ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: tonychet2 on August 29, 2013, 08:56:08 pm
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE5Sw8qJ-g0
There is a conspiracy that the world is run by Rothschild, the system, governments, why everything occurs...
anyone heard about them? It makes everything else seem so redundant - if it's true then it seems like it doesn't matter who is elected in Australia and the policies we make...
Especially about the bit about how JFK tried to overrun the system by letting the US print their own money but was conveniently assassinated....
-
What a load of crap, can't tell if trolling or just stupid.
-
so quick to dismiss it?
-
I've heard about it but I'm a skeptic. I've heard these people have something to do with the "illuminati".
But in all seriousness I think this is rubbish.
-
it seems very relevant now because do you really believe the US are going to invade Syria just because they are using chemical weapons? it doesn't add up or justify ... seems like a cover up
Conveniently, they withdrew the bulk of their forces from Iraq 2 years ago? and now all the oil in the middle east is traded in USD giving backing value to their dollar
-
Yes. As someone who has met members of the British branch of the Rothschild family, I can assure you that they aren't a bunch of crazy megalomaniacs.
Also, putting forward a nutbag conspiracy theory that has been used to blame things on the JOOZ for more than a century doesn't reflect very well on you.
it seems very relevant now because do you really believe the US are going to invade Syria just because they are using chemical weapons? it doesn't add up or justify ... seems like a cover up
Conveniently, they withdrew the bulk of their forces from Iraq 2 years ago? and now all the oil in the middle east is traded in USD giving backing value to their dollar
1. Maybe because the use of chemical weapons is a recognised breach of international weapons conventions and warrants intervention before more innocent lives are lost?
2. LOL this doesn't even make sense. If I were to attempt to get a monopoly on Middle Eastern oil, I wouldnt be withdrawing my superior occupying force. Also, maybe they're trading oil to the US (as well as most other countries FYI) because its a major underpinning factor in the regions economy?
-
LOL. "Just because they use chemical weapons". Nah look, Rwanda, Kosovo/Bosnia. I think the whole lot was just for power. You know what? East-Timor, now that one was fucked up.
#itsallJDSalingersfault
-
ok but then why is all the debt owed to the rothschild bank?
also, if it were really for the peace and wellbeing of the world by being against chemical weapons why would they do so by intervening with the risk of starting a large scale war?
-
I don't even know who the family is, I didn't watch the video, but minimising be use of chemical weapons is just silly.
How would you intervene?
-
Also, putting forward a nutbag conspiracy theory that has been used to blame things on the JOOZ for more than a century doesn't reflect very well on you.
Implying someone is an anti-Semite merely because they implicate a powerful banking family in wars which are funded by banking, without mentioning the family's ethnicity. Touchy much? It seems you're very eager to bring ethnicity into things.
1. Maybe because the use of chemical weapons is a recognised breach of international weapons conventions and warrants intervention before more innocent lives are lost?
You know what else is a breach of international law? Committing an act of war against a nation without a UN Mandate.
US troops used White Phosphorous (arguably not a chemical weapon, still extremely deadly, indiscriminate and massively frowned upon in international circles) in the battle of Fallujah, should we order a cruise missile strike on Washington DC now? What about Israel's killing of non-combatants, does that warrant cruise missile strikes against Tel Aviv?
The Syrian Rebels (most of which are affiliated with Al-Nusra) have been supplied by the West and Turkey in particular. Many of the 'Rebels' are Islamists flooding in from Jordan and southern Turkey. Think about that...the USA, funding Al-Nusra.
Innocent lives eh? Like the Alawis murdered by the rebels purely for their religious affiliation?
Think logically for one minute. I implore you. Why would Assad set the perfect pretext for foreign invasion when he is winning the war against the Rebels anyway?
How about we wait for the adequate UN conclusions to be made before deciding on what we do?
_______________
As for the conspiracy itself, no one truly knows.
-
ok but then why is all the debt owed to the rothschild bank?
ok but then why is all the debt owed to the rothschild bank?
Oh, so I guess my parents can stop paying their mortgage, seeing as the Rothschilds own all debt. Thanks for letting me know /s
Honestly, what?
also, if it were really for the peace and wellbeing of the world by being against chemical weapons why would they do so by intervening with the risk of starting a large scale war?
If you hadn't noticed, it kind of is a large-scale war... Upwards of 100000 dead is pretty significant in my books. The only reason intervention hasn't occurred earlier is because of vetoes by Russia and China.
inb4 Russia and China are the Rothschild family
Implying someone is an anti-Semite merely because they implicate a powerful banking family in wars which are funded by banking, without mentioning the family's ethnicity. Touchy much? It seems you're very eager to bring ethnicity into things.
Are you denying that conspiracies about the Rothschild family have been used in an anti-Semitic, libelous context?
You know what else is a breach of international law? Committing an act of war against a nation without a UN Mandate.
US troops used White Phosphorous (arguably not a chemical weapon, still extremely deadly, indiscriminate and massively frowned upon in international circles) in the battle of Fallujah, should we order a cruise missile strike on Washington DC now? What about Israel's killing of non-combatants, does that warrant cruise missile strikes against Tel Aviv?
The Syrian Rebels (most of which are affiliated with Al-Nusra) have been supplied by the West and Turkey in particular. Many of the 'Rebels' are Islamists flooding in from Jordan and southern Turkey. Think about that...the USA, funding Al-Nusra.
Innocent lives eh? Like the Alawis murdered by the rebels purely for their religious affiliation?
Think logically for one minute. I implore you. Why would Assad set the perfect pretext for foreign invasion when he is winning the war against the Rebels anyway?
How about we wait for the adequate UN conclusions to be made before deciding on what we do?
What's your point? Do you want to see more dead Syrian civilians? I can also draw comparisons to conflicts all day long, but it's irrelevant and pointless.
The only way this conflict can end is with enforced peacekeeping. Do you really think that the Syrian regime and the multitude, politically fractious rebel groups will sit down and talk reconciliation on their own accord?
Do you really think that the international community should sit by and let more innocent people die? That's pretty heartless of you.
-
how can they justify starting war between russia and china over one use of chemical weapon?
-
how can they justify starting war between russia and china over one use of chemical weapon?
It has not even been proven that it was Assad who used it. The UN came out a few days ago and suggested that they're leaning towards the Rebels at that stage, but nothing has been said since as far as I'm aware.
-
how can they justify starting war between russia and china over one use of chemical weapon?
You know this war has been going on since 2011, right?
:s, I googled it this morning and it said it looked like it was the Govt. and we're waiting Un approval for air strikes.
-
You know this war has been going on since 2011, right?
:s, I googled it this morning and it said it looked like it was the Govt. and we're waiting Un approval for air strikes.
UN Diplomat Carla Del Ponte stated that they have "concrete but not yet incontrovertible" suspicion that the Rebels carried out the attack.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/61295/media-tells-us-that-syria-used-chemical-weapon-but-look-what-the-un-says
http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/atlas-shrugged-blogs/un-diplomat-jihadists-may-have-used-gas-not-assad/2013/08/27/
http://www.aina.org/news/20130826131925.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html
-
It has not even been proven that it was Assad who used it. The UN came out a few days ago and suggested that they're leaning towards the Rebels at that stage, but nothing has been said since as far as I'm aware.
Well... exactly. That's why intervention is needed, because it's more likely to regulate the behaviour of both sides than staying away and letting it go even more to shit.
Also, I don't know where you're getting your news but the suspicion is that the regime has been the one using chemical weapons, with a strong likelihood that both sides have.
how can they justify starting war between russia and china over one use of chemical weapon?
If you think that an invasion, if approved by UN mandate, will instigate war between major powers - you probably don't understand geopolitics and the function of supranational bodies.
-
Well... exactly. That's why intervention is needed, because it's more likely to regulate the behaviour of both sides than staying away and letting it go even more to shit.
How about we stop funding and supplying Islamists so that they could continue the war in the first place?
Also, I don't know where you're getting your news but the suspicion is that the regime has been the one using chemical weapons, with a strong likelihood that both sides have.
UN Diplomat Carla Del Ponte is where I'm getting my news.
If you think that an invasion, if approved by UN mandate, will instigate war between major powers - you probably don't understand geopolitics and the function of supranational bodies.
> Implying a UN mandate will be provided.
If the UN doesn't give a mandate, will you stop your calls for an intervention?
If it was proved that the Rebels used the chemical weapons, will you support an intervention to punish them?
-
How about we stop funding and supplying Islamists so that they could continue the war in the first place?
But then, how would you get rid of the Government?!?!?!!?
-
Are you denying that conspiracies about the Rothschild family have been used in an anti-Semitic, libelous context?
Are you implying he is being anti-Semitic by not mentioning their ethnicity? Stick to the point, buddy.
Strong strawman though.
What's your point? Do you want to see more dead Syrian civilians? I can also draw comparisons to conflicts all day long, but it's irrelevant and pointless.
The only way this conflict can end is with enforced peacekeeping. Do you really think that the Syrian regime and the multitude, politically fractious rebel groups will sit down and talk reconciliation on their own accord?
Do you really think that the international community should sit by and let more innocent people die? That's pretty heartless of you.
Appeal to emotion and further strawmans. I don't support supplying weapons and fuelling a civil war. I do not support an invasion or missile strikes against Syria. Yet, you try to represent my argument as wanting Syrian civilians to die.
I think the international community should seek a political resolution, not postpone talks with Russia and Iran who have been encouraging the West to come to the table and negotiate and certainly not bomb and possibly set troops on the ground in a war we have been fuelling.
Do you support compelling Islamist rebels to murder innocent Alawis and Christians? (see, I can be emotional too).
-
But then, how would you get rid of the Government?!?!?!!?
;)
-
How about we stop funding and supplying Islamists so that they could continue the war in the first place?
Well that's obvious. The fact that both sides commit atrocities in a manner completely free from repercussion is more evidence for the need to intervene.
UN Diplomat Carla Del Ponte is where I'm getting my news.
Completely irrelevant as you previously stated. I think I'll wait for the official report, assuming one will materialise.
> Implying a UN mandate will be provided.
If the UN doesn't give a mandate, will you stop your calls for an intervention?
No, because the use of chemical weaponry is not the only factor that warrants intervention to end (or limit) the conflict. Lets not forget that conventional weaponry has been used by both sides on innocent civilians. In my eyes, that's a problem.
If it was proved that the Rebels used the chemical weapons, will you support an intervention to punish them?
Yes. Both sides are as bad as each other, and the initial reasons for the conflict are not longer relevant. Also, you seem to misunderstand the concept of third-party intervention, which is supposed to regulate both sides of a conflict.
Are you implying he is being anti-Semitic by not mentioning their ethnicity? Stick to the point, buddy.
Strong strawman though.
Obviously not. In fact, you were the first person who mentioned anti-Semitism - I simply noted a valid historical precedent. Are you denying its existence?
Awkward.
Appeal to emotion and further strawmans. I don't support supplying weapons and fuelling a civil war. I do not support an invasion or missile strikes against Syria. Yet, you try to represent my argument as wanting Syrian civilians to die.
I think the international community should seek a political resolution, not postpone talks with Russia and Iran who have been encouraging the West to come to the table and negotiate and certainly not bomb and possibly set troops on the ground in a war we have been fuelling.
As in, you seem to think that leaving the conflict to stew further is going to limit deaths. It's pretty clear that that's not going to happen. Do you really think that the two sides are going to negotiate after the deaths of 100k Syrians? I doubt it, and you'd be very naive in thinking that its a valid possibility.
Do you support compelling Islamist rebels to murder innocent Alawis and Christians? (see, I can be emotional too).
(See above).
-
Well that's obvious. The fact that both sides commit atrocities in a manner completely free from repercussion is more evidence for the need to intervene.
Easy solution - stop supplying Islamists. Stop encouraging Saudi, Jordanian and Turkish rebels to take up 'the fight' and watch the Rebels disappear within weeks. We didn't get involved in a barbarous Sri Lankan civil war.
Completely irrelevant as you previously stated. I think I'll wait for the official report, assuming one will materialise.
> Says he/she will wait for the official report
> Next sentence says would advocating disregarding a lack of UN mandate anyway
No, because the use of chemical weaponry is not the only factor that warrants intervention to end (or limit) the conflict. Lets not forget that conventional weaponry has been used by both sides on innocent civilians. In my eyes, that's a problem.
Certainly is a problem, that's why we should have let the civil war die out 12 months ago.
UN Mandates can be given for all kinds of war crimes. How does breaching international law to punish those who breach international law obey rationality? Let the civil war play out WITHOUT fuelling it. Take Assad and whoever else is implicated in war crimes to the ICC. Sadly, an intervention is only likely to cause more death and destruction.
Yes. Both sides are as bad as each other, and the initial reasons for the conflict are not longer relevant. Also, you seem to misunderstand the concept of third-party intervention, which is supposed to regulate both sides of a conflict.
Neutral third-party intervention can be helpful. Intervention by a third-party which has already expressed its desire to topple one side of the civil war, which has been actively supplying and liaising with one party to the civil war, which has a biased interest in the outcome of the war and has already expressed its desire to 'attack' this country is not helpful, neutral, regulatory intervention, no matter what spin you put on it.
-
Anyway, I'm done with this thread.
Let's just hope this situation is resolved without unmandated cruise missiles hitting Damascus and a political solution is brought to the table.
-
We didn't get involved in a barbarous Sri Lankan civil war.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that wasn't a mistake.
Hm. Punishment and disincentive strategy are two different things (probably a little intertwined in this case). Would you call East-Timor a mistake because there was no UN mandate?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE5Sw8qJ-g0
There is a conspiracy that the world is run by Rothschild, the system, governments, why everything occurs...
Just another lunatic conspiracy theory
-
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that wasn't a mistake.
Agreed there. I'm advocating that we abide by UN rules or at least press the UN when it isn't in the West's interests to intervene if we truly feel the need to be a global policeman.
Hm. Punishment and disincentive strategy are two different things (probably a little intertwined in this case). Would you call East-Timor a mistake because there was no UN mandate?
Ironically, Australia was very reluctant to go into East-Timor, primarily because it would have compromised our strategic interests in Indonesia.
INTERFET was actually authorised by the UN. See UNSC Resolution 1264, it was upheld unanimously.
-
Aw, man. That awkward moment when you misread a journal article and dick yourself on a forum.
-
Aw, man. That awkward moment when you misread a journal article and dick yourself on a forum.
We've all been there (y)
-
The Syrian intervention will be (if it occurs at all) a slap on the wrist for Assad. It will not have the objective of a regime change. What's been talked about is three or four days of a bombing campaign against Syrian military targets, especially their chemical weapon deliverance capabilities.
Humanitarian intervention does not require UNSC approval.
The video regarding the Rothschilds is a whole bunch of gish gallop regarding the financial system. Inflation is perfectuly natural and positive, your tax money goes towards public spending (and a small minority to paying off interest), and the Kennedy thing...
Well firstly, EO 11110 was part of the phasing out of Treasury notes in favour of Fed notes. It involved a delegation of the President's already existing power (to print out silver certificates, an alternative to paper currency) to the Treasury. To say that JFK was anti-Fed would be a blatant lie; and that LBJ was part of a the 'Fed conspiracy' and in opposition to JFK on this matter is just hilarious. If this was the case though, wouldn't you think that RFK (who absolutely hated LBJ's guts and considered himself very loyal to his brother) would say something? You know, either way, it was his brother that was killed.
One quick question, though. Suppose that all this is right. Suppose there is a massive conspiracy (there isn't); the Fed is privately owned (it's not); the IRS collects all the tax money in order to pay off debt to the Fed (it doesn't); and you're basically a slave to the Rothschilds (just lol).
Where's the problem, exactly? Can you show me how it actually does adversely affect you? Let me tell you what the advantages of a central banking system are - I'm not expert, but I can tell you a few things. In the 19th, you had a financial crisis every 10 years or so. They were the most economically volatile times in modern history. Ever since central banking has been introduced, we've had far fewer recessions. The three main exceptions are the Great Depression, international trade related stuff (oil crises), and the recent economic downturn.
Oh, it's interesting to note that FDR was not mentioned in the video at all. The most anti-bank President? The one who signed Glass-Steagall? The New Deal? You don't think he'd have done anything to stop the Fed conspiracy? He didn't, because it's nonexistent.
You see, the real problem with the banking system is mostly that banks have been allowed to become too large and unregulated since the 80s, as part of the general neoliberal agenda of deregulation. Ever since, the real median wealth has barely increased - or maybe even decreased, depending on your exact measure - for most people. But from the 30s until the 80s, you had people becoming far better-off. Perhaps the quickest growth in wealth in real terms of the median person. All this while your Fed conspiracy was supposedly in full force.
The video is simply Austrian propaganda. It's fit to laugh off just the same as North Korean propaganda videos, with the ridiculous storyline and all. At least the ending made me laugh.
EDIT: You're going to want to read this
-
Financial crises still happen every 10 years or so.
Rothschild conspiracies reek of anti-semitism. Fuck that