Debunked: "Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism"

[muttkat]

Belfrey is one of those guys who's too arrogant to go look up anything or wants everything done for him.I sent him loads of info & sites he doesn't want to look it up and instead continues to make assumptions, guessing over & over about something he's not familiar with. He has been wanting to know if it states the term Sustainable Development in our govt, if that applies to Agenda 21? yes. The UN came out with this buzzword phrase back in the 70's or 80's. Hippie maybe you can check out your external sources on that.

Jews: Back in the Bush administration various Jews some with dual nationalities were in high govt positions & all they were interested were was for Americans to fight in Iraq, & repeatedly blocked FBI investigations pre 911 as in reference to AlQaeda. 911 could of been prevented. The attack on Iraq was because Iraq was a threat to Israel & who ever is a threat to Israel, Israel sics the US on them. I have found in the last 6 months that Israel is not our ally. Israel is for Israel. They have attacked American soldiers & have stabbed us in the back numerous times & have received way too much American taxpayer money.

Hey Belfrey about SD & our govt. Bill did an EOrder back in the 90's. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/index.php

The United States Department of Commerce is the Cabinet department of the United States government concerned with promoting economic growth. The mission of the department is to "promote job creation and improved living standards for all Americans by creating an infrastructure that promotes economic growth, technological competitiveness, and SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT."

Charming? You betcha. i get told that quite often. The Sweden comment? One of those moments, I was mad at the Muslims, now I'm not so much. Sweden was one of those nations that was tranquil. Now that the Muslims have moved in, they have been rioting, burning whole city blocks, raping and killing Swedes & have been misbehaving badly, so send them back to the ME if its so bad for them in Sweden.

Speaking of Muslims, I president to you our Prez: http://www.westernjournalism.com/sno...p-obamas-ring/

I do think its a cool ring though.

[Belfrey]

Belfrey is one of those guys who's too arrogant to go look up anything or wants everything done for him.I sent him loads of info & sites he doesn't want to look it up and instead continues to make assumptions, guessing over & over about something he's not familiar with. He has been wanting to know if it states the term Sustainable Development in our govt, if that applies to Agenda 21? yes. The UN came out with this buzzword phrase back in the 70's or 80's. Hippie maybe you can check out your external sources on that.

And you're the type of person who, in lieu of actually stating what the evidence for his claims is, posts a lot of links to websites and videos which make the same claim (also without evidence). The term "sustainable development" may have been popularized by a UN event, but it does not follow that any and all programs that use the phrase henceforth and forever are UN programs, nor that they have anything at all to do with Agenda 21. Non sequitur, it does not logically follow.

Hey Belfrey about SD & our govt. Bill did an EOrder back in the 90's. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/index.php

What does "Bill did an EOrder" mean, and how does the website support your point? That page right now shows graphs about past winning and losing elections.

[muttkat]

@ Belfrey The UN has been given control of many of our national parks & national monuements in which US taxpayers foot the bill.

[Mick]

@ Belfrey The UN has been given control of many of our national parks & national monuements in which US taxpayers foot the bill.

Please provide some ACTUAL evidence for this.

Posting claims without evidence is going to result in you getting banned.

[muttkat]

There is nothing wrong with conservation, preventing deforestation, controlling population growth but if the UN had their way, we would be living like serfs tending land & which you would not own & having little control over your life and how you live it.
This is UNSUSTAINABLE

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/arti...3F_2003022414/

[Belfrey]

There is nothing wrong with conservation, preventing deforestation, controlling population growth but if the UN had their way, we would be living like serfs tending land & which you would not own & having little control over your life and how you live it.
This is UNSUSTAINABLE
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/arti...3F_2003022414/

So what? [Note: this question referred to a list from that link that was edited out, listing topics discussed in the Global Biodiversity Assessment]

How about answering some of the questions that have been asked of you?

[muttkat]

So with every comment I make it is the boards policy that I must put down a site for reference?

[muttkat]

Could you remind Belfrey of what he said at 4;09 about what you just told me? thank you

[Mick]

So with every comment I make it is the boards policy that I must put down a site for reference?

Use common sense. Don't cut and paste large chunks of other sites . It you do past things then supply a link to the original and surround them with [EX] tags.

Provide commentary on what you think the quote means.

If you make a claim, then provide evidence to back up the claim.

Answer questions that are asked of you.

[Mick]

Could you remind Belfrey of what he said at 4;09 about what you just told me? thank you

Post times vary by the viewer's time zone. Use the post number on the right instead. You can copy the link.

[Belfrey]

Could you remind Belfrey of what he said at 4;09 about what you just told me? thank you

Please feel free to ask me to back up any assertion I make (but be specific). If you're referring to post 46 (the only *:09 post I've made here), I didn't make any claims there.

[muttkat]

I put down what is unsustainable & the UN document to back it up. The thing is there are 1000's of pages and there are many documents to read on behalf of the UN so everything is not in the UN document Agenda 21. I've read thru the pages a couple of years ago & it took months. It's easier to read from other articles and then cross referencing that to UN documents. thanks Heres a video about Sustainable Development with a person who is knowledgable about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHWsdimVO4

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

[muttkat]

OK thanks

[muttkat]

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/...nal_Parks.html

[Belfrey]

I put down what is unsustainable & the UN document to back it up. The thing is there are 1000's of pages and there are many documents to read on behalf of the UN so everything is not in the UN document Agenda 21. I've read thru the pages a couple of years ago & it took months. It's easier to read from other articles and then cross referencing that to UN documents. thanks Heres a video about Sustainable Development with a person who is knowledgable about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHWsdimVO4

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

Can you state any element of evidence that those sources bring up?

[Belfrey]

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/...nal_Parks.html

From that site:

Content from external source:


Across this great land, our national parks, wildlands, forests, and lakes are being turned over to UN control. Joseph Urso, Jr., a friend of the ministry who hails from Knoxville, Tennessee, recently sent me a photograph of the entrance sign of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Notice the telling phrase on the sign: "AN INTERNATIONAL BIOSPHERE RESERVE."


This means that, under the United Nations Biodiversity Treaty, a precious resource_owned by American citizens for over 200 years_has been turned over to the UN's bureaucrats for control. Yes, you and I will continue to pay taxes for the maintenance and upkeep of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. But we no longer own it. Now, the UN has ultimate jurisdiction.

From here:

Content from external source:

Individual Biosphere Reserves remain under the jurisdiction of the countries in which they are situated.

Edit: Also from UNESCO:

Content from external source:

After their designation, biosphere reserves remain under national sovereign jurisdiction, yet they share their experience and ideas nationally, regionally and internationally within the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR).

[muttkat]

http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House...ive-order.html

Your comment: The term "sustainable development" may have been popularized by a UN event, but it does not follow that any and all programs that use the phrase henceforth and forever are UN programs, nor that they have anything at all to do with Agenda 21.

Can you tell me where that is documented at? Your reference and not your opinion?

[muttkat]

Be a little more specific. You're being a little vague.

[muttkat]

Being I just posted that did you already watch that video?

[Belfrey]

http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House...ive-order.html

Your comment: The term "sustainable development" may have been popularized by a UN event, but it does not follow that any and all programs that use the phrase henceforth and forever are UN programs, nor that they have anything at all to do with Agenda 21.

Can you tell me where that is documented at? Your reference and not your opinion?

I misspoke - it was a UN commission report, not an event. From A Brief History of Sustainable Development:

Content from external source:

In 1987, the UN-sponsored Brundtland Commission released Our Common Future, a report that captured widespread concerns about the environment and poverty in many parts of the world.


The Brundtland report said that economic development cannot stop, but it must change course to fit within the planet's ecological limits. It also popularized the term sustainable development, which it defined as development that meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

[Belfrey]

Being I just posted that did you already watch that video?

I started to watch that (and read the website) when you posted it on YouTube. What I saw was that she was doing the same thing you are: making claims. I'm interested in the evidence. Can you state in your own words one line of evidence to support the claims?

[Belfrey]

Be a little more specific. You're being a little vague.

I suggest that you quote whom you're talking to, there is no way to know here who you mean.

[muttkat]

I posted that at 5:44 The democrats against agenda 21....video
and u posted at 5:59 Can you state any element of evidence that those sources bring up?

Being the video is about an hour long can you tell me how you managed to watch the whole video in 5 minutes & managed to ask me that question? I would kindly like to have a word with you on youtube.

Oh you stated on YT that you had written more documents, publications than Brooks Agnew & when I asked you how many and which ones I never got any reply cause you're probably lying. Answer that.

[muttkat]

"You cant teach a pig to sing. Besides being a waste of your time it aggravates the pig." ---Heinlein

[Mick]

http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House...ive-order.html

Your comment: The term "sustainable development" may have been popularized by a UN event, but it does not follow that any and all programs that use the phrase henceforth and forever are UN programs, nor that they have anything at all to do with Agenda 21.

Can you tell me where that is documented at? Your reference and not your opinion?

When replying to someone, click on the "Reply with Quote" button, and then edit the quote down to the bit you want to quote, otherwise it gets very confusing.

Do you really think that ALL programs that use the term "sustainable development" are UN programs? I would have though that saying that they are not was simply point out the obvious.

[Mick]

"You cant teach a pig to sing. Besides being a waste of your time it aggravates the pig." ---Heinlein

And I'm going to give you a 24 hour ban, just a time-out so you consider what your really want to achieve here. I hope you honestly want to raise the level of shared understanding, and not simply promote tea-party talking points.

[Belfrey]

I posted that at 5:44 The democrats against agenda 21....video
and u posted at 5:59 Can you state any element of evidence that those sources bring up?

Being the video is about an hour long can you tell me how you managed to watch the whole video in 5 minutes & managed to ask me that question?

As I said, I did not watch the whole video. I watched enough to see that she was just making claims, not presenting evidence. I've sat through 1.5-hour conspiracy videos before because someone said "that's where you'll find the evidence" (for chemtrails, etc.), only to be disappointed. That's why I'm asking you to just mention one line of evidence in your own words.

]I would kindly like to have a word with you on youtube.

(This turned out to be a profanity-laden insult post.)

Oh you stated on YT that you had written more documents, publications than Brooks Agnew & when I asked you how many and which ones I never got any reply cause you're probably lying. Answer that.

Since I do have a professional reputation to protect, I don't go around giving out my personal info in my discussions regarding conspiracy theories. As I tried to tell you, I wasn't trying to brag, in fact the point of my comment was that while I haven't published all that much, I still showed up in a literature search. Brooks Agnew does not - which is odd, considering how accomplished he is according to his biographies. You mentioned on YT that you'd found one article by him, on "radiotomography oil exploration" - can you give a link to it on the Brooks Agnew thread?

[MikeC]

There is nothing wrong with conservation, preventing deforestation, controlling population growth but if the UN had their way, we would be living like serfs tending land & which you would not own & having little control over your life and how you live it.
This is UNSUSTAINABLE

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/arti...3F_2003022414/

That article is just a list of paraphrased sugestions of the page contents - for example 337 is given as "Ski runs" - but the attached page 337 does not mention ski runs at all.

Page 350 supposedly says "Grazing of Livestock: cows, sheep, goats, horses " - but in fact the problems listed there are limited to introducing large animals to arid and semi-arid areas, and 350-351 - "Disturbance of the Soil Surface - Page 350 Large hoofed animals, compaction of soil, reducing filtration " again only appleis to INTRODUCTION of those animals to areas that have no history of them being present.

351 fencing also is mentioned only in relation to introduction to arid and semi-arid areas.

728 - Agriculture and "Modern Farm Production Systems " BZZZT - it says monocrops reduce biodiversity - if you think that is incorrect then I'd love to hear your reasoning. It also says that pesticide use reduces biodiversity - ditto for your reasoning on why that is incorrect please?? But neither of those are the totality of "agiculture" as is being presented as "unsustainable", and htey are also not the totality of "Modern Farm Production Systems".

the "modetrn farming systems" that do get a general ticking off are those devoted to "profit" - which is certainly most, but not all such systems. Anf again - the problem is their effect on is biodiversity, NOT unsustainability.

728 also mentions chemical fertilisers - again it does NOT say they are unsustainable - it says they have a role in reducing biodiversity. how is this wrong?

and still on 728 - buildings - I do not see any mention of buildings on that page as being unsustainable OR related to biodiversity. There is mention of the different amounts of energy available and the nature of some buildings that were the predominant sources in older times - windmills, hearths, etc. - but nothing more.

Page 730 supposedly condemns Industrial Activities, Human-Made caves of brick and mortar, concrete and steel (ie modern urbanisation), Paved and Tarred roads, highways, rails (page 351), Railroads and Floor and Wall Tiles

What it actually mention is WASTE from industrial activities - especially the more toxic wastes, pollution (discharges into the atmosphere are particularly mentioned), the unequal distribution of energy and resource consumption (eg the developed world using 90% of available non-renewable resources).

cities are noted as CHANGING biodiversity - they have their own ecosystems that are different from those that existed in teh same area before the cities were built.

Rail and transport are noted as enabling resource exploitation from far away, with impacts on biodiversity. The reference back to page 351 is in association with those changes made to arid and semi-arid areas.

Tiles are not mentioned at all - although the requirements for making bricks are - fuel and clay being exploited. Perhaps the comment about pink granite being mined and used for building frontages is what is meant here??

that's enough for me to show the article is dishonest.

This is the sort of disinfo that results in you being mocked - either because you just read the headlines and did not bother to try to understand the content, or if you did read the content then you are being dishonest when you represent what it contains.

[MikeC]

Speaking of Muslims, I president to you our Prez: http://www.westernjournalism.com/sno...p-obamas-ring/

Even Above Top Secret managed to figure out the story that the ring says anything at all in Arabic is a deliberate fabrication

[Belfrey]

Do you really think that ALL programs that use the term "sustainable development" are UN programs? I would have though that saying that they are not was simply point out the obvious.

I apparently misunderstood; I thought he was asking for support for my statement about how the term was popularized, when really he was asking for support for my statement that the above does not logically follow. Muttkat, if you return, please explain to me the logic that allows one to make that conclusion. I don't see how it follows.

[muttkat]

I'm sorry it was 15 minutes not 5 minutes.

[muttkat]

At the bottom of this page are some sites which I don't know how to copy and paste. Just check them out is all I can say.

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/arti...3F_2003022414/

I was thinking they were making examples out of different types of landscapes but the overall agenda is virtually for the whole earth.

Here is a map on how they wish for the US to be organized. When you look (full screen) at the map where humans are suppose to live those would be the little areas with little black dots. To me on this map looks like fencing covers alot more than the arid areas and one of the areas where theres to be no humans use basically is where I live. I have issues with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43u93...eature=related

This is how the Sierra Club would like humans to live like:

http://www.demographia.com/db-sierraclub500.htm

[muttkat]

Check out this sites quotes:

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-wa...ge-quotes.html

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."



Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire: 1990 quote: "More than any other time in history, the 1990s will be a turning point for human civilization."


Quote by Robert Stavins, the head of Harvard’s Environmental Economics program: "It’s unlikely that the U.S. is going to take serious action on climate change until there are observable, dramatic events, almost catastrophic in nature, that drive public opinion and drive the political process in that direction."

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Quote by Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA: "Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible."
Quote by Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society: "We REJECT the idea of PRIVATE PROPERTY."

[Mick]

And what do you think about all this? How is it affecting your life?

[muttkat]

Besides it sucks, the UN are a bunch of hypocrites. Besides attacking property rights, farmers & ranchers are being hit hard by the EPA. Hay is a pollutant ..Sustainable Devgelopment.....& Evil Giant Food Corporations are contaminating non GMO crops & its being stated that these crops are killing bees, frogs, & other good wildlife. Organic farms and even Gibson Guitars got raided. They don't come out say we want to rewild over 50% of America & we want to throw you out of the rural areas into stack em pack em cities smart growth areas, they use the environment as an excuse. Protect large areas but not over 50%. The federal govt already owns around 33% of the land & wants more. Also about 8% of the land is developed in the US. NATO & US has dropped DU weapons in the Middle East & during the Serbian/___ war. These DU weapons cause severe deformities in babies,American & Arabs... 2 headed babies& such & the DU effects are 4.5 billion years. How is affecting the wildlife? I haven't found any info on that. What needs to be addressed is the overpopulation in 3rd world countries, chemicals & pesticides poisoning the land, and places like the Amazon....the deforestation needs to be slowed down. For right now these nature, bike trails agendas which go by different names & organizations probably in every county will be spreading like a slow cancer attacking rural properties, farmers & ranchers. Many Americans aren't aware of this & don't know whats going to hit them. I've typed up a flyer that I'm going to pass around in some of the neighborhoods. Being these programs go by so many different names, the easiest way to search for those agendas are thru their buzzwords.

[Mick]

muttkat, this is not the place to dump links and copies of other web sites. Nor is it the place to spew ten different conspiracy theories in one paragraph. Please stop doing that.

If you think there's evidence of something going on, then discuss it one piece at a time.

So pick one piece of evidence you'd like to discuss. And stick with it until you are sure people understand why it is good evidence.

This is a debunking site. We want to check the evidence, one bit a time, and remove the bunk.

[muttkat]

I didn't copy and paste the part at the bottom about the numbers of the pages not matching.

[muttkat]

When replying to someone, click on the "Reply with Quote" button, and then edit the quote down to the bit you want to quote, otherwise it gets very confusing.

Do you really think that ALL programs that use the term "sustainable development" are UN programs? I would have though that saying that they are not was simply point out the obvious.

Basically yes as far as govt's reference to it. I'm checking to see if I'm doing the right way.

[Belfrey]

Do you really think that ALL programs that use the term "sustainable development" are UN programs?

Basically yes as far as govt's reference to it.

What makes you think that?

[muttkat]

I think it's quite clear. On his site all the stories are about how the elite are about to take over the world and kill billions of people. Then he sells survivalist stuff. It's a conflict of interest.

And that without even identifying the vast amount of nonsense he spits out, like FEMA coffins, and chemtrails.

Zbbigniew who headed The Trialateral commission 1970 -1973 states something similar in 1970 book "Between Two Ages

The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
So do you think what Zbigniew is saying is nonsense too?

As one specialist noted, 'By the year 2018,technology will make available to the leaders of the major nations, a variety of techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised. One nation may attack a competitor covertly by bacteriological means, thoroughly weakening the population (though with a minimum of fatalities) before taking over with its own armed forces. Alternatively, techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm....(Gordon J. F. MacDonald, "Space," in Toward the year 2018, p.34). "
About the bacterial warfare isn't that what the Conspiracy Theorists are accusing of that being done? Funny, thats what I've been thinking thats what the govt has been doing to push into the GW scam, being the govt seems to be tearing down this nation since 911 especially.

The FEMA coffins are probably still sitting there. Somewhere I read that the coffins were being stored for funeral homes.

On AJ conflict of interest......wouldn't that be the same thing Al Gore is doing except at a much larger scale as far as buying into his carbon credits business & trying to push legislation in which if Al was to succeed it would make him the world's 1st Carbon billionaire?




http://www.bariumblues.com/brzezinski.htm