 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
a. Do they need to destroy Afghanistan because the poppy fields are in the way of transporting petroleum products?
or
b. Are the poppy fields a problem because of poppy field competition between the criminals?
The most powerful people had crops in Afghanistan grown for their exclusive profit.
The crop was Opium.
Then Russia invaded Afghanistan.
Then the U.S. part of the most powerful people financed "The Taliban" (you know the guy named Osama Bin Laden?) and once "The Taliban" drove out the Russians those same people destroyed the Opium Crops.
In other words the "Strong Man" employee named Osama Bin Laden was no longer following orders and so the employers (the most powerful among us or The New World Order, or The Dollar Hegemony, or whatever label you want to use to label the most powerful among us), so, the employers of "The Taliban" had in their hands a bad apple in their eyes, so they had to get rid of "The Taliban" so as to regrow their cash crop of Opium in Afghanistan.
The pipeline angle is well reported by Pepe Escobar who can be found easily.
One example
Pepe Escobar also appears on The Alex Jones Show.
Nurturing competition goes hand in hand with Joe's Law?
That is somewhat incomplete, so the reader has to assume the unsaid, which is to say that competition is not to be confused with criminal competition.
Competition to see who can produce higher value at lower cost is the competition that is meant in those words.
Competition to see who can destroy whom, first, is not the competition that is meant in those words.
You are no longer confusing one with the other, so the words are making sense now?
My last peach pie was not in the oven long enough so the crust was a little gummy.
Competition can be you competing with your past self, when it is understood that the idea is not to destroy your past self?
I also sent you and email forwarding some information I received from Ron Paul regarding his Ron Paul Channel. He promises to provide news without the lies on is channel.
I thought that I was on that e-mail list from that source already, perhaps not, I can check junk mail, and I can thank you for the connection as it looks good so far.
So I am wondering, perhaps the question needs to be asked whether one should submit to the might of a false authority in order to preserve one's own life and that of their loved ones.
Earlier you had claimed (offered) your reasoning for rejecting the use of lies, on principle, despite my effort to show specific cases where there may be good reasons for going against good principles.
Now you do that same thing?
Maybe the person just wants to live on the land.
That answer was anticipated, so I already ratcheted up the situation to a higher threat level, a clearer, and a more present, danger.
The owner (so called) has the only source of water, in a desert, and many people, a billion or 10, does the number really matter?
A billion, or 10, people arrive at the guarded fence and propose a deal of some kind.
The owner has a better use for the water.
The billion, or 10, people die for lack of water.
Highest and best use, as I understand it, is reasonable.
I may not be able to convey my viewpoint in English.
Please have fun as you can, it is contagious.
