Skip to main content

Is the Terror Threat To Americans Worth The Trillions Spent?


Considering that the "War on Terror" began (supposedly) when 15 Saudis and one or two other chaps somehow hijacked planes and managed to pilot them dead-on target into buildings, and bring one building down with voodoo and a couple small office fires (WT7), then attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, who we now know had no WMD's or ties to Al Qaeda, was a MAJOR FAIL based on that alone.

But who does have ties to Al Qaeda (Al Nusra)??

The United States, that's who does.  They fund them and other rebels in Syria against Assad to the tune of billions.

But hang on, wasn't that the whole point of the War on Terror? Find Al Qaeda?  Nobody mentioned that they were only looking for them to give them arms and fund them to bring democracy to all Middle Eastern States not run by Washington's puppets?

So lets look at outcomes, it's cost trillions to destroy 5 nations in the Middle East, ISIS flourished in the vacuum, they create a new record for terror attacks in Europe while those in the US are more likely to be shot by their own police? Plus there is a refugee crises in Europe due to Washingtons wars and US taxpayers are expected to fork out for more of Washingtons wars???

Wow, you have to be some kind of sad, stupid individual to believe that unbelievable steaming pile of crap!

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute  for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalists an…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…