Friday, March 8, 2013

North Korea is off the hook



Lots of gang news breaking but I think it’s important to remember how outrageous North Korea is being and how that directly relates to public safety. All this talk about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq that they never had while North Korea is defiantly launching missiles testing and displaying it’s nuclear capabilities. That is outrageous; sanctions are urgent.

North Korea claims it will cancel the 1953 cease-fire that ended the Korean War. Any country that conducts nuclear tests to scare the world should be immediately placed under sanctions. Stop doing business with them and the countries that support their military arsenal. When North Korea threatens to return to the Korean War where a Communist dictatorship tries to invade and oppress a sovereign nation, then that’s time to enlist for military service to stop them. It’s that simple.

What we need to do is revoke this insane deal giving Communist China, who backed North Korea and North Vietnam in those wars ownership of Canada’ oil rights. We are funding their military expansion. North Korea cancels non-aggression pact with South Korea, Canada cancels China’s ownership of their oil. It’s that simple. North Korea has threatened to strike the U.S. with nuclear missiles. We cannot support that and must oppose it. All the refuse the cruise and anti nuclear weapons demonstrations are in vain if we don’t. Canada selling China nuclear reactors contributes to this international threat. Where do you think North Korea gets it from? This problem is our fault.

23 comments:

  1. "North Korea has threatened to strike the U.S. with nuclear missiles."

    True, although they can't technically do it right now, but...They might miss & hit us!

    ReplyDelete
  2. That’s the whole point. Here we have a wacko making violent nuclear threats. The only thing holding him back is the fact that it *appears* he doesn’t have the technology to follow up on that threat. So what do we do? We fund China and North Korea’s military expansion so they become capable of following through with that threat. Nevertheless, launching a rocket into space for a “communications” satellite would imply that they do have missiles that will reach the United States even if they pull a Gaza and start firing them indiscriminately.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You really want to read that book I sent you. Then this dynamic will be explained. No difference between what's happening here and how US banking interests financed the Russian revolution or Hitler's rise to power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s a good point. I only found out recently that the Rockefellers funded the Communist revolution in Russia. Somewhat shocking. That’s where the term Corporate Communism comes from.

      Delete
  4. Saddam had no nuclear weapons.
    Gaddafi had no nuclear weapons.

    I can see why Kim Jong-un would like nuclear weapons.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Little bit different here. This time North Korea is being the bully threatening public safety. The others were artificially created bogymen who had oil.

      Delete
    2. Saddam and Gaddafi did not have nukes and they are both dead. I think Kim Jong-un would like the nuclear deterrent to avoid a similar fate.

      Delete
    3. I understand you logic but do not agree it applies. Saddam and Gaddafi had oil which was stolen from them. Kim Jong-un is a dictator who has threatened to kill innocent civilians and has withdrawn a cease fire agreement that stopped their invasion and oppression of a sovereign nation. He is the bully in this case.

      Delete
  5. Off topic, but what ever happened to the firebombings found related to employees at The Justice Institute??? I haven't seen anything at all in the media and am thinking it is another BC judicial coverup??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question, I forgot all about that. I’ll have to look into it.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for reminding the Blog of these crucial events, and very under-rated story, that the VPD will tell the public nothing...

      Delete
  6. If a war doesn't benefit Israel or Big Business (ie. International Arms Dealers/Big Oil) or both then the USA isn't interested. They WILL become interested when N. Korea has a launch system capable of hitting US cities. Once Joe Rockefeller feels uneasy in his Hampton estate look out above....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree that the big business wars for oil, arms and drugs are a huge concern. Ironically enough the Rockefellers funded the North Korea kind of dictatorships that threaten public safety. That doesn’t change the fact that North Korea are bad guys in this unfolding drama.

      Delete
  7. AK: "...sanctions are urgent"

    Yes, but the history of sanctions, is that against ideological fanatics, they do not work and never have.

    Where is the successful case of UN sanctions changing the real world events?

    In South Africa, sanctions for decades against the Boers; just made them determined to build an in-house armaments industry; which brought in billions in foreign sales, and strengthened the Regime to the point where they built their OWN Atomic Bomb! They had no need now, of help from the outside world, in their military machine, the best Army on the whole continent of Africa. We lost any type of international hold over them, no dialogue, nothing.

    I support a strike out-of-the-Blue, an instant decapitation of the leadership.

    NK is a *Paper Tiger*, old Soviet arms, blitzkreig them!

    To leave the starving NK population with more of the same horrors, is to be cowardly and immoral; in the face of mass-murder, and international threats of nuclear war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The first example that came to mind was the one you cited, Apartheid. It was slow but eventually took it's toll. If Kim Jong Un wasn’t concerned about sanctions, he wouldn't be freaking out about them. It is also true that sanctions often result in the innocent civilians suffering but that's better than killing them. Any military push needs fuel to continue. Blitzkrieg was very effective but if you cut off Hitler’s supply of oil, that drive wouldn't have gone very far. In contrast, giving China our oil rights is simply wrong. I'm hoping to find a balance between the extremes. In one hand we are aiding and abetting the enemy. On the other hand we want to kill him. Instead of killing him and possibly other innocent civilians, I think it's our duty to stop helping his military expansion. One would hope that would be common sense. Sanctions may not be as effective as a military strike, but it is our moral duty to do something. Even if it's just a token resistance. Recording our dissent so to speak.

      Delete
  8. Kat: "If a war doesn't benefit Israel or Big Business... or both then the USA isn't interested."

    Why did you choose the Jews to attack, when there are over 200 countries in the world that most are NOT democracies, with the rule of law in the ME, name just ONE other free society there. You picked on the Jews very deliberately, as if they *run* the USA and all the world's media, all the old slanders you bring up.

    You deliberately made this off-base anti-Semitic remark, camouflaged just enough...to conceal what is really going on between your ears; and folks of Jewish ancestry like me can smell you miles away. Jews do NOT run the USA Department of State! Obama & Israel are not on good terms, BTW.

    We've heard all your lies for centuries. Yes, we are quite used to your open attacks on us.

    PS.: I don't support all the policies of any Jewish Government, automatically, ever.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Jews do NOT run the USA Department of State!"

    I can't begin to tell you how funny the notion that they do is. What makes it so funny is not just that it's wrong, but how completely it's wrong. If there is anyone pro-Israel there these days, they are keeping a very low profile indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. trailrunner78March 10, 2013 at 6:32 AM

    Thanks for the support...We usually never get any from anyone...dead silence is the rule...

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is enough here, that it is worth posting:

    "Court updates and recent rulings from B.C. to California."

    KBolan: "I thought I would update you on a few court cases."

    "Accused killer Jujhar Singh Khun-Khun appeared in Surrey Provincial Court Friday after being charged recently in the murder of Red Scorpion Jon Bacon and attempted murder of four others in his vehicle when it was sprayed with gunfire in August 2011. Khun-Khun’s next appearance is slated for March 21st in Kelowna, where co-accused Jason McBride and Michael Jones will also appear."

    " I expect, however, that this high-profile murder trial will end up at the Vancouver Law Courts give the security issues just like the murder case involving two full-patch Hells Angels and associates charged with killing Kelowna grandfather Dain Phillips. That case is set to go to trial in November 2013."

    "As for former Greeks’ lawyer William Mastop, who pleaded guilty to aiding a criminal organization, he will learn his sentence on March 28th after a five-day hearing last week."

    "Also at the Vancouver Law Courts, the sentencing hearing for Baljit (Bobby) Pabla and Neville Rankin, associates of the late Sukh Dhak, has been put over until June 14, 2013 – more than five years after they got caught making ecstasy in East Vancouver."

    "South of the border, former Kamloops resident John Krokos has had his trial delayed again. He was arrested in Mexico last May and charged with being the kingpin of a major international cocaine smuggling gang. New defendants have been added to the indictment so a pre-trial conference that was to occur in an LA courtroom later today has been delayed to May 13, 2013."

    http://tinyurl.com/bq623rs (RealScoop)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Trailrunner: Israel has every right to exist but they are far from perfect. Every race and religion has good and bad. Wanting to kill all the Jews is as absurd as wanting to kill all the Arabs or Muslims. You mock one extreme but you clearly are the other extreme. Jews kicking everyone else out of Israel is not scriptural. Historically, Israel did not conquer all of Palestine. Thus the commandment to vex not the stranger that sojourneth with thee. The Philistines were in Gaza. There was a reason God didn’t give all the land to them. Children need to learn to share.

    I had to delete your comment because referring to Mohamed as a murdering pedophile is false and hate filled. Would you not be offended if someone said the same thing about Christ? They have. That doesn’t make it true. Those kind of statement do not respect the religious freedom the Founding Fathers fought for. That’s the whole problem with the neo con. It violates and erodes the constitution while it sings it’s praises. It boldly condemns Communism but is no different.

    There are a lot of Jewish bankers that are corrupt. The Rockefellers for one. Mossad assisted Earl Brian and the CIA to embezzle $50 million from Nesbitt Thompson’s clients through investment fraud. Earl Brian was released from prison in 2002. When I was in Israel many years ago, I saw for myself how corrupt the banking industry was there. Like third world corrupt. That’s how bad it was. Larry Silverstien is another name that comes to mind when discussing corruption. He doubled the value of his investment through the 9/11 tragedy. That’s like getting paid twice the value of your car for being in a two car collision. It doesn’t happen.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If they said that about Christ, no, I wouldn't be offended. It also wouldn't be true. However if you want to see that it is in fact true that Mohammed was pedophile, all that is required is that you read the Koran, where it states that he married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage when she was 9. This example of the prophet, the "perfect man" is why young boys are regularly used for sexual pleasure in the Muslim world, it is not "haram". It is also why child marriage is a common practice in this part of the world.

    The same goes for murder. Do you think the modern day extremist's are making this up? They can (and do) justify it because....wait for it.....IT'S IN THE KORAN. It just amazes me how many people think that Islam is a religion of peace. It is not, and all that is required to know this is a little reading of their own book.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don’t think anyone considers Islam to be a peaceful religion. Lunatics rioting and murdering innocent civilians because someone made a religious cartoon is anything but peaceful. Nevertheless, this is not a forum to spread slander and hate. Mohamed marrying an under age girl has nothing to do with Muslims sodomizing young boys. Seemingly this is a problem in the security forces we are training in Afghanistan:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/03/05/who-cares-about-child-rape-and-sodomy-by-afghan-security-forces/

    Which once again makes me question the mission and doubt that the Taliban would be committing such atrocities. Yet we need to take a look at ourselves before we point the finger and use racial stereotypes. The US Army has had quite a problem with the same thing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8474937

    Private security guards at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul were pressured to participate in naked pool parties and perform sex acts to gain promotions or assignment to preferable shifts, according to one of 12 guards who have gone public with their complaints. "They were not gay but they knew what it took to get promoted.”

    http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm

    The Koran does not state that Mohamed married a nine year old girl. It is found in other writings according to Sunni tradition. The Bible doesn’t even list people’s ages when they were married. We know in the 1800’s it was common for a woman to get married as young as 14. Which to me sounds bizarre. Yet up until recently the age of consent here in Canada was 14. That’s why the dirty old perverts would come here from the States to marry or hook up with 14 year old girls.

    9 years old is pretty off the hook. I highly doubt we will ever find an authoritative record stating how old the girl really was. My point is that the constitution preserves religions freedom. Muslims have a right to be Muslims. This forum isn’t the place to slander Muslims and Arabs. If that is your quest then I suggest you tell the Iraqi’s you work for how you really feel about them. Knowing how you feel about them it sure sounds like you’re there to collect a pay cheque not to serve them. Back in the day it was called military service. It’s hard not to see that as mercenary when someone collects a six figure salary to protect dignitaries in a country they despise.

    Of course none of this has anything to do with North Korea using nuclear weapons so I shouldn’t have approved any of these unrelated posts.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AK: "We know in the 1800’s it was common for a woman to get married as young as 14. Which to me sounds bizarre."

    Yes, it's true, and younger....Elizabeth I of England's only known sexual thing was being caught in bed with an older guy @ 15.

    It's just the life expectancy, AK. Folks died at forty or fifty, maxed out. Many also in the 1500's, say, in their thirties.

    If you didn't marry very young (Yes, it looks strange to us, but), you'd have no kids, (many of whom would also die, along w/the mother) and Euro. civilization would never have happened, dying so young.

    ReplyDelete