teh risorsov lahko modeli več popedenal ... mogoče tega threada še nisi zapazu: http://www.gape.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=slovenija;action=display;num=1033028519 lahko pa dam klele še dva huda linka: http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm oziroma, "portal" iz katerega sem nasel podobne webpejdze: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by tomi on 21.02.2003 at 14:28:31 Hvala, same lepe stvari... ;D Eni bolj drugi manj pretiravajo... Sam pa verjamem, da kapitalizem potrebuje "prilagojene" oz degenerirane ljudi za svoj obstoj... Vceplja jim pač ideje, da potrebujejo svetlikajoče stvari, ki jih v resnici ne, v izgovor, da je to zdaj njim všeč in je njihov stil. Čisto možno je tudi, da so vključeni pristozidarji, saj so vsi zahodni liderji že od začetkov (zahodne) zgodovine člani lože. Menda niso izjeme niti današnji naftni mogotci, ki nadzorujejo dogajanje v svetu... Ah, ja. No, če nič drugega je res, da je poneumljanje v teku povsod, to ti res MORA bit jasno, ko vklopiš TV... |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by sidha on 21.02.2003 at 14:54:10 Če lahko kje stakneš knjigo SECRET SOCIETY ene nemške založbe. Tam je napisan vse o svetovnih zarotah, ložah in članih, načrt novega svetovnega reda, o nemških VRIL-ih, o židovskih zarotah, o Bushevem financiranju CIE.... |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by tomi on 22.02.2003 at 18:01:08 Kaj veš slučajno kje bi se dalo to dobit?? (verjetno ne v knjižnici) Bom se potrudil da najdem, zgleda dobro! |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 22.02.2003 at 18:33:43 tole http://www.crystalinks.com/freemasons.html precej zgoščeno FREEMASONS Many of the founding fathers of the United States, had a belief in divine guidance, though they did not speak openly about it. They were deeply committed to ancient secret societies and protecting the secrets knowledge of our creation. Today we know it as Sacred/ Creational Geometry. George Washington was a Freemason - a Grand Master. Presidents who were Freemasons. When Washington dedicated the United States capitol he used the Masonic symbolism. Masonic influence is evident in the architecture of Washington, DC where pyramids, pillars, and Numerology are repeated in nearly every official building. They follow the the sacred geometry of creation of our reality, as do most things we create. The floor plan of the Capitol Mall was designed from the blueprint of the floor plan of a Masonic Temple - an East-West rectangle attached to an unfinished triangle. The lodge Master would reside at the cap of the triangle, where the Capitol stands today. All of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, were Freemasons, with the exception of one man. The symbols on the dollar bill relate to the Masonic notions of the founders. The all-seeing eye comes from the Masonic symbology. The concept of the pyramid with its missing capstone links with the ancient mystery school teaching of ancient Egypt. The Masonic beliefs of the founding fathers were passed down to successive generations of government leaders. Freemasonry exists to this day. drgač pa http://www.crystalinks.com/conspiracy.html CONSPIRACIES AND MYSTERY SCHOOLS AREA 51 ~ DREAMLAND ~ GROOM LAKE BILDERBERG GROUP BLACK HELICOPTERS BLAVATSKY, HELENA PETROVNA CHEMTRAILS COVER-UPS ~ CONSPIRACIES ~ MIND CONTROL CROWLEY, ALEISTER HAARP HITLER ~ SPEAR OF DESTINY MAJESTIC 12 ~ JASON SOCIETY MEN IN BLACK MONTAUK PROJECT MYSTERY SCHOOLS ~ SECRET SOCIETIES BAPHOMET FREEMASONS GOLDEN DAWN HOLY GRAIL ILLUMINATI ISIS KNIGHTS TEMPLAR PRIEURE DE SION RENNES LE CHATEAU ~ THE MEROVIAN KINGS ROSICRUCIANS ROSSLYN CHAPEL SACRED GEOMETRY SKULL OF SIDON - SKULL AND CROSSBONES SWASTIKA TEUTONIC KNIGHTS THOTH ~ HERMES TRISMEGISTUS THULE SOCIETY VRIL SOCIETY ~ BLACK SUN ~ DARK MATTER PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT PROJECT SILVERBUG ROSWELL TRACKING ~ TAGGING PEOPLE ~ 666 MARK OF THE BEAST UNDERGROUND FACILITIES ~ BASES ~ TUNNELS ******************** če je to kar piše vse res ... ni vprašanja več ... vprašanje je edin ... a je zarota? |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 24.02.2003 at 16:48:39 kdo je nevarnejši? “Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.” -- Pres. Bush addressing the nation from Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002 A THREAT TO PEACE: http://www.gape.org/svetpogovorov/terror_map.pdf |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by tomi on 24.02.2003 at 20:30:58 Lepo, lepo, hvala! Samo se mi bo zmešalo od podatkov... :-/ Najboljše, da grem kr knjigo pisat o vsem skupaj, samo če vse znano noter vključim bo imela ziher 1000 strani. Če še kaj najdete kr gor s tem, je ful zanimivo... Bush debilni pa res ne bi rabil več takih neumnosti sekat, ker si samo še večjo sramoto vsak dan dela z njimi ... Doma ima orožja za rastrelit pol vesolja, pa se na cigote s petardami spravlja ;D |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 06.03.2003 at 12:02:44 malce bušizmov http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm ---------------------------------- Mnogim je že jasno, da to, kar se dogaja v ZDA, ni dobro za svet in še manj za Ameriko. Ja, povsem možno je, da pride do razpada Amerike, kot je prišlo do razpada Sovjetske zveze ali Jugoslavije. Mr. Bush je pač tam zato, da pokaže svetu največje neumnosti. Mnogo je ljudi, ki so za zaščito lastnih, sebičnih interesov sposobni ubijati in pošiljati v smrt nedolžne. To se bo končalo – zlepa (kar nam je ljubše) ali zgrda (če se mora, lahko poskrbimo tudi za to). http://home.amis.net/barsekb/html/sporocila_mojstrov.htm |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Kali on 14.03.2003 at 12:58:48 http://www.msnbc.com/news/877411.asp?0cv=CB20&cp1=1#BODY Anti-Americanism versus Hollywood |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Edi on 17.03.2003 at 12:00:02 Tale članek je mal na silo sestavljen, "Sporocila mojstrov" tko sem ga občutu, je nekaj resnic, ki jih lahko sam skupaj naklofleš, če slediš samo temu forumu, no tale odstavek se mi dopade (ego): "V tem trenutku je Zemlja obdana z močnim črnim plaščem – bi rekli črne, astralne energije, ki ste jo povzročili sami, skozi mnoga tisočletja. Mi smo tu zato, da vas ščitimo pred njo, se pravi pred vas samimi. To zmoremo samo, če človek resnično želi našo pomoč. Tisti, ki umirajo v nesrečah, katastrofah in boleznih pač ne želijo naše pomoči. Utopijo se dobesedno v lastnem dreku. Ta črni plašč ni povsod enak. Nad Slovenijo je mnogo manjši kot drugod, zato ste pod zaščito, kar zadeva možnosti velikih neurij, poplav in drugih rušilnih sil. Pri vas bodo spremembe šle po mili poti, poti razuma in srca. Če vas je do sedaj meditiralo in se s tem povezovalo z nami tisoč, vas bo v enem letu že deset tisoč in v treh letih sto tisoč. Kao Slovenija good, ampak tudi to se najde že tuki na tem forumu. Sploh pa v tako preroškem tekstu ven štrli tisti ČE, ČE, ČE. ki jih mojstri navadno ne uporabljajo, sploh se mi zdi, ti omenjeni - svetlobni. Se pa lahko motim, ker se še nisem povezal z nobenim. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Realbe on 17.03.2003 at 19:58:39 Članek Noam-a Chomsky-ja. Eden največjih umov 20 st. Bil je tudi že zaprt, zaradi protestov proti Vietnamski vojni. Noam Chomsky Published March 13, 2003 CHOM13 The most powerful state in history has proclaimed that it intends to control the world by force, the dimension in which it reigns supreme. President Bush and his cohorts evidently believe that the means of violence in their hands are so extraordinary that they can dismiss anyone who stands in their way. The consequences could be catastrophic in Iraq and around the world. The United States may reap a whirlwind of terrorist retaliation -- and step up the possibility of nuclear Armageddon. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and company are committed to an "imperial ambition," as G. John Ikenberry wrote in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs -- "a unipolar world in which the United States has no peer competitor" and in which "no state or coalition could ever challenge it as global leader, protector and enforcer." That ambition surely includes much expanded control over Persian Gulf resources and military bases to impose a preferred form of order in the region. Even before the administration began beating the war drums against Iraq, there were plenty of warnings that U.S. adventurism would lead to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as terror, for deterrence or revenge. Right now, Washington is teaching the world a dangerous lesson: If you want to defend yourself from us, you had better mimic North Korea and pose a credible threat. Otherwise we will demolish you. There is good reason to believe that the war with Iraq is intended, in part, to demonstrate what lies ahead when the empire decides to strike a blow -- though "war" is hardly the proper term, given the gross mismatch of forces. A flood of propaganda warns that if we do not stop Saddam Hussein today he will destroy us tomorrow. Last October, when Congress granted the president the authority to go to war, it was "to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." But no country in Iraq's neighborhood seems overly concerned about Saddam, much as they may hate the murderous tyrant. Perhaps that is because the neighbors know that Iraq's people are at the edge of survival. Iraq has become one of the weakest states in the region. As a report from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences points out, Iraq's economy and military expenditures are a fraction of some of its neighbors'. Indeed, in recent years, countries nearby have sought to reintegrate Iraq into the region, including Iran and Kuwait, both invaded by Iraq. Saddam benefited from U.S. support through the war with Iran and beyond, up to the day of the invasion of Kuwait. Those responsible are largely back at the helm in Washington today. President Ronald Reagan and the previous Bush administration provided aid to Saddam, along with the means to develop weapons of mass destruction, back when he was far more dangerous than he is now, and had already committed his worst crimes, like murdering thousands of Kurds with poison gas. An end to Saddam's rule would lift a horrible burden from the people of Iraq. There is good reason to believe that he would suffer the fate of Nicolae Ceausescu and other vicious tyrants if Iraqi society were not devastated by harsh sanctions that force the population to rely on Saddam for survival while strengthening him and his clique. Saddam remains a terrible threat to those within his reach. Today, his reach does not extend beyond his own domains, though it is likely that U.S. aggression could inspire a new generation of terrorists bent on revenge, and might induce Iraq to carry out terrorist actions suspected to be already in place. Right now Saddam has every reason to keep under tight control any chemical and biological weapons that Iraq may have. He wouldn't provide such weapons to the Osama bin Ladens of the world, who represent a terrible threat to Saddam himself. And administration hawks understand that, except as a last resort if attacked, Iraq is highly unlikely to use any weapons of mass destruction that it has -- and risk instant incineration. Under attack, however, Iraqi society would collapse, including the controls over the weapons of mass destruction. These could be "privatized," as international security specialist Daniel Benjamin warns, and offered to the huge "market for unconventional weapons, where they will have no trouble finding buyers." That really is "a nightmare scenario," he says. As for the fate of the people of Iraq in war, no one can predict with any confidence: not the CIA, not Rumsfeld, not those who claim to be experts on Iraq, no one. But international relief agencies are preparing for the worst. Studies by respected medical organizations estimate that the death toll could rise to the hundreds of thousands. Confidential U.N. documents warn that a war could trigger a "humanitarian emergency of exceptional scale" -- including the possibility that 30 percent of Iraqi children could die from malnutrition. Today the administration doesn't seem to be heeding the international relief agency warnings about an attack's horrendous aftermath. The potential disasters are among the many reasons why decent human beings do not contemplate the threat or use of violence, whether in personal life or international affairs, unless reasons have been offered that have overwhelming force. And surely nothing remotely like that justification has come forward. Noam Chomsky is a political activist, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of the bestseller "9-11." He wrote this article for the New York Times Syndicate |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by stojchi on 24.02.2004 at 15:19:30 Del poročila CIE več na raznih novicah Zaradi pomanjkanja vode in hrane, vojne po vsem svetu Evropa in ZDA bosta po navedbah poročila postali trdnjavi, ki bosta na vse načine preprečevali pritok beguncev z območij, ki jih bodo prizadele poplave, suša ali vojne. Katastrofalno pomanjkanje vode in hrane bo do leta 2020 vojne razširilo po vsem svetu. Velika Britanija naj bi do tega leta doživljala zime, kot so danes v Sibiriji, že do leta 2007 pa naj bi neurja uničila velike dele ozemlja Nizozemske. Kalifornija naj bi do tega leta doživela velike motnje v oskrbi z vodo. Avtorja poročila sta svetovalec CIA in nekdanji vodja načrtovanja pri podjetju Royal Dutch Shell Peter Schwartz in Doug Randall iz organizacije Global Business Network v Kaliforniji, izdelavo poročila pa je naročil tesen sodelavec obrambnega ministra Donalda Rumsfelda Andrew Marshall. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by stojchi on 24.02.2004 at 16:49:53 :) skratka iz tega CIA poročila je jasno razvidno kam in kako načrtujejo in usmerjajo razvoj ameriški globalisti, ani zanimivo, da tega niti ne skrivajo več? ;D |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by t on 25.07.2004 at 20:01:20 http://www.jibjab.com/ |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN silicon Post by Kali on 26.07.2004 at 20:41:42 Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Kali on 28.07.2004 at 13:08:15 Kerry is a third cousin of George W. Bush on his mother's side. http://rense.com/general54/msmsi.htm |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by 2227 on 31.07.2004 at 13:03:19 « Reply #36 on: Feb 19th, 2003, 9:50pm » lahko pripišemo: - 2003 IRAK |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Bardo_Thodol on 13.08.2004 at 12:10:15 on Today at 12:00, titud wrote: Quote:
Kaj je to značilno samo za Američane? A si na druge neobčutljive kolektive, (pa ni tako dolgo od tega), že pozabil? |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by titud on 13.08.2004 at 12:37:14 Nism mislu, da za druge kolektive ta neobčutljivost ni značilna. Ampak če bi te z atomsko bombo zbrisal rus al al pa kitajc, tega ne bi občutu kot razočarnaje nad rusom al pa kitajcem, ker se njegova koleltivistična neobčutljivost do posameznika predpostvalja, ker sam kot posameznik te občutljivosti do sebe al pa do drugega na individulnem nivoju ne dojema in razglaša kot vrlino, tko kot to navzen in navznoter počne amerikac. Amerikanec kot posameznik se tako znajde, potem ko pride npr. iz vietnama, v dost bolj shizofreni situaciji, kot rus, ki pride iz čečenije. Očitno nekaj z amiriškim induvidualizmom kot vrednoto ne 'štima'. Po moje je keč v tem, da moderni induvidualizem, katerga zastavonoša je zihr amerika, ne črpa osnove iz posameznika, ki je najdu stik s sabo, ampak je kolketivno sproduciran, zato se posameznik, ko nastopi v vlogi kolektiva, svojm 'induvidulansoti' tko na izy odreče (a si opazu obsedensot američanov z uniformamio, zastavami in drugimi zanjimi znaki pripadnosti državi, klubu, bratoviščini, firmi....) Ko pa odloži uniformo in vi se moral vanjga vrnt, se nima kam vrnt, ker ga ta njegova induvidulanost ni mogla počakat, ker je nikol ni niti blo blo in je bla le kolektivno sproducirana fama, ki se je z očutenjem pravega kolektivnoega filinga razkrila in razblinla kot fama. Soočenje je kruto, vietnamski sindrom je po moje točn to in kdor ga je dajal skoz je vidu zaroto posod, saj če nase ne moreš opret pa zanest, boš to itak spojeciral ko paranojo na druge, da so se zarotili proti teb. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Bardo_Thodol on 13.08.2004 at 12:54:11 titud wrote on 13.08.2004 at 12:37:14:
Če bi me kdorkoli že zbrisal z atomsko bombo, sploh ne bi ničesar več občutil, tudi razočaranja ne :D Trenutno se mi zdi še najmanj verjetno, da bi name zmetali atomske bombe veliki kolektivi (američani, rusi, kitajci), ker ti so se že zasidrali v okopih globalne meddržavne stabilnosti in ozavestili, kaj bi en tak globalni holokavst pomenil tudi za njih. Večja in povsem realna nevarnost pa z veliko večjo verjetnostjo preti s strani manjših, a fanatičnih skupin, ki globalnega uničenja sicer ne morejo povzročiti, lahko pa z omejenim uničenjem in ustrahovanjem poskušajo doseči svoje ožje cilje, ki so lahko zgolj maščevalne ali svarilne narave, lahko pa tudi zaradi bolj konkretnih razlogov (naprimer zaradi želje po spremembi oblasti). |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by titud on 13.08.2004 at 13:41:38 Ne gre za to, kdo bo vrgu bompo prvi, amak za to, da je ne bi vrgu noben. Hočem rečt, da se mi američan se s svojim sklicevnjem na zaščito integriete in svoboščin posameznika v tem smilsu ne zdi čist nč boljši garant kot katerkoli drug človk na svetu. To je po moje dobr ozvestit, ker se dostkrat dogaja, da kot en neogovorni otroci kar nekaj zakuhamo saj hkrat računamo, da itak ne more bit hudga, saj če nam bo zares zagustlo, nas ma pa vsakega posebej striček sam itak tko rad, da nam bo že prletu pomagat. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Bardo_Thodol on 13.08.2004 at 14:38:04 titud wrote on 13.08.2004 at 13:41:38:
Ali bi se res počutil enako lagodno, če bi ob tebi v avtobusu sedel nekdo opasan z dinamitom, ki bi z vročičnimi očmi že sanjaril, kako se bo zdaj zdaj v raju srečal s preroki, (a kar je še pomembneje, tudi s sedmimi brhkimi mladenkami, ki mu bodo stregle), kot, pa če bi sedel ob dolgočasnem in že malo zaobljenem in preznojenem Američanu, ki bi ti dve uri skupaj nakladal o svoboščinah, ki da ti jih garantira ustava? |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by titud on 13.08.2004 at 14:51:51 Un z bombo v svoji kolketivni ekstazi zna bit do mene kot posameznika clo bolj priznesljiv kot recimo ta isti prešvican američan, ki bi me po opravljenem monololgu v imenu istih vrednot v drugi vlogi lahko brezosebno scvrl iz 10 km višine. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Bardo_Thodol on 13.08.2004 at 15:02:20 Pravzaprav ne bi bil noben prav prizanesljiv do tebe, saj imata oba vsak svoje interese in jima ti tu zraven ne pomeniš prav dosti več, kot tisti sedež, na katerem sediš. Vseeno pa bi se varneje počutil ob tistem, ki mi neposredno ne grozi. Posredno pa itak vsi drug drugega ogrožamo, tudi na načine, ki se jih niti ne zavedamo ali pa le mislimo, da delamo najboljše. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Kali on 01.10.2004 at 11:56:45 http://www.gape.org/geeklog/public_html/article.php/20040930143903729 :o :o :o slovenski moore ;) |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Devi on 20.11.2004 at 14:23:03 ameriške 'prostozidarske' družbe, njihovi logotipi in imena, Bush-Kerry, 11.9. in kje hudiča je avijon ;D http://icy.blog.hr/arhiva-2004-09.html |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by 4448 on 20.11.2004 at 18:55:40 Dobro to Devi, tip si je vzel čas... Avion? Aviona nikoli ni blo.. stevilke stevilke stevilke |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by db on 19.01.2005 at 17:53:59 Se po Iraku pripravlja še Iran? http://www.24ur.com/naslovnica/svet/20050118_2051340.php?Acl=s1 Pa potem? |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Kali on 19.01.2005 at 18:14:08 wrote on 19.01.2005 at 17:53:59:
počas postajajo dolgočasni.... ;) |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Kali on 19.01.2005 at 18:56:23 še tok, marsikateri samooklicani bog je že osvajal svet, a uspelo ni še nikomur... tko, da folk ne nasedajte (nasedajmo, da še sebe vključim lol) strahu; k je not votel od zun ga pa nič ni ;) |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Devi on 19.01.2005 at 22:09:02 sej ne, sam je pa res že tečno čakat, da busha že končno en u rit brcne Brecht je v nacistični nemčiji rekel: dovolj bi blo če bi eden vstal in rekel NE ne vem, kerega boga čakajo, da bo prišel zemlja je naša |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by vida on 20.01.2005 at 08:34:15 Devi wrote on 19.01.2005 at 22:09:02:
A nismo mi v istem čolnu ??? |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Devi on 20.01.2005 at 09:03:08 razloži se, vida ;D ne razumem te |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Madan Gopal Das on 20.01.2005 at 09:09:46 iz gledisca, da smo vsi sinovi enega in istega Oceta/Boga in Matere/Narave mormo met vse nase brate in sestre radi. ampak po drugi strani je pa ocitno, da nas nekatere aktivnosti nekaterih nasih bratov/sester motijo in vznemirjajo. tuki pa pol nastane problem. a je res narobe to kar pocne on al narobe pocnem jaz? zato je treba iz gledisca najbolj pridnih (tj. zadovoljnih/pomirjenih) otrok prevert in tud izvedet kako nej se sami najprej spremenimo za nase vecno dobro in s tem lahko posledicno pomagamo tud vsem drugim s svojim zgledom in prijaznim/socutnim nasvetom. naj bosta sodnik Bog in Narava in tisti, ki so z Njima tesno povezani. za te pa vemo kaksne pomirjujoce vibre naravno sevajo iz sebe. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by vida on 20.01.2005 at 10:08:26 Devi wrote on 20.01.2005 at 09:03:08:
oboji podpiramo isti družbeni red - demokracijo, saj hodimo na volitve ne. Pa tud če ne gremo je učinek isti, saj le odstopimo svoj glas drugim ... Več : http://users.volja.net/tpetauer/robot_povzetek.htm |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by t on 20.01.2005 at 10:34:10 Mene je že tole prepričalo, da tip ne ve, kaj govori: Quote:
Vsekakor so takšni viri zadnje, kar bi lahko resen človek vzel za dokaze ali za vire dokazov: religije, so bile in bodo vedno največji vir zablod, miti takisto - miti ali pravlice, in vsekakor so duševni bolniki in vsi z nenormalno ali nadnormalno zaznavo tisti, ki mi bodo podajali dokaze, ako kot bom slepe vzel za resne likovne kritike in gluhe za glasbenike. Precej podobno je tudi z ezoteričnimi teorijami in znanstveno fantastiko, ki jih lahko primerjam z dokazno močjo religij in pravljic. In seveda spet osebne izkušnje, ki vedno ostanejo na nivoju osebnega - brez kančka objektivnosti. Takšni viri so lahko predvsem dokaz zblojenosti tistega, ki jim pripisuje resno dokazno moč česarkoli razen brezmejne neumnosti. uživajte! |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Devi on 20.01.2005 at 11:12:46 vida wrote on 20.01.2005 at 10:08:26:
mah kaj vem, jest ga zdej ze parkrat nisem podprla, k se mi zdi da se je čist izrodil podpiram pa, da se bojkotira vse tiste, ki ga izrabljajo in podpiram use, ki se trudijo kej boljšega nardit, sam na žalost takih ni v vladi zaenkrat nimam nobene boljše ideje kaj nardit |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Kali on 20.01.2005 at 11:14:10 objektivnost je samo mit ;) ;D |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Madan Gopal Das on 20.01.2005 at 11:26:19 Petra. wrote on 20.01.2005 at 11:14:10:
ja, ce govoris o popolni objektivnosti. prav tako je popolna subjektivnost mit. in ce je neki po logiki zazeljeno/potrebno ampak hkrati po logiki neresljivo/neizvedljivo, pol ti ostane edin meditejsn... in "tam" lohk vids/cutis harmonijo med objektivnostjo in subjektivnostjo. sam kaj k spet pades ven/dol ;). kaj ali kdo je tist zarad cesar/kogar pades dol je pametno odkrit. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Kali on 20.01.2005 at 13:26:48 Madan Gopal Das wrote on 20.01.2005 at 11:26:19:
se pravi VSE KAR JE, samo JE!?! ;) :) |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Madan Gopal Das on 20.01.2005 at 13:34:21 Petra. wrote on 20.01.2005 at 13:26:48:
to je zame suho, mrtvo in staticno/mirno in tud ne zdrzi dolg casa pr tem. pejt se naprej. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by vida on 21.01.2005 at 12:21:08 t wrote on 20.01.2005 at 10:34:10:
ti vse veš ??? ... blagor teb 8) |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by t on 21.01.2005 at 12:24:01 vida wrote on 21.01.2005 at 12:21:08:
če bi le res, vsekakor pa znam ločiti zrnje od plev uživaj! |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by vida on 21.01.2005 at 12:29:40 t wrote on 21.01.2005 at 12:24:01:
A to še ni vse ??? |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 21.01.2005 at 18:46:10 http://jibjab.com/lowband/default.htm |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Kali on 21.01.2005 at 19:55:51 http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012005C.shtml |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Kali on 22.01.2005 at 17:50:30 Evo Islandske "mafije"... Andres, si mel ti tud klele prste vmes? jap, čudeži dogajajo.... Icelanders Apologise for Iraq War By Vidir Sigurdsson, Reuters Jan 21, 2005, 20:27 Printer friendly page REYKJAVIK - A group of nationals from tiny Iceland have slammed their government's support of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, apologising to Iraqis in a full-page advertisement in The New York Times. The advertisement, paid for with donations from more than 4,000 citizens which constitutes about 1.4 percent of the population, demanded "that Iceland be immediately removed from the list of invaders in the 'coalition of the willing'. "We apologise to the Iraqi people for the Icelandic ministers' support for the invasion of Iraq," said the ad, published on Friday. Four out of five Icelanders want their country off the list, according to a Gallup opinion poll published earlier this month. But a foreign ministry official ruled out any policy change. "No, Saddam Hussein has been overthrown and we are steadfast in our support for stability and democracy in Iraq," Foreign Minister David Oddsson's political adviser Illugi Gunnarsson told Reuters. Iceland's backing has had little impact on the coalition's fortunes since the war began in March 2003. The North Atlantic archipelago of 295,000 people and no military has contributed nothing but its government's verbal support. Prime Minister Halldor Asgrimsson and Oddsson, both seen by analysts as staunch allies of President George W.Bush, have come under fire for signing up Iceland as a coalition partner without consulting parliament. "The decision to land us on this list of the coalition of the willing should have been discussed by parliament's foreign affairs committee," said Olafur Hannibalsson, spokesman for the National Movement for Active Democracy, which placed the ad. He characterised the government's unilateral action as a "deviation from our foreign policy". NO VETO Gunnarsson said critics skated "on very thin ice". Although major foreign affairs decisions should be brought to the attention of the committee in order to ensure members are informed, the body makes no decisions and has no veto over foreign policy, he said. The government's position -- that the use of force in Iraq was not excluded -- was known to all committee members long before the decision to join the coalition, he said. And the policy was known weeks before Iceland's May 2003 general election and voters could have opted for change, he noted, adding: "But the government firmly held office." University of Iceland associate professor of political science Baldur Thorhallsson said the administration was "in trouble, but not in serious trouble" over the affair, which lately has dominated the news and public debate. "The government is not going to back off and will not leave the coalition ... in no way is this ad going to affect the policy of the government," he said. Some critics say the government sided with Washington in an effort to keep U.S. air force fighter jets at Keflavik air base. Reykjavik sees the base as vital for security and is worried by U.S. plans to close it due to the end of Cold War tensions. "Several hundreds of jobs are at stake," said Hannibalsson, arguing that the base was probably "the real reason" for the cabinet's eagerness to please Washington. Gunnarsson denied any such connection. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Kali on 25.01.2005 at 20:37:25 http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001138.htm Shiva seka... ;) http://www.bradblog.com/Images/Inaugural_Atlanta_NoToMonstersBall.jpg to kar šprica, ni voda, ampak je solzilec :o |
|
Title: First Amendment No Big Deal, Students Say Post by Kali on 01.02.2005 at 16:50:01 First Amendment No Big Deal, Students Say By Ben Feller, AP The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech. It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes released Monday. The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly. Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes ''too far'' in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories. ''These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous,'' said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. ''Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation's future.'' The students are even more restrictive in their views than their elders, the study says. When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did. The results reflected indifference, with almost three in four students saying they took the First Amendment for granted or didn't know how they felt about it. It was also clear that many students do not understand what is protected by the bedrock of the Bill of Rights. Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't. ''Schools don't do enough to teach the First Amendment. Students often don't know the rights it protects,'' Linda Puntney, executive director of the Journalism Education Association, said in the report. ''This all comes at a time when there is decreasing passion for much of anything. And, you have to be passionate about the First Amendment.'' The partners in the project, including organizations of newspaper editors and radio and television news directors, share a clear advocacy for First Amendment issues. Federal and state officials, meanwhile, have bemoaned a lack of knowledge of U.S. civics and history among young people. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., has even pushed through a mandate that schools must teach about the Constitution on Sept. 17, the date it was signed in 1787. The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, is billed as the largest of its kind. More than 100,000 students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004. The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority. Students who take part in school media activities, such as a student newspapers or TV production, are much more likely to support expression of unpopular views, for example. About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings. More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years. ''The last 15 years have not been a golden era for student media,'' said Warren Watson, director of the J-Ideas project at Ball State University in Indiana. ''Programs are under siege or dying from neglect. Many students do not get the opportunity to practice our basic freedoms.'' |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by db on 18.02.2005 at 16:56:35 http://www.deviantart.com/view/15287379/ |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by db on 26.02.2005 at 20:37:59 stupido http://www.m90.org/view_image.php?image_id=2642 |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Devi on 19.03.2005 at 20:08:07 sm začela Stari, kje je moja dežela? od Michaela Moora brat, pa mi kr malo slabo ratuje, ko opisuje 'brate po denarju' ki stojijo za ameriškimi vojnimi akcijami zadnja leta pa sem se že tak fajn prepričala, kak so iluminati samo mit :P |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by petra pan on 19.03.2005 at 21:03:04 a devi = tudi mit? ;) |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by A1 on 04.05.2005 at 12:12:44 "Kot ste že slišali so Američani pred nakaj tedni ustrelili italijanskega obveščevalca Caliparija, ki se je vračal na letališče z iz ujetništva rešeno italijansko novinarko Il Manifesta... (odkpupnina) Zdaj so Ameri seveda o tem napisali obširno poročilo o dogodku, ki pa so ga močno cenzurirali (ne prav posrečeno). Kot se je izkazalo lahko iz počrjenih odsekov nazaj dobite izvirno besedilo tako, da ga označite in samo sam copy/paste prenesete drugam..." Izvirni dokument: http://macchianera.net/files/rapportousacalipari.pdf Dokument (z odstranjeno cenzuro): http://macchianera.net/files/rapportousacalipari-noomissis.pdf |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 27.08.2005 at 13:03:31 gape wrote on 11.09.2001 at 15:58:00:
obrazložu model dogajanje: t wrote on 27.08.2005 at 06:44:39:
|
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by strela on 04.09.2005 at 12:54:04 Kaj pa orkan Katrina pa New Orleans - najbolj zagreta država na svetu za pucanje tujih problemov, bo pustila eno svojih zgodovinskih mest in njegove prebivalce zgnit, zato ker ??? nimajo dovolj vojakov v vojaški bazi New Orleansa, da bi jim lahko pomagali - kes so vsi (črni povečini) vojaki v Iraku in pomagajo na noge postavit še eno demokratično državo. In cel svet je ameriki (ker je tak revna) ponudil pomoč. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Devi on 04.09.2005 at 13:41:47 pr takih preizkušnjah kt so naravne nesreče se v bistvu ful razkrije beda neke države sm se kar mal zgrozila ob nasilju, pristranskosti in rasizmu, ki ga imajo še zmerom pri sebi doma. če bi bla namest nesreče to bomba, bi bli vsi na nogah, ogorčeni, polni sebe, 'proud to be american' in bi na ta račun še ene dve države lahko napadli. z nesrečo si nimajo pa ne politično ne medijsko kaj začet. in kar ni produktivno, očitno ni pomembno. pa čeprov se njihovemu lastnemu narodu zgodi. če je to prihodnost potrošniške družbe, pol smo po moje lahko kr mirni; ne bo dolgo trajala. ene bojo orkani zmazali, drugi se bojo pa streznili. človek se hitro zbrihta, k mu voda teče v grlo. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by t on 04.09.2005 at 13:59:36 Ja je res zanimiv ta precej počasen odziv ameriške najvišje oblasti - vse skupaj izgleda tako kot država tretjega sveta. Je že res, da po poplavi na površje taprvi drek priplava in tale katastrofa je lepo prikazala vse tisto, kar se skriva pod krinko uspešnosti in blišča. Zanimiva je predvsem počasnost, da ne rečem ležernost ukrepanja (predvsem glede na to, da so vsi vedeli, kaj prihaja in so imeli kar nekaj dni, da bi se priopravili na pravočasno ukrepanje in reševanje svojih ljudi; no ja mogoče pa tisto spolh niso "njihivi" - mogoče tole marsikaj pojasni). Me pa res zanima, kako in kaj bo Bush razlagal tistim, vojakom, ki se trenutno borijo v Iraku, namesto na svojih poplavljenih in porušenih ter oropanih domovih. Še posebej ob dejstvu, da so denar, ki naj bi bil namenjen za obnovo nasipov skupaj z nacionalno gardo preusmerili v Irak. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0831-04.htm uživajte! |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by t on 11.09.2005 at 11:02:44 Obletnica http://www.delo.si/index.php Quote:
U bistvu kar precej hud izkupiček nekih frustrirancev - še vedno pa ostaja dejstvo, da ga najbolj nafukajo navadni ljudje, ki niti z enimi niti z drugimi nimajo dosti skupnega. uživajte! |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 11.09.2005 at 17:25:12 t wrote on 11.09.2005 at 11:02:44:
pa tud če majo skupnega kej ... gape wrote on 31.08.2005 at 18:15:04:
pa še direkt link do članka ... za obletnico Od Al Kaide do Katrine Al Kaida zagrozila z novimi napadi http://www.delo.si/index.php?sv_path=41,396,86644 |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES - Bush priznal Post by gape on 17.12.2005 at 12:48:23 Bush priznal krivdo o napačni presoji "Res je, da so se podatki izkazali za napačne. Kot predsednik sem odgovoren za vstop v vojno z Irakom," je povedal Bush v Centru Woodrowa Wilsona. "Prav tako sem odgovoren za popravilo tega, kar je šlo narobe z reformo naših obveščevalnih služb. In točno to počnemo," je še dejal Bush. Ameriški predsednik George Bush (več o Georgeu Bushu) je danes dejal, da je odločitev o napadu na Irak temeljila na napačnih podatkih, a je bila vseeno pravilna, saj je pripomogla k strmoglavljenju nekdanjega iraškega predsednik Sadama Huseina. Bush se je še v nedeljo branil pred vedno glasnejšimi očitki o spornih vzrokih za vojno v Iraku, ameriške politike iz vrst opozicijskih demokratov pa je označil za neodgovorne, saj naj bi poskušali zgodovino vojne napisati na novo. "Medtem ko je popolnoma legitimno kritizirati mojo odločitev o vodenju vojne, pa je globoko neodgovorno ponovno pisati zgodovino o tem, kako se je vojna začela," je dejal ameriški predsednik. Bush se je v nedeljo odzval tudi na očitke, da je vlada prenapihnila domnevne podatke ameriških tajnih obveščevalcev o iraškem orožju za množično uničevanje. Kot je takrat dejal Bush, je senatna preiskovalna komisija ugotovila, da za to ni nikakršnih dokazov. "Neutemeljeni očitki pošiljajo našim enotam in sovražniku napačne signale, ki postavljajo pod vprašaj našo voljo po vztrajanju," je povedal Bush. sta ja bleeding je močn ... očitno premočn mal zgodovine ... gape wrote on 11.09.2001 at 19:17:57:
klimax wrote on 11.09.2001 at 19:28:31:
tretja svetovna vojna vojna 'proti terorizmu' u bistvu pa proti človekovim pravicam gape wrote on 12.09.2001 at 22:39:50:
http://www.gape.org/gapes/prispevki/lola.htm#nesodi gape wrote on 15.09.2001 at 12:35:23:
gape wrote on 16.09.2001 at 15:44:21:
gape wrote on 21.09.2001 at 22:41:39:
gape wrote on 24.09.2001 at 01:23:31:
gape wrote on 25.09.2001 at 11:39:48:
gape wrote on 17.10.2001 at 08:19:02:
gape wrote on 30.10.2001 at 09:01:01:
gape wrote on 02.11.2001 at 13:26:17:
gape wrote on 08.11.2001 at 11:54:02:
gape wrote on 11.03.2002 at 21:17:21:
gape wrote on 26.03.2002 at 23:08:32:
m wrote on 17.04.2002 at 10:34:05:
gape wrote on 23.07.2002 at 18:30:36:
tomi wrote on 19.02.2003 at 21:43:03:
DylanDog wrote on 19.02.2003 at 21:48:37:
DylanDog wrote on 19.02.2003 at 21:50:25:
gape wrote on 21.02.2003 at 13:01:40:
gape wrote on 22.02.2003 at 18:33:43:
|
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by DaBi on 20.12.2005 at 10:05:34 priročnik za mučenje, pač zasliševanje ovi so v vojni s celim svetom svasta.. |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by t on 25.04.2006 at 19:58:51 Hudo lepa razdelava ZDA - svet (kot odgovor na propagandistične trditve nekega našega vrlega neoliberalca) http://www.angelfire.com/planet/amerika/index.htm uživajte! |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Devi on 21.07.2006 at 10:57:47 O tem, koliko eni Američani vejo o svetu, v katerem živijo in o državah, od katerih se počutijo ogroženi :-? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2379439576479603602&q=cnnnn http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-926320663819596829&q=cnnnn |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by picola on 22.07.2006 at 23:37:45 Ojej... :( Zanimivo bi bilo najdet še kakšno takšno anketo z Evropejci. Da imamo malo realne primerjave, ne samo nekej na pamet... |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by gape on 23.07.2006 at 08:50:45 Devi wrote on 21.07.2006 at 10:57:47:
res porazno sej se ve da so jih samo take dal u video ... pa useen ... zanimivo bi blo vedet kolk so jih intervjual vseh skupi - rang - če so bli res naključni in če niso porezal unih k so vedl odgovore vn ... zanimivo bi blo vedet ... |
|
Title: Re: AMERIKA IN FLAMES 2 Post by Igor P. on 24.07.2006 at 13:16:27 gape wrote on 23.07.2006 at 08:50:45:
saj da so našteval razne bližnje vzhodne še nekak razumeš, samo Francija, Italija, brazilija in celo :o KANADA......jaooooooooooo :D |
|
Svet pogovorov » Powered by YaBB 2.3! YaBB © 2000-2008. All Rights Reserved. |
