Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Giordano Bruno who wrote (265358)	7/31/2010 2:38:24 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 306849

actually, it probably is criminal, but the conditioning is that it isn't illegal. i will also note for the record that many of these municipalities bought interest rate derivatives to protect them from interest rate hikes... then 911 hit and banks made a mint off of it as interest rates "unexpectedly" plummeted.the banks likely made $100s of billions off of their interest rate derivatives solely because of the 911 terrorist attacks. it makes the CIA options trading profits ahead of the attacks look tame... hereinreality.com Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks 911research.wtc7.net we said we needed to invade afghanistan to fight al qaeda and then let them go shortly thereafter. en.wikipedia.org the excuses for doing are theatrical. if we had wanted these al qaeda (a group that had previous CIA connections and funding), we would have secured these people, kept the bad guys and let the neutral parties go. instead, we let them all go as though we were impotent. we weren't impotent, we WANTED them free BY DESIGN. who won from 911... 1. the military industrial/security complex (and the uber rich that own them and lobby for war) won trillions. 2. the big banks won trillions due to the new debt. 3. the banks won more control over the nation due to the new levels of debt. 4. those who want to see the constitution and civil liberties dismantled. 5. those who wanted US military protection and assistance in the heroin and drug trade - almost certainly the CIA and select big banks that launder their profits. 6. the big banks made billions on their interest rate derivatives. 7. the insider traders made personal windfalls on the crimes. now, given these big wins... who LOSES? you do. the citizenry loses on all counts. time to wake up. research operation northwoods, the USS liberty, the gulf of tonkin, operation gladio, the USS maine and on and on... hell, the local hawaiian newspaper even knew that pearl harbor was going to be attacked and when - THE WEEK BEFORE IT HAPPENED! whatreallyhappened.com thenewamerican.com the government controllers needed american blood to convince people war was good, so they told military leadership to stand down and get bombed. even gary hart knows the government's controllers stages false flag attacks and expects one to be used to start a war with iran! Presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States, you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. Having done so, you will surely recognize that Americans are reluctant to go to war unless attacked. Until Pearl Harbor, we were even reluctant to get involved in World War II. For historians of American wars the question is whether we provoke provocations. Given the unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, you are obviously thinking the rules have changed. Provocation is no longer required to take America to war. But even in this instance, we were led to believe that the mass murderer of American civilians, Osama bin Laden, was lurking, literally or figuratively, in the vicinity of Baghdad. huffingtonpost.com this is how the controllers of government work. they use gambits - sacrifice your lives to further their agenda.