The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[Deranged Rhino]

This is the wacko conspiracy thread so I'd like to thank Third for staying on topic.

Coming from someone who has demonstrated he has no understanding of how the IC functions, let alone which agencies comprise it, it's no surprise you label this thread as such. You're asleep. One day you'll wake up and see you've been lied to for years. You've been kept ignorant, angry, and confused because the "wacko" conspiracy (which is extensively documented w verifiable sources) is actually reality and the reality you think of as real is in fact the mirage.

 

You've been had. This thread can help wake you up if you're willing/able to think for yourself and see beyond the programming you've been under your entire life.

[Deranged Rhino]

*********

 

Slightly off topic for this thread (but not entirely) -- still it's worth checking out.

 

(Scahill on fascism in America)

 

Edited January 22, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[Benjamin Franklin]

Coming from someone who has demonstrated he has no understanding of how the IC functions, let alone which agencies comprise it, it's no surprise you label this thread as such. You're asleep. One day you'll wake up and see you've been lied to for years. You've been kept ignorant, angry, and confused because the "wacko" conspiracy (which is extensively documented w verifiable sources) is actually reality and the reality you think of as real is in fact the mirage.

 

You've been had. This thread can help wake you up if you're willing/able to think for yourself and see beyond the programming you've been under your entire life.

 

Remember when you had the Illuminati handing Hillary the presidency?

 

I'll go ahead and not believe your conspiracies since they change with the tides.

[Deranged Rhino]

Remember when you had the Illuminati handing Hillary the presidency?

 

I'll go ahead and not believe your conspiracies since they change with the tides.

 

Link?

 

Oh right, there is no link because what you're saying is an invention of your imagination. I've never said anything about the illuminati other than I'm NOT an illuminati guy.

 

I know you're asleep and that's okay, but try to at least be honest. There is plenty of room to have a reasonable conversation about a very controversial topic without injecting blatant falsehoods into the equation.

[DC Tom]

Link?

 

Oh right, there is no link because what you're saying is an invention of your imagination. I've never said anything about the illuminati other than I'm NOT an illuminati guy.

 

I know you're asleep and that's okay, but try to at least be honest. There is plenty of room to have a reasonable conversation about a very controversial topic without injecting blatant falsehoods into the equation.

 

*ahem* "Alternative facts."

[GG]

Link?

 

Oh right, there is no link because what you're saying is an invention of your imagination. I've never said anything about the illuminati other than I'm NOT an illuminati guy.

 

Then exactly which powers you claimed were set for their coronation of Hillary?

[/dev/null]

 

Remember when you had the Illuminati handing Hillary the presidency?

 

I've never said anything about the illuminati other than I'm NOT an illuminati guy.

 

 

Rhino has a valid point. He is more of a Reptoid kind of guy

[Deranged Rhino]

Then exactly which powers you claimed were set for their coronation of Hillary?

Not the !@#$ing illuminati

 

I know you struggle with intellectual honesty when discussing things that threaten your jingoistic world view, but I've never said anything about the illuminati other than saying I don't believe in it.

Rhino has a valid point. He is more of a Reptoid kind of guy

*ahem* "Alternative facts."

[GG]

Not the !@#$ing illuminati

 

I know you struggle with intellectual honesty when discussing things that threaten your jingoistic world view, but I've never said anything about the illuminati other than saying I don't believe in it.

 

If not the illuminati, then who? We were treated to 15 months of posts that powers behind the scenes orchestrated the entire election, and Hilary's coronation was the last step.

 

So who are these powers?

 

Simple question.

[Deranged Rhino]

If not the illuminati, then who? We were treated to 15 months of posts that powers behind the scenes orchestrated the entire election, and Hilary's coronation was the last step.

 

So who are these powers?

 

Simple question.

Gee. If only there was a long, detailed, fully fleshed out post complete w dozens of sources about that very thing.

 

 

...which is more than you've ever offered by the way. You're still running from direct questions posed to you back in September.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[/dev/null]

So who are these powers?

[Deranged Rhino]

Also not true. At least in real life and on PPP.

 

In speculative talks for fun, then I'll entertain that all day and night

[GG]

Gee. If only there was a long, detailed, fully fleshed out post complete w dozens of sources about that very thing.

 

 

...which is more than you've ever offered by the way. You're still running from direct questions posed to you back in September.

 

Here we go again.

 

You never had a detailed fully fleshed out post. You keep trolling about the Deep State or the Dark State or whatever the flavor of the day is, without any coherent explanation of who exactly is behind it, and most importantly, who wins in your doomsday scenario and what do they get when they win.

 

And, as it's become a routine tradition. Your question to me would be easy to answer, if you actually ask it. So, what's the question?

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

Here we go again.

 

You never had a detailed fully fleshed out post. You keep trolling about the Deep State or the Dark State or whatever the flavor of the day is, without any coherent explanation of who exactly is behind it, and most importantly, who wins in your doomsday scenario and what do they get when they win.

 

And, as it's become a routine tradition. Your question to me would be easy to answer, if you actually ask it. So, what's the question?

 

His refutation of my point is that I said "illuminati." He's not denying that he lectured us for months about the conspiracy to elect Hillary. His conspiracy group has another name. I've heard it but can't place it off the top of my head.

 

Which is just the way they want it.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Here we go again.

 

You never had a detailed fully fleshed out post.

 

I sure do. Right in this very thread. It's literally 10 pages long, complete with dozens of sources including many primary sources. It's even right at the top of the thread, so it's real easy to find.

 

Like I said, intellectual honesty clearly isn't your thing.

 

 

You keep trolling about the Deep State or the Dark State or whatever the flavor of the day is, without any coherent explanation of who exactly is behind it...

 

Blatantly false.

 

and most importantly, who wins in your doomsday scenario and what do they get when they win.

 

Maybe the reason you're making such a fool of yourself right this very moment is because you keep injecting things into the discussion I've never said and then claiming I said them. You do this a lot. It's a desperate move and, as I've said, intellectually dishonest.

 

"Doomsday scenario" is something I've never said nor proffered. That's your own erroneous interpretation of my position which, as we've seen, you have never bothered to consider because it's unsettling to your narrow minded view of the world and geopolitics as a whole.

 

That's fine, of course, you're free to think and post what you want. But you'd be a lot cooler if you did so with at least a hint of honesty.

 

 

And, as it's become a routine tradition. Your question to me would be easy to answer, if you actually ask it. So, what's the question?

 

The US directly bombed Syrian troops during the cease fire in Syria in September. This was done with the explicit purpose of helping ISIS/AQ forces retake a foothold in Aleppo, shredding the cease fire, and preventing peace from holding with Assad still in power. Doing so risked killing Russian troops stationed at the Syrian FOB and bringing us into a direct conflict with Russia.

 

The US said it was an accident.

 

This was a lie and the event itself was indeed a war crime by any metric.

 

You disagreed.

 

I've asked you numerous times what other possible explanation for a 3 hour sustained bombing campaign, during a cease fire, in an area of the city JSOC knew like the back of its hand, could there have been other than the administration's desire to prolong the conflict in Syria until they got results more favorable to their geopolitical strategy?

 

 

 

You're a smart man, no question. You also are passionate about your beliefs which should be applauded. But you've continually demonstrated in your interactions with me that you'd rather be dishonest and closed minded than have a real discussion about topics that are upsetting to your world view.

 

That's a shame. But one day you'll wake up and see you've been had and I'll be there with a drink for ya'.

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

 

 

That's a shame. But one day you'll wake up and see you've been had and I'll be there with a drink for ya'.

 

Straight out of the Dwight Drane school.

 

Keep changing the predictions. One of them is bound to be right eventually.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin

[GG]

 

I sure do. Right in this very thread. It's literally 10 pages long, complete with dozens of sources including many primary sources. It's even right at the top of the thread, so it's real easy to find.

 

Like I said, intellectual honesty clearly isn't your thing.

 

 

Blatantly false.

 

 

Maybe the reason you're making such a fool of yourself right this very moment is because you keep injecting things into the discussion I've never said and then claiming I said them. You do this a lot. It's a desperate move and, as I've said, intellectually dishonest.

 

"Doomsday scenario" is something I've never said nor proffered. That's your own erroneous interpretation of my position which, as we've seen, you have never bothered to consider because it's unsettling to your narrow minded view of the world and geopolitics as a whole.

 

That's fine, of course, you're free to think and post what you want. But you'd be a lot cooler if you did so with at least a hint of honesty.

 

 

The US directly bombed Syrian troops during the cease fire in Syria in September. This was done with the explicit purpose of helping ISIS/AQ forces retake a foothold in Aleppo, shredding the cease fire, and preventing peace from holding with Assad still in power. Doing so risked killing Russian troops stationed at the Syrian FOB and bringing us into a direct conflict with Russia.

 

The US said it was an accident.

 

This was a lie and the event itself was indeed a war crime by any metric.

 

You disagreed.

 

I've asked you numerous times what other possible explanation for a 3 hour sustained bombing campaign, during a cease fire, in an area of the city JSOC knew like the back of its hand, could there have been other than the administration's desire to prolong the conflict in Syria until they got results more favorable to their geopolitical strategy?

 

 

 

You're a smart man, no question. You also are passionate about your beliefs which should be applauded. But you've continually demonstrated in your interactions with me that you'd rather be dishonest and closed minded than have a real discussion about topics that are upsetting to your world view.

 

That's a shame. But one day you'll wake up and see you've been had and I'll be there with a drink for ya'.

 

So you have your panties in a wad because the US bombed Syrians and called it a mistake? It probably wasn't a mistake but retribution over Syrians continuing to shell civilians and aid convoys despite the cease fire attempts.

 

This is a clear case why people are laughing at you. There isn't a single plausible scenario where the US military and coalition forces would be actively supporting ISIS/AQ. Yet you keep insisting on it. What's the end game?

 

You know, what? I'm glad someone in the chain of command decided to pop the Syrian f'kers after what they have done in the region.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

So you have your panties in a wad because the US bombed Syrians and called it a mistake? It probably wasn't a mistake but retribution over Syrians continuing to shell civilians and aid convoys despite the cease fire attempts.

 

No, my panties were in a wad because it took you 4 months to answer a direct question... and you still got it wrong.

 

 

This is a clear case why people are laughing at you. There isn't a single plausible scenario where the US military and coalition forces would be actively supporting ISIS/AQ. Yet you keep insisting on it.

 

 

You know, except all the information about that bombing in September, and the primary sources from wiki leaks referenced above, and Tulsi Gabbard's own discussions on the topic, and the over 55 special operators I've interviewed in the last three months (all of whom were on the ground in Syria)...

 

There's literally pages of primary source material out there that make this case overwhelmingly if you actually take the time to look.

 

"When a foolish man hears the truth, he laughs out loud at the very idea."

(paraphrased of course)

 

 

You know, what? I'm glad someone in the chain of command decided to pop the Syrian f'kers after what they have done in the region.

 

Of course you are. You're an avowed neocon who believes regime change is achieved by simply wishing for better lives for people of the world. Killing a few Syrians, even if it meant risking killing Russian troops in the process and triggering a war is fine by you. You've made that point abundantly clear.

 

It's just a very shortsighted and sad position to hold.

 

You've aligned yourself with the losing side of this battle. That's why your fall is going to be the hardest one of them all.

 

 

Straight out of the Dwight Drane school.

 

 

Now that I'm aware of who he was, I can firmly say this isn't true.

 

He was an end-times guy, that's not at all what I believe in nor my thesis in this thread.

 

...Just for clarity.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[GG]

 

No, my panties were in a wad because it took you 4 months to answer a direct question... and you still got it wrong.

 

 

You know, except all the information about that bombing in September, and the primary sources from wiki leaks referenced above, and Tulsi Gabbard's own discussions on the topic, and the over 55 special operators I've interviewed in the last three months (all of whom were on the ground in Syria)...

 

There's literally pages of primary source material out there that make this case overwhelmingly if you actually take the time to look.

 

"When a foolish man hears the truth, he laughs out loud at the very idea."

(paraphrased of course)

 

 

Of course you are. You're an avowed neocon who believes regime change is achieved by simply wishing for better lives for people of the world. Killing a few Syrians, even if it meant risking killing Russian troops in the process and triggering a war is fine by you. You've made that point abundantly clear.

 

It's just a very shortsighted and sad position to hold.

 

You've aligned yourself with the losing side of this battle. That's why your fall is going to be the hardest one of them all.

 

 

Now that I'm aware of who he was, I can firmly say this isn't true.

 

He was an end-times guy, that's not at all what I believe in nor my thesis in this thread.

 

...Just for clarity.

 

If that is the big question you've been asking, you're barking up the wrong tree. I never denied that US and coalition air fighters hit Syrian troops. I'm just laughing at the suggestion that they did it to start WW III.

 

So when all else fails, try the neocon trope. Are you claiming that Obama is a neocon?

 

Or what about that pipeline? Tell us about that agin.

 

Or is the war to help Chevron & Enron? Remember that they had Hillary in their pocket. All they needed was to wait for her coronation, and then one of the CEOs would be named Secretary of State, and the take over would be complete. Oh the horrors.

 

You're in too deep within your own screen play. Take a step back and see how ridiculous you've looked over the last 15 months.

 

Middle East is a mess because it's been a mess throughout the written history of mankind. It didn't help the US that it was led by the most feckless president in a generation and that's the main reason why the situation is so messy. There's no grand conspiracy to why the US is doing what it's doing. Obama screwed things up and then had nothing but bad choices as a result.

 

Sometimes, it's as simple as that.

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

If that is the big question you've been asking, you're barking up the wrong tree. I never denied that US and coalition air fighters hit Syrian troops. I'm just laughing at the suggestion that they did it to start WW III.

 

So when all else fails, try the neocon trope. Are you claiming that Obama is a neocon?

 

Or what about that pipeline? Tell us about that agin.

 

Or is the war to help Chevron & Enron? Remember that they had Hillary in their pocket. All they needed was to wait for her coronation, and then one of the CEOs would be named Secretary of State, and the take over would be complete. Oh the horrors.

 

You're in too deep within your own screen play. Take a step back and see how ridiculous you've looked over the last 15 months.

 

Middle East is a mess because it's been a mess throughout the written history of mankind. It didn't help the US that it was led by the most feckless president in a generation and that's the main reason why the situation is so messy. There's no grand conspiracy to why the US is doing what it's doing. Obama screwed things up and then had nothing but bad choices as a result.

 

Sometimes, it's as simple as that.

 

I forget where DR is on 9-11. Did Elon Musk's UFO fly into the twin towers? I cant keep the conspiracies straight.

[/dev/null]

 

I forget where DR is on 9-11. Did Elon Musk's UFO fly into the twin towers? I cant keep the conspiracies straight.

Awww snap, now you done it. We're gonna get DC Tom's 9/11 PTSD flashback...

[Deranged Rhino]

 

If that is the big question you've been asking, you're barking up the wrong tree. I never denied that US and coalition air fighters hit Syrian troops. I'm just laughing at the suggestion that they did it to start WW III.

 

I'm not saying the officers and soldiers want to start WW3. I've never said that.

 

What I have said, and I've made a strong case for in this thread primarily, is that there are certain factions within the Deep State of the United States who would love to engineer a shooting war with Russia.

 

The Deep State is comprised of many different groups and is very real and openly acknowledged in serious academic circles as well as political ones. I'm not talking about the illuminati or aliens, but the corporate and financial interests that work hand in hand with elements within the US Gov't and the IC to control policy as best they can from the background, free from oversight.

 

 

So when all else fails, try the neocon trope. Are you claiming that Obama is a neocon?

 

You've called yourself a neocon, have you not? If I have that wrong, I apologize but I'm pretty sure you proudly identify as such.

 

My thesis rests on the fact that the Deep State is truly calling the shots, not the executive branch. So whether or not Obama is a neocon is irrelevant. What counts is the philosophical makeup of the Deep State itself -- which is not monolithic in structure nor philosophy. The controlling philosophy in this Deep State has been unipolar globalism, that's been the philosophy driving it (and this country by extension) since at least 1991 if not 1944.

 

Neoconservatism, by its very definition, falls under the umbrella of this guiding philosophy.

 

That does not mean every neocon is a part of this Deep State, nor does it mean every neocon is an evil person twisting their mustaches. I don't think that at all, even about you;) But, because you ascribe to that philosophy (which, I did myself for longer than I care to admit) you are going to have the hardest time being open minded about the case I'm making.

 

But one day you will be more willing to entertain some of these ideas and then we'll have a more fun conversation.

 

You're in too deep within your own screen play. Take a step back and see how ridiculous you've looked over the last 15 months.

 

Hey, I admit it's possible. I'm never above admitting when I'm wrong.

 

I have a lot of fun on this board taking absurd stances at times, or leaning into the more fringe topics I enjoy to get a laugh. So I understand the lines are blurry between when I'm taking the piss and when I'm being sincere. People are free to take or leave the thesis I'm examining here.

 

But nothing of the case I'm laying out here is meant to be apocalyptic or end-of-days. That's not me. I actually think things have a chance of getting a lot better in a hurry -- not in a religious sense. And that's on top of my normal optimism which is already set too high being a Bills fan.

 

 

Middle East is a mess because it's been a mess throughout the written history of mankind. It didn't help the US that it was led by the most feckless president in a generation and that's the main reason why the situation is so messy. There's no grand conspiracy to why the US is doing what it's doing. Obama screwed things up and then had nothing but bad choices as a result.

 

Sometimes, it's as simple as that.

 

Despite what you might think of me, I'm actually a pretty rational guy whose beliefs are formed in traditional academic ways. I'm well aware of the history of the ME, I've got a pretty good background in that area, so I of course agree with you that it's been a mess far longer than this nation has existed. No doubt about that. I'm also not arguing, and have never been arguing, that the US Gov't or it's military are the cause of the mess -- there or anywhere.

 

Where I lose you is in suggesting that there are groups of corporate, financial, and private interests that operate outside the realm of traditional nation states and those interests often profit from conflict.

 

You say 44 was feckless -- and I agree -- but we think that because we have the United States' best interest in mind. The Deep State is not a nation state and does not have the United States' best interest in heart, they are only looking out for their own best interests. To them, 44's presidency has been a boon for the very reasons we'd probably agree it was feckless.

 

The difference between our positions is you believe ultimate power rests in the offices of our federal government, while I think that hasn't been the case in this country since Kennedy was killed.

 

I forget where DR is on 9-11. Did Elon Musk's UFO fly into the twin towers? I cant keep the conspiracies straight.

 

I've never made any real comments on 9/11. In fact, the only conspiracy I've ever given any serious post count too (aside from this thread) are the UFO threads in OTW, which I find hilarious;)

Edited January 23, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[Benjamin Franklin]

But we know you. You have a theory.

[GG]

I'm not saying the officers and soldiers want to start WW3. I've never said that.

 

What I have said, and I've made a strong case for in this thread primarily, is that there are certain factions within the Deep State of the United States who would love to engineer a shooting war with Russia.

 

The Deep State is comprised of many different groups and is very real and openly acknowledged in serious academic circles as well as political ones. I'm not talking about the illuminati or aliens, but the corporate and financial interests that work hand in hand with elements within the US Gov't and the IC to control policy as best they can from the background, free from oversight.

You can make this argument about any facet of government and how lobbyists from the public and private sectors are always trying to influence legislation.

 

You've called yourself a neocon, have you not? If I have that wrong, I apologize but I'm pretty sure you proudly identify as such.

 

My thesis rests on the fact that the Deep State is truly calling the shots, not the executive branch. So whether or not Obama is a neocon is irrelevant. What counts is the philosophical makeup of the Deep State itself -- which is not monolithic in structure nor philosophy. The controlling philosophy in this Deep State has been unipolar globalism, that's been the philosophy driving it (and this country by extension) since at least 1991 if not 1944.

 

Neoconservatism, by its very definition, falls under the umbrella of this guiding philosophy.

 

That does not mean every neocon is a part of this Deep State, nor does it mean every neocon is an evil person twisting their mustaches. I don't think that at all, even about you;) But, because you ascribe to that philosophy (which, I did myself for longer than I care to admit) you are going to have the hardest time being open minded about the case I'm making.

 

But one day you will be more willing to entertain some of these ideas and then we'll have a more fun conversation.

 

 

Hey, I admit it's possible. I'm never above admitting when I'm wrong.

 

I have a lot of fun on this board taking absurd stances at times, or leaning into the more fringe topics I enjoy to get a laugh. So I understand the lines are blurry between when I'm taking the piss and when I'm being sincere. People are free to take or leave the thesis I'm examining here.

 

But nothing of the case I'm laying out here is meant to be apocalyptic or end-of-days. That's not me. I actually think things have a chance of getting a lot better in a hurry -- not in a religious sense. And that's on top of my normal optimism which is already set too high being a Bills fan.

 

 

Despite what you might think of me, I'm actually a pretty rational guy whose beliefs are formed in traditional academic ways. I'm well aware of the history of the ME, I've got a pretty good background in that area, so I of course agree with you that it's been a mess far longer than this nation has existed. No doubt about that. I'm also not arguing, and have never been arguing, that the US Gov't or it's military are the cause of the mess -- there or anywhere.

 

Where I lose you is in suggesting that there are groups of corporate, financial, and private interests that operate outside the realm of traditional nation states and those interests often profit from conflict.

 

You say 44 was feckless -- and I agree -- but we think that because we have the United States' best interest in mind. The Deep State is not a nation state and does not have the United States' best interest in heart, they are only looking out for their own best interests. To them, 44's presidency has been a boon for the very reasons we'd probably agree it was feckless.

 

The difference between our positions is you believe ultimate power rests in the offices of our federal government, while I think that hasn't been the case in this country since Kennedy was killed.

You almost had a lucid thought, but then derailed again. It's very easy to believe that the Deep State controls everything through their puppet strings, and frankly it makes for great TV and movies.

 

In reality though, it is a sheer impossibility because the Deep State is run by humans who all have different agendas, levels of intellect, egos, phobias, insecurities, personal demons and ambition. It's hard enough to get a group of ten people in a room to agree on a lunch choice, and you're stoking a theory that there's a cadre (cabal?) of shadowy personalities who for the last 70 years have collectively controlled the world order. Don't you think the odds are high that given the magnitude of the Deep State and its time frame, that a gatorman infiltrated its inner workings and blew the whole thing up with basic stupidity?

[Tiberius]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/wikileaks-trump-tax-return-234000

 

“Trump's breach of promise over the release of his tax returns is even more gratuitous than Clinton concealing her Goldman Sachs transcripts,” WikiLeaks wrote on Twitter.

The group also encouraged the leak of the documents. "Trump Counselor Kellyanne Conway stated today that Trump will not release his tax returns. Send them to: https://wikileaks.org/#submit so we can," another tweet read

 

.

[DC Tom]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/wikileaks-trump-tax-return-234000

 

.

[This is an automated response.]

 

You're an idiot.

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.5.

[Tiberius]

[This is an automated response.]

 

You're an idiot.

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.5.

Guess who just rolled off the couch with a hang over

[DC Tom]

Guess who just rolled off the couch with a hang over

[This is an automated response.]

 

Shut up, you dumb !@#$ing monkey.

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.5.

[Deranged Rhino]

But we know you. You have a theory.

 

I do, and presented it in the OP.

 

But it's not a prediction, it's an analysis. I'm not a doomsday guy or a prepper or any of that. I'm also not presenting this as fact, it's speculation. Speculation that I happen to think has merit clearly, but I'm not above being wrong or unwilling to look at alternative theories/ideas/opinions on this subject.

 

You almost had a lucid thought, but then derailed again. It's very easy to believe that the Deep State controls everything through their puppet strings, and frankly it makes for great TV and movies.

 

In reality though, it is a sheer impossibility because the Deep State is run by humans who all have different agendas, levels of intellect, egos, phobias, insecurities, personal demons and ambition. It's hard enough to get a group of ten people in a room to agree on a lunch choice, and you're stoking a theory that there's a cadre (cabal?) of shadowy personalities who for the last 70 years have collectively controlled the world order. Don't you think the odds are high that given the magnitude of the Deep State and its time frame, that a gatorman infiltrated its inner workings and blew the whole thing up with basic stupidity?

 

I absolutely concede that gators have infiltrated its ranks on multiple occasions. The Deep State is not immune from human error.

 

But I don't think of the Deep State as individuals. Rather corporate and private entities comprised of many people -- yes there are individuals running those entities but the entity itself is a hydra, capable of losing a few heads. These are institutions that are bigger than one individual, which is why I compared it better to a mafia with many families in the OP. Agendas shift over time as personnel and philosophies evolve, and when that happens the individuals may change but the entity remains.

 

I understand why that's a difficult leap to make for many people, and I'm offering it as theory not fact. I do think there is ample evidence that points to its merits -- even from non-Kremlin sources. What I think we have been witnessing as of late is a changing of the guard, not just in DC, but in this Deep State entity itself.

 

For all we know they are being done in by orange tinted gators as we speak. And if we are, then there's a real chance we're about to learn a lot more about this kind of subject... for better and worse.

[meazza]

Hail hydra

[Deranged Rhino]

[Deranged Rhino]

I know I wasn't the only one who thought this was strange during the inauguration...

 

Were they simply handing out ponchos to the crowd before the rain?

Were they making a symbolic point to the Bush/Clinton factions in the audience that the Military/DIA is firmly behind 45 and CIA's days as top dog are numbered?

Or was it simply an accident?

 

No one's saying.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4142324/Moment-soldiers-stand-Trump-inaugural-speech.html

[Benjamin Franklin]

I know I wasn't the only one who thought this was strange during the inauguration...

 

Were they simply handing out ponchos to the crowd before the rain?

Were they making a symbolic point to the Bush/Clinton factions in the audience that the Military/DIA is firmly behind 45 and CIA's days as top dog are numbered?

Or was it simply an accident?

 

No one's saying.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4142324/Moment-soldiers-stand-Trump-inaugural-speech.html

 

What a world you live in, man.

[Nanker]

I know I wasn't the only one who thought this was strange during the inauguration...

 

Were they simply handing out ponchos to the crowd before the rain?

Were they making a symbolic point to the Bush/Clinton factions in the audience that the Military/DIA is firmly behind 45 and CIA's days as top dog are numbered?

Or was it simply an accident?

 

No one's saying.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4142324/Moment-soldiers-stand-Trump-inaugural-speech.html

 

I think it could have been two things.

1. It had started sprinkling. Umbrellas were brought down to the super VIP area. They might have given him an umbrella curtain if the rain increased in intensity. It didn't. It stopped raining shortly after they arrived in position behind him. Hey LIBS - President Trump made it stop raining!

 

2. There might have been a credible threat about a shooter somewhere nearby, and they were there to escort him away, but the Secret Service checked out the threat and it was found to be negative. Anybody know where EII and Blzrul were?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

What a world you live in, man.

 

We're all living in the same world, I promise.

 

 

I think it could have been two things.

1. It had started sprinkling. Umbrellas were brought down to the super VIP area. They might have given him an umbrella curtain if the rain increased in intensity. It didn't. It stopped raining shortly after they arrived in position behind him. Hey LIBS - President Trump made it stop raining!

 

2. There might have been a credible threat about a shooter somewhere nearby, and they were there to escort him away, but the Secret Service checked out the threat and it was found to be negative. Anybody know where EII and Blzrul were?

 

Umbrellas or ponchos were my first thought, and still the most likely explanation.

 

But the entire visual was jarring -- and if there is any merit to the thesis of this thread, it's exactly the kind of symbolism that would be used to make the point that there is indeed a changing of the guards going on behind the scenes. We've had many people describe the most recent events as a "coup" or a "soft coup", and if they're to believed then there are really two possible explanations for what happened during the speech:

 

1. The men in uniform were behind Trump to reinforce the "he'll do what we say" message to those in attendance,

 

or

 

2. The men in uniform were behind Trump to send a message to the assembled neocons and neoliberals: 'we're with him, don't try any of your normal tricks.'

 

Or, it was raining and they were ready to hand out umbrellas.

 

Interesting times, these are. Interesting times...

[Deranged Rhino]

A larger update is upcoming but this past week has added plenty of evidence to support the thesis presented in this thread. The IC is being gutted and restructured, neocons and neoliberals in CIA and state are being forced out as 45 restructures the NSC. Plus we have Russian spies linked to 45's "intelligence report" being murdered in Moscow.

 

Lots happening. Lots more to come. The Deep State war is intensifying. Don't be distracted by the noise, focus on what's actually happening behind the scenes.

[Nanker]

A larger update is upcoming but this past week has added plenty of evidence to support the thesis presented in this thread. The IC is being gutted and restructured, neocons and neoliberals in CIA and state are being forced out as 45 restructures the NSC. Plus we have Russian spies linked to 45's "intelligence report" being murdered in Moscow.

Lots happening. Lots more to come. The Deep State war is intensifying. Don't be distracted by the noise, focus on what's actually happening behind the scenes.

Like which high fashion designers made the most breathtaking vagina costumes for the Ladies March for Respect and Dignity. Edited January 29, 2017 by Nanker

[Deranged Rhino]

Like which high fashion designers made the most breathtaking vagina costumes for the Ladies March for Respect and Dignity.

[Tiberius]

Sure seems like Trump really wants to provoke an attack on the USA. Banning our Muslim allies from entering us, putting political operative Bannon on the NSC, talking about torturing families. Reichstag fire?

[DC Tom]

Sure seems like Trump really wants to provoke an attack on the USA. Banning our Muslim allies from entering us, putting political operative Bannon on the NSC, talking about torturing families. Reichstag fire?

[This is an automated response.]

 

Shut up, you dumb !@#$ing monkey.

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.61.