Posted by: boomerangcomesback | August 8, 2013

Why Should WE “Trust”?

The Riddler is NOT OUR Friend.

The Riddler is NOT OUR Friend.

It’s a question of “trust”…

Who should I trust and why? As in – what do I base my trust of “other people” on?

Most people today are not trusting of others. For any number and list of “good” and valid reasons.

So…it is astonishing to me that a great majority of folks suspend their instinctual “trust” compass when it comes to “authority” figures of any stripe or station.

If you don’t trust the man that knocks at your door, or the woman that speaks sweet nothings into your ear, or pretty much anyone you come into contact with on a daily basis — why would you turn over your entire life and family’s well-being to figments on TV, in a periodical or newspaper, or via any media format whatsoever? Be they in uniform, in expensive suits, or veiled in any garb whatsoever; how is it you suspend your disbelief and allow them to dictate your responses and actions? Is this not counter to every instinctual reaction and experiential lesson you have learned throughout your life?

You and Yours end up where You Are in direct relation to the amount of the “World” you allow to affect You.

Most of what comes our way is out of our control. Much of what goes on WE cannot impact, except in the way we personally conduct our own lives. There are immutable Laws-of-the-Universe which are acting all around us continuously. We either harmonize or buck the physics of our existence.

At some point, when we “mature”, we learn to rely on ourselves, and perhaps a “higher power” which we have come to know by experience, trial, and much error. If we do not hold to the “higher power” concept, then WE – are very much On Our Own on this journey.

Ceding our individual “Wills” to any other is one of the most serious actions we take on our journey. Most learn early on, that “Trust” is “Earned”.

With this in mind, if boggles my mind to see such a great number of people cede their only self-protective mechanism (which they are born with, as in the concept of inherent and immutable personal “Freedom”) to other individuals or “systems” with nary a thought on the matter?

If I should watch like a hawk my home, my children, my capital, and my health, why would I entrust it all to digitalized figments dictating their thoughts to me? When I open my mind to them uncritically, I am obviously “opening the door” and letting them into my mind, my family, my present and future, no?

This short essay, or whatever you want to call it, is meant to Wake People Up to what they are doing to themselves and all that is “theirs” by allowing Others to govern their very existence. Should not every individual be wary at all times? When has “Safety & Peace” ever existed in your lifetime? I have not seen it, nor never hope to on this Earthly plain.

We can not afford to be “Stupid” and “Ignorant” and “Trusting”…of anybody or anything. You don’t “vote” for someone else or some system to take over your personal responsibility of watching out for yourself and your family. You should never, ever “trust” someone else or a system that soaks up everything about you, but divulges nothing about itself. This is Obvious.

So, be critical. Be wise and get Wisdom if you lack. Trust nothing and no one that comes in through the backdoor, in the darkness of secrecy, and offers smooth sayings for you to lay down your guard, lay down your weapons, lay down your survival instincts, lay down your very individuality and personal freedoms of the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

We live in the time of corruption and myriad deceptions perpetrated upon mankind and this very world. If this is news to you, then you have not been paying attention.

Let Trust be earned. “By their actions you will discern their character”. If you cannot acquire or be presented with enough valid information to make truly informed decisions, then you must remain wary and on guard. Is this not Obvious? Deeds shrouded in “Secrecy” mean they cannot stand the light of exposure or Truth.

Why should and would you bet your life and the lives of your family on “these people”? Being that they are “far removed” from the locale and life you lead every day, and in fact operate “above-the-law”, or certainly outside anything you would be held to; then why would you put an ounce of trust in “them”?

The 1% do not know you exist except as dirt upon the floor they would never touch. They have maids and hirelings, servants, to deal with everything below their “status”. Yes, I’m making a point. There is a “class system”, and you’re not in it. This is one of the most glaring and prevailing problems today. And the Gap gets wider by the second.

You see — there are 2 boats. There is the dilapidated boat, barely a barge that humanity is floating in, and there are the ridiculously obscene yachts the 1% speeds around in. You should be able to guess how this has come about. It is time Humanity comes about, and faces the pirates down.

Skull & Cross Bones

The World is in dire need of Truth. Without “The Truth and Nothing But The Truth”, WE must assuredly suspect chicanery and criminality is afoot.


  1. What you are supposed to trust is your SELF and whatever it is you are accepting or resonating with. “Trust” is one of those words (like “hope” ) that sound all special and shit. But if you really look at the word..its just short changing the actual confidence one should have in their own intuition and instinct AND such a word also infers one is LETTING someone ELSE take responsibility..OR that one is putting too much faith in someone or somethings words or actions. Something that also infers co dependency of a sort. Like citizens and governments. Like Many “Romantic” relationships…etc etc

    Sent from my HTC Status™ on AT&T

    • “The energy of the hind is the essence of life. ~ Aristool


  2. I trust Scarlet Johansson, send her on over…


  3. Reblogged this on

    • I ask for Scarlet Johansson and what do I get?

      Some ancient Roman General in shades…


      • Thank so much! LMFAO!
        I truly am whom I say, and I will relay the message should I come across Scarlet Johansson.

        • …maybe she has a thing for “Ancient Generals, in shades”? (and their descendants???)

        • Hahaha, thanks general,

          I would really appreciate that.


          • That’s a right funny exchange Rogue1 and General Brittius. Glad you dropped by to weigh in. Please do exchange and proffer your thoughts on the COTO Thought Conveyor belt of reasonable and critical thinking.

  4. Reblogged this on Reality Check and commented:
    When people ask me “Don’t you trust the government?” the response is always a exuberant “Hell NO!”

    We should NOT trust the government. The Founding Fathers put chains on the government in the first place because THEY didn’t trust an overarching government. They put in the Bill of Rights to PROTEST the people of this country from the very government created.

    Why people somehow believe those men created government to rule over the people, I don’t understand. It was the other way around.

    • Don’t you trust the government?


      • Hell no!

        • Thanks, just checking.

          I agree, don’t trust authority, they will run over you with old Studebakers and tell you it was a Porsche.

          Government is a racket.


          • hahaha. I thought I was pretty clear in that I didn’t trust them🙂

            • You’re clear as crystal American Patriot. Rogue1 is just kicking the tires as he is want to do. Stick around and “play ball” and you’re bound to find the “field of play” as challenging as “the field of dreams”. Yet, far more intellectually and spiritually (if you will) rewarding. You should hear the chatter in the dugout?!

              Characters WE ARE — yet after the SAME “TREASURE-OF-TRUTH” that be a bounty and worth the voyage to all who would seek with all their hearts. Get us thinkin and talkin ’bout the wind and the compass, yea, the wind in our sails, and the bright stars in the sky, and WE will be glad to explore the high seas with ye.

              • I’ll be headed for the “wind and compass” soon enough. I can find my way by the stars. I don’t need anyone to tell me where I can and can’t fish.

                • Here, Here! Mr. American Patriot. You’re on the right tack (track).

    • They requested and placed a warning label for the hijacked Reserve Note too. “In God We Trust”

      The Mafia Govt can either have it removed or attempt to take the identity of that God. I believe they are working both angles and Barry Soetoro has managed some real results. Even the GOP is throwing money at his feet. I particularly like that fat Nero vomitorium, Chris Christy.

  5. “God put dinosaur fossils there to test our faith”
    Here’s a goody from a wack job

    • Hahahaha…hilarious Veri.

      “It’s really no mystery at all.!.lolly lolly lolly holy moly poopin frolic”

      Good gawd y’all!!


  6. Two of the authors mentioned above, Bernays and Lippmann, became actively involved in the propaganda of what became “The War to End All Wars”, which was to “Make the World Safe for Democracy”.

    This was in the Administration of Woodrow Wilson, who was elected on a platform promising to keep America out of the European war that began during his term as president. Bernays was a specialist in the field of ‘Public Relations’, a term that he himself coined. He is known in his field as the ‘Father of Spin’. Initially his clientèle was commercial businesses. Lippmann was a ‘journalist’ of some great renown in his day, and is still held in much regard.

    Bernays, although his influence is tremendous, is virtually unknown.

    The history of the propaganda campaign against “The Hun” is deep and fraught with intrigue.

    But this is told many times over in other works. What I want to do with this essay is address the question; Why Democracy? Because the propaganda, being war propaganda against the Germans is one thing. The subtle campaign to promote the republic as a democracy is another, having deep political repercussions at a key moment in this nation’s history.

    Cui Bono?* Who benefits from a democracy as opposed to a republic? The first answer that may pop into your mind may be, ‘the Majority’? But is this actually the case when popular opinion is now being scientifically manipulated by ‘Public Relations’? It may be argued that those who benefit from such a system are in fact those who control the message of the propaganda. After all, it is a historical fact that the United States government is actually a constitutional republic.

    This subtle psychological shift in language gives power to the majority that is ‘ultra vires’, meaning, “beyond the law”; to the majority group in their minds, but in actual practice , this puts the purveyors of the propaganda beyond the law. More precisely , above the law. What law? The law of the republic, the Constitution which contains restraints on majority rule.

    As the practical effects of this situation are “politically”complex, and drenched with intrigue, it is much more simple to consider the effects on actual “government”; keeping in mind the distinctions that began this essay.


  7. What happens when the trust is not there? What happens when you can’t fake the stagings? What happens when you cannot find real terrorists because they just don’t exist or they are truly too smart to be set up? What happens when Iran fails to play the stooge? No set ups?

    You create the paroxysm of another Cold War and go back to an oldie but goody. You apply the Snowjobs and Afghanistan-Kurdistan. Not since 911 has a bomb dropped so big as Benghazi. All the Petraeus and Hastings interactions are huge. It shows that these clowns can’t help but shoot their mouths off. The ego of psychos.

    The NSA spying is so broad because all you need is a thousand potential security risks and six degrees of separation and you have an entire country armed with a PC to worry about. General Petraeus’ mother’s maid is the grandaughter of my secretary’s father great aunt.

    Why trust anyone who does not trust you?

  8. Rule One: Never trust anyone who sells humanitarianism.

    • Aye, righto Captain! WE should read and see who has aligned themselves with these symbols and the meme. Name em if you have the time.

  9. “Why trust anyone who does not trust you?” ~ Puddy the COTO Captain.

    Aye — you’ve nailed it there, mate!

    In fact, one must sit back and consider the meaning of the phrase, the depth, the breadth, the animation of it even.

    There is an “exchange” of “currency” with “Trust”. And all to often, the one doing the trusting is robbed blind. Tricked into a swindle of vast proportions. Perhaps, the exchange of “trust” results in murder?! Aye — WE see it everyday, and hear of it in far-off places where a machinery mates with a “system” which we feed with our trust and tax dollars…and innocent people die. For a lie. The reasons are not our own. Those reasons are owned by the individuals operating the machinery. Whether in suits, fatigues, or frilly women’s underwear, they send out the orders and play with their joy sticks, and the pieces on the board.

    Trust is blind. And blind are WE who trust without counting the cost.

    THANK YOU for posting on this thread. The response is unexpected. Yet, I wish it would “explode”, because this is a critical question, with our futures, and our children’s futures hanging in the balance of how we proceed…

  10. So, we’re getting somewhere here. How much do you trust people that do THIS to other people, then profit off it — more political power (capital), more money from kickbacks/deals & MIC “investments”, more shits & giggles because The Peoples “security” is promptly horse-traded ala “legislation” for “more security”…

    So you say you trust your eyes, your senses, your “experience”? You’ve gotta trust Something, rather than “somebody else” who knows the meaning and stands at the end of the trough of Cui Bono…
    Obama Military Coup Avoided? 4 Nuke Strikes & Armageddon Watch Over Syria

    There’s a photograph of the Syrian City Hom’s devastation following the “explosion”. See it on the link above, and ponder. I cannot post it in this comment. The story also reports massive casualties from the internationally banned GAS, Sarin.


    Wide shot of Atomic Bomb detonation

    First Soviet hydrogen bomb test (1953)

    This is ABC sNews report below is pretty choice. Get through it, and grok the Modern Day Propaganda. Righto, Obombya! Thanks, ABC sNews!

    • Those are not nuclear explosions in the Syrian City Homs.

      A nuclear explosion has a very specific profile. The most obvious of these is the pre-detonition flash, microseconds before the explosion. It is not subtle, it is unmistakable.

      This was an ammo dump. It may have been hit with a fuel-air weapon, but it was most certainly not nuclear.


  11. Past Wars on Indians Aren’t Even Past

    “Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”

    Exhibit 2 from a U.S. Army dispatch in 1864:

    “All Apache . . . large enough to bear arms who may be encountered in Arizona will be slain whenever met unless they give themselves up as prisoners.”

    Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech at Fort Carson with cavalry troops on horseback dressed in Indian-killing outfits behind him, as he praised troops in Iraq for living up to the legend of Kit Carson — a man who marched hundreds of human beings to a camp later used as a model for the Nazis’.
    Osama bin Laden was renamed by the U.S. military, Geronimo.

    Later, LaDuke summarizes: “From the more than a thousand nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific and the Nevada desert that started in the 1940s, obliterating atolls and spreading radioactive contamination throughout the ocean and across large areas in the American West, to the Vietnam War-era use of napalm and Agent Orange to defoliate and poison vast swaths of Vietnam, to the widespread use of depleted uranium and chemical weaponry since that time, the role of the U.S. military in contaminating the planet cannot be overstated.”
    . . . . . . . . . .

    There will be no justice in a stolen land.~ww


  12. The past is not over if it continues;
    therefore it is not the past.


  13. Those who fail to learn that they have been sold a turd lollipop for history aren’t going anywhere, but to the prefab future prepared by the perps who run this planet.


  14. Your comments are appreciated. I have not seen what a mini-nuke explosion looks like so count me as inexperienced. I do note however, that “someone” has no compunction creating devastation as shown, and as history has recorded. “War is Hell, played with rackets by those enjoy the game”.

    Ran across this —

    Also found this INCREDIBLE VIDEO linked to at of the Tsunami. Shock & Awe & Sadness for these people and this country…

    A commenter on the youtube notes this other-wordly “apparition” appear in this video. What do you think Rogue1? You’re a video expert:

    “dirt1581 8 hours ago

    Strange anomaly at 10:47. Looks like something climbs outta the water and onto the roof of the building in the lower left hand corner. Thought it was wave mist at first, but it changes directions. I can’t figure it out. STRANGE!”

  15. Well, you know the old saying. “Never give a sucker an even break”. For most, it sucks to be gullible.
    Found this little gem. The curtain is showing threadbare and starting to become tattered
    Russian politics
    In vision
    In motion
    Bulletin board
    Home / Op-Edge /
    Why Obama’s ‘red line’ in Syria has turned pink

    Patrick Henningsen is a writer, investigative journalist, and filmmaker and founder of the news website 21stCentury

    Get short URL Published time: May 14, 2013 16:07
    Syrian army soldiers take control of the village of Western Dumayna, some seven kilometers north of the rebel-held city of Qusayr on May 13, 2013.(AFP Photo / Joseph Eid)Syrian army soldiers take control of the village of Western Dumayna, some seven kilometers north of the rebel-held city of Qusayr on May 13, 2013.(AFP Photo / Joseph Eid)
    Share on tumblr
    Back in August 2012, things were a lot different in Washington DC and in the White House.

    The Obama administration was brandishing a confident swagger back then, heading into the elections against a hobbling GOP opponent, and Benghazi had yet to unfold in all of its ugliness.

    As Hillary Clinton was jetting around on the US State Department budget promoting her ‘Friends of Syria’ Middle East and European tours, and as the CIA were busy like bees working in the gray shadows of Benghazi, Washington and London were laying the groundwork for their new WMD case is Syria.

    As last summer drew to a close, President Barack Obama confidently announced he was drawing a ‘Red Line’ in Syria regarding the use of chemical weapons, meaning that any evidence of their use on either side of that conflict would lead to consequences, the obvious inference being automatic US military intervention.

    Fast forward to the present, and Washington appears to have been caught in the vortex of its own spin machine, with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney recently forced to ‘clarify’ the President’s infamous ‘Red Line’ decree with what can only be described as desperate political cover. Here Carney attempted to explain away the previous ultimatum and re-explain the President’s position:

    “What the president made clear is that it was a red line, and that it was unacceptable, and that it would change his calculus… What he never did – and it is simplistic to do so is to say that ‘if X happens, Y will happen’. He has never said what reaction he would take.”

    It’s hard to run a global empire and still pander to sensitive liberal concerns at home. The White House seems to be at pains coming to terms with what the Neoconservative Bush government already knew a decade ago – that there really is no good, safe way to do a military intervention. In the end, the façade of political spin cannot provide ethical cover for invading and toppling another sovereign state. You can’t finesse your way into it, you have to just go for it in full view – lie if you have to, fabricate evidence if need be, and be damned with the political fallout.

    This approach sort of worked in the past for the US and Britain with Iraq. Granted, the WMD case was knocked down eventually, but the lie was good enough to achieve lift off for an attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, and to a lesser degree the same system netted a result – with the help of a NATO smokescreen in Libya in 2011. The Obama Administration believed it would merely follow the already existing template for ‘humanitarian intervention’.

    The case
    Thus far we can point to three concerted attempts in 2013 by the US and its NATO allies to fabricate a case for chemical weapons in Syria. The first was a plan allegedly hatched by the British with the help of Qatar, through the use of a safe proxy to provide‘deniability’ – in this case, a UK defense contractor named Britam. The plan was simple and would have gone unnoticed if not for the inconvenience of it being prematurely exposed in the “Britam Leaks” from an anonymous hack back in January. The plan was to take old Gadaffi era chemical weapons stocks from Libya, transfer them out via Benghazi, and then plant them in Syria in order to blame the Assad government and thus open to door for western military intervention. The leaked emails also indicated clearly that Qatar would be paying a substantive sum for the operation to be coordinated through Britam. The UK’s Daily Mail had initially run the Britam Leaks story, but then suddenly pulled in down from their website within 24 hours of the story running.

    The second attempt to make a chemical weapons charge stick in Syria came in March, following reports of a deadly chlorine attack in the northern region of Aleppo, with both sides claiming the other was responsible. With Washington openly touting its agenda of regime change and the Obama ‘Red Line’ promising intervention in Syria if either side was found to use chemical weapons, the obvious motive would fall on in the rebel opposition camp. The Aleppo case that was quickly knocked down by a number of alternative media outlets including 21st Century Wire, who outlined a detailed and compelling case to illustrate how manufactured chlorine munitions were not used in Aleppo by the Syria government forces, but rather, makeshift chlorine ‘dirty bombs’ were assembled and likely detonated by a Saudi-linked Islamic rebel confab originating out of Iraq, who coincidentally, had a track record of exploding the same devices before in Iraq.

    Man is brought to a hospital in the Khan al-Assal region in the northern Aleppo province, as Syria’s government accused rebel forces of using chemical weapons for the first time. The opposition denied the claim, saying instead that government forces might have used banned weapons.(AFP Photo / HO-SANA)Man is brought to a hospital in the Khan al-Assal region in the northern Aleppo province, as Syria’s government accused rebel forces of using chemical weapons for the first time. The opposition denied the claim, saying instead that government forces might have used banned weapons.(AFP Photo / HO-SANA)

    The third attempt was led by British scientists who claimed they had found evidence of chemical weapons that were used in Syria in relation to two incidents in the Damascus area around March 19th. Critics rightly pointed out the inherent problems with their case, including the obvious chain of custody issue that meant the ‘evidence’ brought from Syria to a British lab could easily have been contaminated, or even fabricated in order to come to a conclusion which the British government wanted in order to get a green light for military intervention.

    The UN’s own investigation into chemical weapons claims, led by Carla Del Ponte, has concluded that that witness and victim testimonies clearly show that Western and Gulf-backed Syrian rebels used chemical weapons such as the nerve gas sarin. This is at odds with US Secretary of State John Kerry who claims to having seen himself “strong evidence” that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons. Turkey has also entered the fray this week, themselves claiming to have seen evidence of Assad’s use of chemical weapons.

    Seeking truth
    So who is telling the truth? From a common sense point of view, there is no motive, not does it make any real sense for the Syrian army to deploy chemical weapons in their fight, especially since the ‘Red Line’ has been laid down already. The rebels on the other hand have a motive, as does Washington, London and its NATO allies like Turkey – who have all been actively facilitating and aiding the rebel factions in Syria since the conflict began two years ago. They have a vested interest in any outcome which involves Western military intervention.

    Meanwhile, in Washington the confusion has already begun to set in with the true believers and war hawks insisting that the UN investigation has reached the wrong conclusions.

    In an attempt to control the political damage, Jay Carney swiftly moved to derail any UN findings that Syria’s rebels – and not President Bashar Assad’s forces, used chemical weapons. The White House Press Secretary attempts to re-spin the argument, trying in vain to hold Obama’s ‘Red Line’:

    “We find it incredible, not credible, that the opposition has used chemical weapons,” he said. “We think that any use of chemical weapons in Syria is almost certain to have been done by the Assad regime.”

    Already painted in a corner, President Obama is left to watch his ‘Red Line’ on chemical weapons – turn pink. It was a fatal mistake by President Obama to take such an illogical line so early on, but his statement was merely a reflection of Washington’s own schizophrenic and irrational foreign policy which has chosen to openly side with known al Qaeda Islamist guerrilla fighters in both Libya and in Syria.

    US President Barack Obama.(AFP Photo / Jim Watson)US President Barack Obama.(AFP Photo / Jim Watson)

    The ‘Red Line’ was a historical first, in the sense that this ultimatum was woven to insure a case for intervention either way and would mean that the US would be free to attack the Assad government militarily even if the foreign terrorist confab were the guilty party. It was an attempt to essentially widen the definition of a case for intervention, essentially rewriting the language of international law and replacing it with language more suitable for a global police force who could act out under the guise of ‘keeping the peace’. An extraordinary first in global diplomacy for sure, and a very difficult line to enforce in view of an international community cannot see the sense in such an insane equation put forth by a US President.

    Another reason for Obama’s fading ‘Pink Line’ in Syria is the Benghazi Hearings. Events of this week have finally begun to expose the inadequacy in US intelligence circles, as well as the institutional corruption that allows political gain to trump American lives in Washington. Rival factions within the US power structure, including those of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been implicated in both using and covering-up what happened in Benghazi.

    Much more damaging than this however, is that Benghazi links the White House directly to the Syrian proxy war. The hearings have already begun to open the lid on how the US covert ‘national-wrecking’ road show were facilitating both the transfer of both weapons and foreign al Qaeda fighters from Libya in order to help destabilize the sovereign nation of Syria. Ambassador Chris Stevens and the others who died when Washington was forced to pull the plug on their operation there, are now known to be mere expendable cannon fodder – a revelation that has disgusted many American voters who would have previously turned a blind eye to any similar covert and underhanded US operations overseas.

    On Wednesday Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul(R) weighed in on the Benghazi debacle, in a direct challenge to the President and Hillary Clinton, inferring that the Sept. 11, 2012 attack unfolded as a result of a secret arms trade, and rubbishing the previous government line put forward by Susan Rice and the US Intelligence community that the attack was a result of a YouTube film, “The Innocence of Muslims”. During a recent CNN interview Paul explains:

    “I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria,” he said.

    “Were they trying to obscure that there was an arms operation going on at the CIA annex?”

    Additional heat has been put on Washington with regards to Syria last week, as Israel’s unprovoked bombing raids inside Syria have appeared to have thrown a spanner into the works of Washington’s carefully woven public relations plan, with many critics believing that Israel’s raid on Damascus was sanctioned by Washington – in effect, using Israel to help soften-up the Assad forces for a sharper blow later on.

    Obama’s fading ‘pink line’ also means that both neo-conservatives and those in Washington who are guided by Israeli influence have been forced to declare their wider intentions in arguing that attacking Syria is important right now – because Iran would not take future US threats seriously unless Obama follows through with his ‘red line’. Such a political force majeure means that those once covert plans to take down both Syria and Iran have now been forced into the open.

    Russian-led diplomacy efforts have proposed an international conference on Syria, but the major powers may not be ready until the end of June, which will put more stress on the Western agenda and their foreign guerrilla fighter factions who are currently engaged in a dead lock in Syria. In light of the UN’s guilty chemical weapons findings against the rebel opposition, US desires to ship arms directly to those same rebel proxies – no matter how insistent Senator hawks like John McCain and Lindsey Graham might be – will no longer play so well in the public arena.

    On top of all this, Washington and London have been accused of steering Syria’s ‘government in exile’ who, along with western-supported opposition groups inside Syria have refused to engage in any dialogue with the government of Syria, an outsider engineered move which has completely smashed any diplomatic or political solution from the onset.

    The chemical weapons crowd in Washington and London are now on very shaky ground indeed.

  16. Unfortunately for the offensive coaches up in their padded box seats, the “crowd” has watched enough “football” games to grok the “playbook”. And a very great many are savvy to the formations on the gridiron, having seen the same ‘ol plays that worked once, maybe a few times, be called in from above again, expecting the same results.

    Well, nothing is new under the sun and under the spotlights.

    These sorties and trick plays are telegraphed, and the subs running on and off the field don’t change “the game”, as viewed from the stands.

    It is the blind hubris of the Owners & Coaches that leads them to think they’re fooling everyone on and off the field. These “games” are lethal to many caught up in them, and the collateral damage is unconscionable.

    Soon, nobody is going to buy any more tickets (funding), as the fans cease to root for the “home” team. Heads will roll, and firings will result, as perhaps the crowd finally gets sick of the blood lust of these national past times.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: