Forum Klix.ba

_veleposlanik wrote:

Dado dijasporitus wrote:
Posto ja i ti se nikad necemo sloziti oko ove teme, a vidim da u tome nisam sam, mozemo li mi zakljuciti da se neslazemo. Ili ces mozda nastaviti da arogantno nameces rezone koje ja i sa najvecom dobrom voljom nemogu shvatiti ozbiljno. Predlozio bih adminima ovu temu staviti pod kljuc do Septembra 2009. mada predpostavljam da ces i taj moj prijedlog protumaciti kao zavjera da te se sprijeci u istresanju "istine". Otvori jarane temu "Sve zavjere ovog svijeta" pa tipkaj dok se boje ne rastope.

eh ovdje si slagao do neba jarane... iskreno, vjerujem da ne postoji covjek dobre volje koji smatra ispravnu oficijelnu verziju 11. septembra... ako si dobre volje, onda ces se zaista potruditi, pa ces mi prokomentirati ovu sliku:



ali nije ni slika u pitanju, koliko jeste zdrav razum i dobra dusha. gledam po hiljaditi put kako pada neboder i jednostavno mi ne ide u glavu, ne sto je to sami arhitekt projektor WTC zgrade rekao, niti sto ljudi tvrde da su culi explozije, niti ranjeni od tih eksplozija u podrumu, niti talibani sa britvicama sto pokradose avione u "najsigurnijoj drzavi", niti NORAD koji je imao 95%-tni uchinak u svim komplikovanijim vjezbama, niti sto je godinu dana prije toga bila simulacija napada na Twin Towers putnickim avionima, niti....................................................................................................................................................

jednostavno, gledam kako ta zgrada pada, i ja ZNAM da se radi o najpodlijem zlocinu i prevari cijelog svijeta koje nas je kostalo preko milion zivota, a brojka iz dana u dan raste... oficijelna verzija padanja/slaganja spratova u padu je zaista bijedna i ne mogu da shvatim da ti, kao i svi koji podrzavaju zvanicno, djelujete od srca, dobrom voljom. a jos se javljas kao "arhitekt"... prije mislim da me zajebavas nego da iskreno pokusavas da diskutujes...


WTC7, zasto niko, pogotovo vlada, nije dala razumno objasnjenje za tu zgradu? zato sto takvo objasnjenje ne postoji. zasto reporterka izvjestava rusenje te zgrade na 20ak minuta prije njenog pada? zasto niti jedan jebeni djelic aviona se nigdje nije pronasao, ne samo kod pentagona, nego NIGDJE???

kako bolan da vam vjerujem? da ste objektivni, kroz oih 15 stranica biste dali konkretne odgovore na ova pitanja. vi ste, sa duznim postovanjem, i bez namjere da vrijedjam (samo govorim onako kako jeste) - ili zli, ili vam fali jos koje proljece u glavama...

Atanasije_Svilar wrote:mozda je neko pre mene postavio al ....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... rt+2&hl=en

vredi pogledati ceo dokumentarac..

Dado dijasporitus wrote:
Ja i drugi smo ti odgovorili na vecinu tvojih pitanja ali ti nehajes

And now for a world government
By Gideon Rachman

Published: December 8 2008 19:13 | Last updated: December 8 2008 19:13


I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”. moja nota: sve troje lazne i/ili vjestacki kreirane

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

Mogly wrote:Ima nas 6 milijardi i svi bi da vozimo auta i tipkamo po računaru. Hoćemo i da jedemo svega. A zemlja ima ograničene resurse. Pa nije valjda sve to vještački nametnuta potreba. A kako da se organizujemo da jedan ne puši treći put u tim orgijama Mora li u startu biti zavjera

_veleposlanik wrote:na kraju ce, kao i uvijek, kao sto nam je i Darwin u podsvijest uveo, pravila pisati pobjednik, odnosno, opstace najjaci...

tranquil wrote:

_veleposlanik wrote:na kraju ce, kao i uvijek, kao sto nam je i Darwin u podsvijest uveo, pravila pisati pobjednik, odnosno, opstace najjaci...

Tzv. "Socijalni Darwinizam" NEMA veze sa Darwinovom teorijom evolucije To je neuspjeli pokušaj uvođenja biologije u društvene nauke. Neko je to tebi drugi, a ne Darwin, uveo u podsvijest, što i nije bilo teško, sudeći po količini informacija u koje si uspio povjerovati

Atanasije_Svilar wrote:mozda je neko pre mene postavio al ....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... rt+2&hl=en

vredi pogledati ceo dokumentarac..

paratrooper wrote:zbog drzava kakve su Iran, Srbija, S.Koreja, Kuba, Venecuela ... a i zbog globalne prijetnje od strane radikalnih islamskih grupa, nacionalistickih pokreta i komunistickih ekstremista U.S i uvodi NWO.

Naravno taj NWO nece mjenjati kulturne karakteristike vec iskljucivo osigurati sigurnost i ekonomsko uvezivanje razlicitih zemalja.

To sto ljudima poput veleposlanika to smeta , bad luck.

A_I_ wrote:NWO, po rijecima kreatora i sljedbenika te ideologije, izmedju ostalog predstavlja
-tzv preventivne ratove

Secretary of State Daniel Webster pointed out that the necessity for forcible reaction must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.")

da barem iole poznajes istoriju Irana ili Venecuele koje tako olako obiljezavas kao izvore ZLA

paratrooper wrote:

A_I_ wrote:NWO, po rijecima kreatora i sljedbenika te ideologije, izmedju ostalog predstavlja
-tzv preventivne ratove

ne vidim nista lose u otvaranju preventivnih ratova, bolje to nego dopustiti svjetsku krizu. Takav jedan preventivni rat je trebalo otvoriti protiv bivse jugoslovenske vojske 1991 , pa se ne bi desilo da 100 000 izgubi zivot. Jedan od razloga sto je trebalo vremena za intervenciju u jugoslaviji je na zalost to sto je ta drzava imala odredjen respekt u medjunarodnoj zajednici. Prijevremeni napad bi mnogi protumacili kao jos jedan americki ekspanzionisticki rat protiv nevine drzave.

Dakle moralo se jugoslovenskoj (beogradskoj) vladi dopustiti da dovoljno samu sebe iskompromitira prije nego joj je zadat zavrsni udarac 1999.

Secretary of State Daniel Webster pointed out that the necessity for forcible reaction must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.")

mislim da se ta doktrina znacajno promjenila. "instant reaction" nije vise tako brz. Pa cak i Iraku je dato mnogo upozorenja prije napada. Zasto je to tako? Mislim da isuvise brza reakcija ne moze brzo dovesti do smirivanja situacije. Po meni, dakle nisu samo tehnicki reazlozi zasto nekad treba vremena za intervenciju vec prije svega mora sazreti politicka situacija. Nije tesko neku zemlju vojno pobjediti ali je tesko uvjeriti ostatak medj zajednice u neophodnost intervencije.

da barem iole poznajes istoriju Irana ili Venecuele koje tako olako obiljezavas kao izvore ZLA

ne znam mnogo o proslosti tih zemalja, ali znam koliko mi treba da razumijem sta zele. Iran manje vise ima kontinualnu strategiju da bude lider tzv oslobadjanja arapskih zemalja od zapadnog uticaja. Druga stvar je to sto ne priznaje pravo Izraela na postojanje. U tom smislu on razvija oruzje ne odbrambenog karaktera vec vrlo ofanzivno u prirodi. Balisticke rakete velikog dometa ciji radijus dolazi do Beca i sa zeljom da usvoje tehnologiju interkontinentalnih projektila uz njihovo perzistentno ustrajavanje na nuklernom programu - predstavlja "ogroman problem".

Slicnu stvar pokusavaju u Vebnecuali gdje zele da budu dominantna sila na juznoamerickom kontinentu.

paratrooper wrote:
ne znam mnogo o proslosti tih zemalja, ali znam koliko mi treba da razumijem sta zele. Iran manje vise ima kontinualnu strategiju da bude lider tzv oslobadjanja arapskih zemalja od zapadnog uticaja. Druga stvar je to sto ne priznaje pravo Izraela na postojanje. U tom smislu on razvija oruzje ne odbrambenog karaktera vec vrlo ofanzivno u prirodi. Balisticke rakete velikog dometa ciji radijus dolazi do Beca i sa zeljom da usvoje tehnologiju interkontinentalnih projektila uz njihovo perzistentno ustrajavanje na nuklernom programu - predstavlja "ogroman problem".

Slicnu stvar pokusavaju u Vebnecuali gdje zele da budu dominantna sila na juznoamerickom kontinentu.

_veleposlanik wrote: medjutim, po sadasnjoj metodi, lakse je postepeno ratovati i obezbjediti kapital, moc i svjetsko javno mijenje (kroz prljave prakse, sto je za mnoge ovdje i na ulici normala ), da bi se uspostavilo odgovarajuce rjesenje - NWO, New World Order, Novi Svjetski Poredak.

dakle, kroz ovu praksu, koja se decenijama, pa i stoljecima praktikuje, iza sjene naravno, odgovara samo "pametnijoj" (prije bih rekao lukavijoj) manjini naustrb gladne djece u Africi, ubijene u Palestini, itd itd...

A_I_ wrote: iranski nuklearni program zapocet je za vladavine poltronskog Saha uz pomoc imperija da bi nakon iranske revolucije imperije hitro promijenile misljenje o ideji nuklearnih elektrana na tlu irana...

UnscarD wrote:Podrzavati Americku politiku po pitanju Venecuele, moze da se desi iz nekoliko razloga kao sto su :
potpuna neobavijestenost o stvarnoj situaciji (tvoj vjerovatni slucaj)
licni interes
uzivanje u cistom zlu i patnji drugih uz odsustvo bilo kakavog morala (sadizam)

Nadam se da si po pitanju Venecuele samo neobavijesten.