Al-Qaeda 'underpants' bomber was working for CIA

outtagetme

Jonny7 wrote: »

After 911 no one had a problem with heavy security in airports and long queues. We're only just moaning about it now.

They didn't manufacture the deaths of thousands of people to sell some airport scaners

First off, how do you know that no one had a problem with heightened security? But as shock subsided and emotions returned to their normal levels it became clear that this security was over the top. It became clear that the threat was enhanced, abused and even fabricated. Experiments have shown that people will believe anything and submit to any kind of ludicrous measures if they're frightened. The simple case of testing to see if people would tape up their damn windows with bin bags was proof of that. Think about it.....if gas can't get in then you suffocate.....PERIOD. Yet nobody even questioned this crap. They simply dashed off and bought cases of plastic and duct tape. It was pathetic and embarrassing that grown adults could behave in such a manner.

I remember going through an airport in Minneapolis in 2005 and just watching old fools take off their sneakers without being told to. I just walked through with my boots on and nobody said "boo". The damage had already been done. Old 70 year old idiots and their wives just mindlessly taking off their belts and jackets and shoes as if it was expected. Old grey haired dudes who blab on about freedom and the American spirit. It was pathetic.

Daithi 1

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well apparently it wasn't because it didn't cover the possibility of a bunch of guys booking onto the same flight with small weapons that could be used to threaten to cut throats.

But that's not necessarily a security problem. Let me explain crazy sounding theory.

If you get your head kicked in by someone, is it your fault, because you didn't learn self defence ?
Then, when you learn self defence, you get your head kicked in again, by someone who knows kung fu. Is it your fault ? because you didn't learn kung Fu ?
Then, when you learn Kung Fu, Chuck Norris kicks your head in. Is it your fault ? because you are not the best scrapper in the world ?

So, how much security is enough ?

Basic self defence would suffice, no ? No matter how much you beef up the security, it's never going to be enough, is it ? Bad things are always going to happen, aren't they.

But, by all means, beef up security at airports to protect people, but if it infringes on their civil liberties and it's against their will and without their say, generally, It's gone to far..

RoboClam

outtagetme wrote: »

I remember going through an airport in Minneapolis in 2005 and just watching old fools take off their sneakers without being told to. I just walked through with my boots on and nobody said "boo". The damage had already been done. Old 70 year old idiots and their wives just mindlessly taking off their belts and jackets and shoes as if it was expected. Old grey haired dudes who blab on about freedom and the American spirit. It was pathetic.

9 out of 10 times they will stop you and ask you to remove your shoes, belt and jacket before you even get close to the scanner. I had to take several flights around the states a couple of years ago and that's what happened to me anyway. Someone probably wasn't paying attention and you just slipped through the cracks.

Jonny7

outtagetme wrote: »

First off, how do you know that no one had a problem with heightened security?

Because me and friends and family took flights. It was a pretty hot topic of debate at the time considering what just happened.

But as shock subsided and emotions returned to their normal levels it became clear that this security was over the top.

Really? it didn't stop Richard Reid. In fact they increased security even more after even journalists were getting through - so it wasn't enough.

Experiments have shown that people will believe anything and submit to any kind of ludicrous measures if they're frightened.

Which could why Fox news gets high ratings, Alex Jones is a rich man, and some people buy into all these alarmist fear-mongering conspiracy theories.

The simple case of testing to see if people would tape up their damn windows with bin bags was proof of that. Think about it.....if gas can't get in then you suffocate.....PERIOD. Yet nobody even questioned this crap. They simply dashed off and bought cases of plastic and duct tape. It was pathetic and embarrassing that grown adults could behave in such a manner.

Petrol queues, runs on banks, panic buying, it's something the government actively tries to avoid.

I remember going through an airport in Minneapolis in 2005 and just watching old fools take off their sneakers without being told to. I just walked through with my boots on and nobody said "boo".

And I walked through with a 7 inch souvenir tribal knife. Its true effect is as a deterrent rather than an absolutely fool-proof way to stop every single dangerous item/contraband.

The damage had already been done. Old 70 year old idiots and their wives just mindlessly taking off their belts and jackets and shoes as if it was expected. Old grey haired dudes who blab on about freedom and the American spirit. It was pathetic.

Right, so, despite all the hijacking and bombs over the decades, the pre-911 security levels, that didn't work, were somehow more acceptable?

You aren't making much sense.

hooradiation

outtagetme wrote: »

Well since the US was warned for months prior to the attacks that they were an imminent danger then I would have to counter that security was just fine.

I am not sure how you think those two statements follow. The US was 'warned' of the attack and therefore the security in place at airports that subsequently failed to prevent this attack is just fine?

The lack of anything connecting those statements is baffling to me, would you care to expand on your line of reasoning?

outtagetme wrote: »

The US simply chose to ignore those warnings. Perhaps vetting recipients of such warnings would be smarter than scanning passengers, no?

Unless they were given an amazingly specific warning this means trying to stop an attack over a period of time (weeks? months?) in one of 160 or so international airports in the US and finding those looking to perpetrate the attack in the roughly 1,500,000 people flying per day.

And, of course this is ignoring the obvious problem that you have assumed nothing has changed at intelligence agencies since then and that all changes have been made with airport security.
Which makes a mockery of the false dilemma you're trying to present.

Monty Burnz

Daithi 1 wrote: »

But that's not necessarily a security problem. Let me explain crazy sounding theory.

If you get your head kicked in by someone, is it your fault, because you didn't learn self defence ?
Then, when you learn self defence, you get your head kicked in again, by someone who knows kung fu. Is it your fault ? because you didn't learn kung Fu ?
Then, when you learn Kung Fu, Chuck Norris kicks your head in. Is it your fault ? because you are not the best scrapper in the world ?

So, how much security is enough ?

Basic self defence would suffice, no ? No matter how much you beef up the security, it's never going to be enough, is it ? Bad things are always going to happen, aren't they.

But, by all means, beef up security at airports to protect people, but if it infringes on their civil liberties and it's against their will and without their say, generally, It's gone to far..

You make a valid point - but it's a question of balancing two ridiculous extremes. Do we let anyone bring anything onto a plane, so that every drunk and nutter and extremist can cause mayhem ans death? Or do we X-ray naked passengers before they board?

It's just a question of where along this continuum you get the optimal blance between inconveniencing passengers and inconveniencing troublemakers. You clearly feel the balance has gone too far in one direction.

Daithi 1

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You make a valid point - but it's a question of balancing two ridiculous extremes. Do we let anyone bring anything onto a plane, so that every drunk and nutter and extremist can cause mayhem ans death? Or do we X-ray naked passengers before they board?

It's just a question of where along this continuum you get the optimal blance between inconveniencing passengers and inconveniencing troublemakers. You clearly feel the balance has gone too far in one direction.

Thanks, it was a fairly simple point. I have no doubt relative authorities have have come to a similar conclusion whilst considering the possibilities. Yet, the have not acted as if they have come to that conclusion.
So, is it any wonder that people might think there is an ulterior motive to the way over the top, unnecessary, pointless and counter productive security measures ?

Coincidentally came across this..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwrX-QExqvE

Brown Bomber

All the examples give thus far for insufficent airport security (9-11 hijackings, the shoebomber & the crotchbomber) involves the same security company, ICTS International. Israeli firm ICTS were founded by former Shin Bet (Israel's FBI) and El Al security officials. It's controlling shareholder is a disgraced former Likud treasurer.

Couldn't it be that the problem is not airport security per se but that ICTS is **** or at least intentionally so, when required so as to allow patsies to get past security?

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

lol.. its like the old version of me back my Chomsky years

Sadly terrorist attacks and plots happen all over the world, I've yet to see someone with an agenda in here carefully splitting all the "fake" Chechnyan bomb plots into a neat pile to apportion blame.

The worst type of injustice.. American hypocrisy!

Yup, heard it all before, I used to preach it myself. I mean they dragged a net through Afghanistan, picked up taxi drivers, etc threw them into Gitmo - couldn't create a more perfect recruitment poster for extremists - yet its done and now these people now have to be dealt with.

Jonny, please don't patronise me. I made a serious point from my own perspective which you didn't address. I'm not interested in your epiphanies or your coming of age stories if they are to demonstrate how you've evolved past me. While a reduction on the smug and repetitive use of 's would be appreciated also.

Thanks.

Gingernuts31

Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "blow it out your ass"

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Jonny, please don't patronise me. I made a serious point from my own perspective which you didn't address. I'm not interested in your epiphanies or your coming of age stories if they are to demonstrate how you've evolved past me. While a reduction on the smug and repetitive use of 's would be appreciated also.

Thanks.

Terrorism is a global issue and has been for decades, yet some have a very select view of the world and seem to tie it only to US and Israel. It's a blinkered view considering our own experience of terrorism here in Ireland.

All the examples give thus far for insufficent airport security (9-11 hijackings, the shoebomber & the crotchbomber) involves the same security company, ICTS International. Israeli firm ICTS were founded by former Shin Bet (Israel's FBI) and El Al security officials. It's controlling shareholder is a disgraced former Likud treasurer.

Couldn't it be that the problem is not airport security per se but that ICTS is **** or at least intentionally so, when required so as to allow patsies to get past security?

Sounds like a security failure to me, like thousands that have happened around the world.

outtagetme

RoboClam wrote: »

9 out of 10 times they will stop you and ask you to remove your shoes, belt and jacket before you even get close to the scanner. I had to take several flights around the states a couple of years ago and that's what happened to me anyway. Someone probably wasn't paying attention and you just slipped through the cracks.

Have you ever even stopped to question why you have to remove your belt? Have you ever even thought about it? And please don't just automatically trot out some 007 fantasy about exploding buckles or crap like that. Why do you have to remove your belt or your shoes? In fact at Dublin airport I've seen people being made to remove boots but not trainers. Are you going to give me some nonsense about the architecture of boots being more accomodating to bombs than regular shoes or trainers. I've seen a man pass through and not being told to remove his Doc Martens. Behind him a pretty young girl was told to take off her FLIP-FLOPS, ffs.

Try not to justify this. Just try to be completely neutral and question it and tell me if it really makes any sense to you.

The Emperor has no clothes, man.

outtagetme

Jonny7 wrote: »

Terrorism is a global issue and has been for decades, yet some have a very select view of the world and seem to tie it only to US and Israel. It's a blinkered view considering our own experience of terrorism here in Ireland.



Sounds like a security failure to me, like thousands that have happened around the world.

No it isn't.
But it does seem to be an issue with several countries. Now I would ask you this. WHY is it an issue?

Jonny7

outtagetme wrote: »

No it isn't.
But it does seem to be an issue with several countries. Now I would ask you this. WHY is it an issue?

Here's a crude list

Choose a year.. take 1986 for example..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1986

As I said, its been going on for decades around the globe.

outtagetme

Jonny7 wrote: »

Because me and friends and family took flights. It was a pretty hot topic of debate at the time considering what just happened.



Really? it didn't stop Richard Reid. In fact they increased security even more after even journalists were getting through - so it wasn't enough.



Which could why Fox news gets high ratings, Alex Jones is a rich man, and some people buy into all these alarmist fear-mongering conspiracy theories.



Petrol queues, runs on banks, panic buying, it's something the government actively tries to avoid.



And I walked through with a 7 inch souvenir tribal knife. Its true effect is as a deterrent rather than an absolutely fool-proof way to stop every single dangerous item/contraband.



Right, so, despite all the hijacking and bombs over the decades, the pre-911 security levels, that didn't work, were somehow more acceptable?

You aren't making much sense.

Jonny, what the hell are you so afraid of? Are you going to live your entire life looking over your shoulder only to die of cancer or heart failure or some car accident that you have magnitudes more likelihood of suffering than some terrorist nonsense?
In fact you have more likelihood of being killed by a meteorite than in a terrorist attack. Are you busy digging that anti-meteorite bunker under a mountain?

outtagetme

Jonny7 wrote: »

Here's a crude list

Choose a year.. take 1986 for example..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_1986

As I said, its been going on for decades around the globe.

You've avoided my question.
I'll ask again.
WHY is it an issue?

Jonny7

outtagetme wrote: »

You've avoided my question.
I'll ask again.
WHY is it an issue?

No the full quote was this..

But it does seem to be an issue with several countries. Now I would ask you this. WHY is it an issue?

It's an issue with all countries. Name one that doesn't have security.

You don't seem to understand this and it doesn't seem to be an issue for you. Fine, that's up to you. Most people don't particularly like having to queue in airports, or have customs search their bags, or have to wait in line to hand in a passport, or have heavily armed police walking around near their kids in terminals.. but they usually understand why they are there.. usually.

Jonny7

outtagetme wrote: »

Jonny, what the hell are you so afraid of? Are you going to live your entire life looking over your shoulder only to die of cancer or heart failure or some car accident that you have magnitudes more likelihood of suffering than some terrorist nonsense?
In fact you have more likelihood of being killed by a meteorite than in a terrorist attack. Are you busy digging that anti-meteorite bunker under a mountain?

I have no idea what you are talking about so here's that bunny with a pancake again.

al28283

dmc17 wrote: »

He had a bomb in his underpants!

no, he didn't.

It's sounds like even the OP doesn't understand or didn't read the article, just the headline

Torakx

The bomber most likely was trained by a CIA plant in yemen...or maybe it was just a really hot curry.

It even has a wiki of the trainer and if you check out the picture he looks like an american too!
But i guess its easier than i thought for people to ignore the obvious.

outtagetme

Jonny7 wrote: »

No the full quote was this..



It's an issue with all countries. Name one that doesn't have security.

You don't seem to understand this and it doesn't seem to be an issue for you. Fine, that's up to you. Most people don't particularly like having to queue in airports, or have customs search their bags, or have to wait in line to hand in a passport, or have heavily armed police walking around near their kids in terminals.. but they usually understand why they are there.. usually.

I'll try this once more.
WHY is terrorism an issue? Perhaps I should rephrase. Why does this so called "threat" exist? Because it strikes me that you and your ilk are obsessed with attempting to vanquish the symptom rather than the cause. Not a very smart approach to any kind of problem.
If your house is festooned with maggots or beetles or mice or dampness or wailing tomcats, are you going to buy more air fresheners and invest in some ear-plugs or are you going to remove the pile of rotting meat from near your house and/or have Tibbles spayed?

If eggs, bottles and stones are routinely thrown at your house are you going to build a bigger fence or ask yourself why is it happening?

I don't see anyone setting off bombs in Uruguay or New Zealand or Greenland or Trinidad or Luxembourg or even Ireland and then issuing terms and demands and conditions. Why is that?

If you can give me an honest and lucid answer to that very simple question then I would be extremely appreciative.

Jonny7

outtagetme wrote: »

I'll try this once more.
WHY is terrorism an issue? Perhaps I should rephrase. Why does this so called "threat" exist? Because it strikes me that you and your ilk are obsessed with attempting to vanquish the symptom rather than the cause.

We are dealing with the real world, not the hypothetical, so what would you have done about the bombs going off in Northern Ireland?

Keet trying to tackle the cause? and had no security?

superluck

Jonny7 wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about so here's that bunny with a pancake again.

I have something infinitely better than your sh!tty rabbit with pancake on it's head.

Eat this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi6lSgSqcgw

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about so here's that bunny with a pancake again.

The bunny rabbit with the pancake on its head seems to be the premier clip art of the Sheeple.

outtagetme

Jonny7 wrote: »

We are dealing with the real world, not the hypothetical, so what would you have done about the bombs going off in Northern Ireland?

Keet trying to tackle the cause? and had no security?

Fine.
Don't answer the question. In fact don't even acknowledge it.

Jonny7

outtagetme wrote: »

Fine.
Don't answer the question. In fact don't even acknowledge it.

Why is terrorism an issue?

Answer: because people are getting killed, and have been getting killed, maimed and injured for decades.

Example: Northern Ireland.

Result: deaths, injuries, increased sectarian tensions, destabilisation, social repurcussions, increased security, etc

Yes I'd call that an issue.

I don't know any Irish or Northern Irish and even English person who could claim it wasn't an issue.

Was there an easy solution? no. Therefore the violence continued and the security increased.

Torakx

The easy solution was get the fudge out of our country way back when it started.
I think of all the words used in your reply destabilization stands out to me as a motive not just a symptom.

studiorat

Torakx wrote: »

The easy solution was get the fudge out of our country way back when it started.

Way back when "it" started was simply replacing in-fighting warlords and a caste system there was no "our country". The very first identifiable nationalism in Ireland was an attempt to make the Island into a Spanish protectorate. It wasn't until perhaps 1700 or thereabouts did any concept of national sovereignty begin to emerge. There was never any Gaelic state, that was a myth made up by the revivalists; Yeats and the like and used for propaganda.

So what you seem to mean by "our country" wasn't in the anyone's consciousness until Grattan, Wolf Tone and the likes. And was inspired by the American war of Independence and French revolution.

hooradiation

Unsurprisingly, complex situations often lack simple solutions.

outtagetme

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why is terrorism an issue?

Answer: because people are getting killed, and have been getting killed, maimed and injured for decades.

Example: Northern Ireland.

Result: deaths, injuries, increased sectarian tensions, destabilisation, social repurcussions, increased security, etc

Yes I'd call that an issue.

I don't know any Irish or Northern Irish and even English person who could claim it wasn't an issue.

Was there an easy solution? no. Therefore the violence continued and the security increased.

You STILL haven't answered the question. WHY is it an issue? WHY are muslims so adamant on attacking America but they don't seem to be a threat to say Argentina or Venezuela or Jamaica or Malta?

outtagetme

studiorat wrote: »

Way back when "it" started was simply replacing in-fighting warlords and a caste system there was no "our country". The very first identifiable nationalism in Ireland was an attempt to make the Island into a Spanish protectorate. It wasn't until perhaps 1700 or thereabouts did any concept of national sovereignty begin to emerge. There was never any Gaelic state, that was a myth made up by the revivalists; Yeats and the like and used for propaganda.

So what you seem to mean by "our country" wasn't in the anyone's consciousness until Grattan, Wolf Tone and the likes. And was inspired by the American war of Independence and French revolution.

And there certainly wasn't any concept of "our country" back in the 18th and 19th centuries in what is modern day United States but that didn't prevent native Americans from fighting back against settlers and occupiers who were adamant to ethnically cleanse them. Just because there's no inherent concept of nationalism doesn't mean one isn't going to fight against occuppation and oppression and theft. If you rent rather than own your house does that mean you have no right to defend yourself against intruders?
People on the Ireland of Ireland have been fighting against foreign invaders and occuppiers since the Norman invasions back in the 12 century no matter what government, legal system or "consciousness" was in place at the time.

Jonny7

outtagetme wrote: »

You STILL haven't answered the question. WHY is it an issue? WHY are muslims so adamant on attacking America but they don't seem to be a threat to say Argentina or Venezuela or Jamaica or Malta?

There are dozens of reasons. Anything from Cold War conflicts to cartoons in Danish newspapers.

Often there is no legimate cause of reason other than pure and simple hatred or intolerance (e.g. the recent violence in Nigeria)

In the meanwhile, there are queues for planes around the world because of security concerns about terrorism. Yes even in Malta and Venezuela

Oracle

Can you buy these pants in Pennys?

Sonics2k

outtagetme wrote: »

You STILL haven't answered the question. WHY is it an issue? WHY are muslims so adamant on attacking America but they don't seem to be a threat to say Argentina or Venezuela or Jamaica or Malta?

Are you serious?

Try picking up a history book, or looking over the history of the Middle East in the last 30 years for a great big hint.

studiorat

outtagetme wrote: »

And there certainly wasn't any concept of "our country" back in the 18th and 19th centuries in what is modern day United States but that didn't prevent native Americans from fighting back against settlers and occupiers who were adamant to ethnically cleanse them. Just because there's no inherent concept of nationalism doesn't mean one isn't going to fight against occuppation and oppression and theft. If you rent rather than own your house does that mean you have no right to defend yourself against intruders?
People on the Ireland of Ireland have been fighting against foreign invaders and occuppiers since the Norman invasions back in the 12 century no matter what government, legal system or "consciousness" was in place at the time.

Modern day United States, that's funny.

You are missing the point completely. I'm merely pointing out that Torax and now yourself insist on using whig interpretations of history. And then you go and do it again with your "fighting against foreign invaders", that's just brainwash talk...

There's been "invasions" of Ireland since biblical times. Why does "it" start with the Normans?

Torakx

Sorry i had presumed when i pointed to an american trainer who lived in Yemen and trained radical fundamentalists to be terrorists, that nobody objected to the idea of him being involved with the CIA or somehow related to the U.S.A regarding his work.
So i stopped talking serious a couple of pages back,unless somebody thinks his American links are purely coincedental?

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Sorry i had presumed when i pointed to an american trainer who lived in Yemen and trained radical fundamentalists to be terrorists, that nobody objected to the idea of him being involved with the CIA or somehow related to the U.S.A regarding his work.
So i stopped talking serious a couple of pages back,unless somebody thinks his American links are purely coincedental?

He was a very wanted man who was killed last year. There's nothing to suspect.

Run_to_da_hills

studiorat wrote: »

There's been "invasions" of Ireland since biblical times. Why does "it" start with the Normans?

Perhaps the most damaging of any invasions of Ireland originated in Rome and it still binds this country to this very day.

People don't seem to be able to see the forest through the trees on this one.

Torakx

Jonny7 wrote: »

He was a very wanted man who was killed last year. There's nothing to suspect.

How can you think that there is nothing to suspect?
He was trained in america for a start....
He looks american, he is american,he trained terrorists,including the one who apparently walked in the underpants bomb and died recently with his american son by american drones.

Now, if he was local, i would be a little less skeptical, but surely you cant say its not suspect after you read the wiki page on him.
Imagine what info is not pubilicised.

Why was an american training terrorists in Yemen?

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

How can you think that there is nothing to suspect?
He was trained in america for a start....
He looks american, he is american,he trained terrorists,including the one who apparently walked in the underpants bomb and died recently with his american son by american drones.

Using this same logic, do you suspect that Ander Brevik is part of Norwegian intelligence because he looks Norwegian, is a Norwegian?

Torakx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Using this same logic, do you suspect that Ander Brevik is part of Norwegian intelligence because he looks Norwegian, is a Norwegian?

No i just presume he is Norwegian...And that is not the same logic.
You realise Yemen is not in America i presume.

I could suspect he was influenced by all sorts,depending what countries are active around that area and why they would do so.

With relation to the underpants bomber i am making a fairly logical point here.
He attended a school in Yemen, run by an american extremist,before going to try bomb an airline.
How is that not suspect in any way?
Especially considering the business deals with security firms mentioned in the thread earlier.

ps. If Ander Brevik was trained in america and there was a war between Norwegian "terrorists" and America, then it might apply to this situation.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

No i just presume he is Norwegian...And that is not the same logic.
You realise Yemen is not in America i presume.

I could suspect he was influenced by all sorts,depending what countries are active around that area and why they would do so.

With relation to the underpants bomber i am making a fairly logical point here.
He attended a school in Yemen, run by an american extremist,before going to try bomb an airline.
How is that not suspect in any way?
Especially considering the business deals with security firms mentioned in the thread earlier.

ps. If Ander Brevik was trained in america and there was a war between Norwegian "terrorists" and America, then it might apply to this situation.

This man is American yet he turned against his own country, just like Brevik, McVeigh and Bin Laden.

Why should his case be any more suspicious? It's an ideology not a nationality.

Torakx

It appears to me he was working for his own country.
Unless you mean his country was Yemen or afghanistan.
America needs terrorists, without, they have no justice to serve and "freedom" to protect.
Which is very very bad for business.

As somebody mentioned earlier, if he was really against America and having been trained in America,he surely would have known it much easier to create terrorists in the target area or make bombs in America and set them off in unlikely but effective places.

Not train some kid to wear exploding underpants which only had the effect of creating more bussiness for security firms, harmed nobody and gave America's government an excuse to pour more money into survielance and foriegn wars.

Whats sad, is the young man who was duped into being the placeholder and scapegoat.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

It appears to me he was working for his own country.
Unless you mean his country was Yemen or afghanistan.
America needs terrorists, without, they have no justice to serve and "freedom" to protect.
Which is very very bad for business.

It would be very good for business. Security costs are a big drag on the economy. Your argument is a bit like suggesting that shops should be in favour of shoplifting because then they can hire security guards.

Torakx

Did you see how much was spent on security for the olympics?
291 odd million compared to the 81 million to actually run the event.

Somebody is making alot of money off terrorism and it isnt real terrorists or the victims.
So your telling me that in America the miltitary industrial complex did not gain from 9/11 and the rise internationally of al Qaida?

Maybe your mixing up the economy of the citizens and state with the profits made by the military, corperations,security firms and politicians?

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

Did you see how much was spent on security for the olympics?
291 odd million compared to the 81 million to actually run the event.

Somebody is making alot of money off terrorism and it isnt real terrorists or the victims.
So your telling me that in America the miltitary industrial complex did not gain from 9/11 and the rise internationally of al Qaida?

Maybe your mixing up the economy of the citizens and state with the profits made by the military, corperations,security firms and politicians?

It's all the one economy though. And if you were a rich person at the top - the imaginary Rothschilds, for example - the less money that is wasted on unproductive stuff like weapons, the more that could be spent on the real economy and productive things (which you own).

It makes no economic sense at all.

Torakx

The people who own the banks only need money to be spent,which in turn will keep the economy moving,creating more debt through lending and so on.
So in my mind when 291 million is spent on military and security for the olympics, there will be security companies profiting,military possibly too and countless others i dont know about yet.
While the tax is put on the government representing the tax payers and supported by the tax payers.
Who then in turn borrow money from banks at interest,IMF initiiatives(im guessing) and tax's from the people of the state.

That is why the value of money is slowly going down overall.
Its being inflated and i darent even say inevitably.

I guess to put it simply.
If your a rothchild at the top and still havent gotten ownership of the world you would want to continue forcig countires into debt to create interets through bailouts and loans etc.
An example is the irish bailouts recently, requiring we give back 3% on the amount loaned to "help us out"Really in the long run its just digging a bigger hole and lining corrupt and ignorant politicians and bankers pockets within our economy. imo...
This in turn would mean if they cant pay(which is a certainty when looking at debt vesus money available worldwide),they must give them something esle in return for the use of their currency loaned out.
god my typing is getting worse haha

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

The people who own the banks only need money to be spent,which in turn will keep the economy moving,creating more debt through lending and so on.

I speak as a part owner of 4 banks - that's not true.

gibraltar

Torakx wrote: »

The people who own the banks only need money to be spent,which in turn will keep the economy moving,creating more debt through lending and so on.

Not how it works.

Torakx wrote: »

That is why the value of money is slowly going down overall.
Its being inflated and i darent even say inevitably.

We discussed what causes inflation before and this is not the reason for it.

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I speak as a part owner of 4 banks - that's not true.

Four of these.