Fact or Fiction-Concentration Camps in the USA
yahamita
Posts: 1,514
I knew all the rules, but the rules did not know me...GUARANTEED!
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Was it necessary even then?
Not all of the campers were POWs... There were plenty who were civillians who were living on US soil... The group that got the worst of it were the Japanese-Americans.
absolutely.
exactly what i thought of when i saw the thread title.
as to today..........
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
How difficult would it have been if more German or Italian-Americans were camped? How many soldiers would NOT have fought for the US during WW2 if this was the case? Something to think about.
To echo the sentiment of the orignal post in the thread, I hold firmly to the belief that just because this is America, it doesn't mean that there aren't large holding facilities here with some specific purpose-- be them disaster centers, POW camps, mass-influx immigrant camps (google Rex 84), etc... How much money is allocated in the "black budgets" of the Department of Defense, Homeland Security each year that is simply not even accounted for? BILLIONS. Where does it all go? Why not detention centers, among thousands of other things that we know little about?
Oh definitely. My point was that it wasn't only soldiers being detained, to the people who doubt that there could be such a thing as civillian camps in this country.
interesting thought, especially for me and my husband. both of us have fathers who fought in WW2...and i am a first generation italian-american, and my husband's family is of german/dutch ancestry....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I think she meant right now though. I think we're all aware of the shameful abuses we perpetrated against the Japanese in WWII, but she seems to think we're rounding people up and locking them up inside the country. Not that she has given anyone any idea who they're rounding up or why.
I'm not so sure people are all that aware about the camps in WWII-- there seems to be little question about anything this country did during WWII, probably because it was an era of such extreme nationalism here.
The point I was making is that this country is not incapable of having these camps, we've done it before.
She definitely is referring to these camps being in this country right now. First off, whatever happened to the old camps, did they get bulldozed? Turned into parks? If I were to completely subscribe to these things existing, the old WWII camps would be the among the first places I'd look to investigate.
I've yet to hear anyone actually occupying any of these camps, let alone rounded up, but that is part of what is disturbing about it. We have an immigration problem right now, yet you don't see any of the illegals being put into any camps (I don't want to see this, either), which was the intent of Rex 84-- so if they actually do exist, and aren't being used for the stated purpose (as awful as that would be), then what are they there for? Even if they don't exist, it should be noted that legislation regarding FEMA camps have been proposed in the House just a few months ago.
I haven't done enough research on these to know if they really exist or not. I'm just trying to tell everyone that "never could this happen in America" is the wrong way to look at it. Our elected officials have proven time and time again that they have little regard for anyone but themselves, and giant government departments like DHS and FEMA are practically a government onto themselves, and answer to no one, with billions of unaccounted-for dollars at their disposal.
My opinion: They do exist, but there's a lot less than 800 of them as I've heard before. For what purpose? I have no idea. It's pretty volatile out there right now, if WW3 were to happen, and were to hit our soil, they could be used as American refugee camps. Again, continuing with the theme of our government over-reacting and spending our money in absolutely outrageous and often times terrifying ways, I feel it is completely plausible that they do exist.
Oh definitely. My point was that it wasn't only soldiers being detained, to the people who doubt that there could be such a thing as civillian camps in this country.[/quote]
I was not disputing that fact....just stating that the only "required" camps in my opinion were the ones for POWs....not the internment camps that housed U.S. citizens.
Agreed
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
Why don't you take some vacation time and drive over to check it out for us?
http://www.stringsummit.com/
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
Surely if you're this worried that we're all going to be rounded up, tossed into concentration camps, and injected with poisoned vaccines, String Summit can wait?
I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just amused at how nuts people have become lately about these world ending conspiracies.
Opelika - Military compound either in or very near town.
Aliceville - WWII German POW camp - capacity 15,000
Ft. McClellan (Anniston) - Opposite side of town from Army Depot;
Maxwell AFB (Montgomery) - Civilian prison camp established under Operation Garden Plot, currently operating with support staff and small inmate population.
Talladega - Federal prison "satellite" camp.
Opelika...I don't know anything about
Aliceville does have a former WWII POW camp....15,000 capacity is a stretch however http://www.cityofaliceville.com/MuseumMain.htm
Ft. McClellan was closed....part of it is now in the Wildlife Refuge system, former gunnery range is still closed to the public due to the potential of unexploded ordinance. Parts of the fort may still be open. http://www.mcclellan.army.mil/
http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=43666
Maxwell AFB does a minimum security facility....some of the Watergate folks spent time there
Talladega-does have a federal prison facility of some type...some of the Cuban boat people from the 1980s were sent there
Wild isn't it? I don't know about you, but for me at some point within the last few years I just started noticing how UNBELIEVABLE shit is out there anymore. Every time I pick up a newspaper, turn on the radio, computer, or best of all the TV, I have at least one big "WHAT THE FUCK" moment every time. It could be me, I could be crazy-- my best days are certainly the ones I spend away from all forms of media. The degree that all of it fucks with you is absolutely incredible in itself.
It's all so strange that it barely seems real sometimes.
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
lol.
i like that Estulin rant on the subject, (1st video, here) fresh in my mind cause i just saw it.
"you know the biggest hypnotist in the world is that big bubble there, on the tube."
"most people put together their living rooms based on where they are going to put their television sets."
"what the powers ... behind the curtain have done, is that they've convinced us that what is there on that television screen, in that newspaper article, is reality."
and he is dead on. nothing even revolutionary in these thoughts, its just that via his focus on the specific (and almost completely unreported for over 50 years, w ZERO info on actual meeting itself) event of Bilderberg, he has uncovered specific information, and developed some "connections", as it were.
The problem with the TV reality isn't so much in the relatively small percentage of provably false information that is presented there, even worse, it is the other much larger portion of the content which simply fails to ask most of the important questions, or just deals with a different reality entirely (sci-fi, sitcoms, "reality" tv, etc.).
Such modes of control, behavior modification, social manipulation,
what the Bilderberg group is so good at -- INFLUENCING -- through subvert or "unnoticed" means, "in plane site".
Nothing much of a "conspiracy" about television.
EVERYone is in on it.
It's something you watch to either "veg out" to,
which EVERYone seemingly does, some to the tune of hours out of their day, consistently,
or you turn it on like a "responsible" citizen (like my dad, har har), to get your "news".
And why not?
Most of the information presented there is 100% fact. No need to make shit up to keep people entertained, there is all sorts of "news" to be commercialized and sold. The question is, if you are truly concerned about the wheels of your democracy, do you really feel that the establishment press is feeding you the "news" you really need to understand just how and what makes those wheels go round, and who is spinning them? Or are they only reporting on the bumps and obstacles in it's path, and how it can so often run off the road?
This is the ruling elites great genius. What they learned very well to do, and what a large amount of their professional training (schooling, and on the job schooling) involves is the ability to present a perfectly normal perfectly honest facade while their speech is engaged in massive obfuscation. This is akin to what Soledad O'Brien pulled off the other day when confronted about Bilderberg and CNNs lack of coverage thereof. Just the very "pleasant" (although i find her repugnant, and her response to be mildly diffident) tone of her voice intends and seems to dismiss his very highly charged accusation. There is a total diffusion of radical ideological conflict without seemingly addressing ANY of the substantive allegation that stemmed said conflict. She simply "doesn't know" if CNN will cover it. He can "certainly ask". He just fucking did, sure she isn't a director, but might she have any understanding of her news organizations political modi operandi?
Can no one in the media come up with one good reason that the very CEOs she seeming implies "you can ask" are actually in attendance at Bilderberg, but yet their entire organizations are seemingly deaf and dumb on the subject, and the CEOs themselves buttress the utmost discretion on the matter.
Anyhow, moving forward.
On the specific topic of that small percentage of provably false statements we do hear in the news, it most often is tied to direct and highly sensitive (or "conspiratorial") events. I'd like to mention a few of them, just to illustrate what we see on television (often highly obscured, distorted, misrepresented "facts"), what we COULD be seeing on television (accurate representations of fact), and the disturbing implications of why we DON'T see these things on television.
Okay, so some instances.
Peter Jennings on ABC News in a special about the John F. Kennedy assassination, says in refutation of Oliver Stone's "JFK" and of the theory in general, "back and to the left in no way indicates where a bullet came from".
(you can watch around 2:40 from JFK II: The Bush Connection, watch that whole clip, then go watch the whole video)
Now it only take a fucking idiot to know that which direction an impacted body reacts from a force is a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS FUNCTION OF PHYSICS. Certainly one could argue a point about autonomous nervous response or some such, but to refute a clear and violent instantaneous apparent reaction to a large force by a human torso with the phrase "back and to the left in no way indicated where a bullet came from" is to defy the senses of reality.
AND THAT IS THE POINT.
Your mind has been lead in to a schism.
For many it is an unrecoverable schism, after whence they simply "give up" and "accept it".
Whatever "it" may be.
Regarding Kennedy specifically, there is one more major piece of immediately recognizable "distortion" led by the media, and that is a case of manipulation by omission. We have seen countless refutations of conspiracy in the events of the JFK assassination in the 45+ years since. What was NEVER shown at the time, and rarely since on public television was two or three now compiled but previously seperate instances of Jack Ruby telling about a conspiracy to willing media correspondents (here we clearly see the divide between the average man beat reporter, and the calloused highly managed line-fed TV personalities, and back room executives who control the information that actually makes the airwaves).
Jack Ruby telling the American public that the true facts of the Kennedy assassination and his motives therein will never be made public because the people in very high positions have "too much to gain" (this is from a, for the most part very good though incomplete, History channel funded documentary that they aired once or twice then pulled from the air forever, The Men Who Killed Kennedy Parts 1-9)
One of two other short clips of Ruby talking about how LBJ was involved or responsible. This itself is only partialy true, LBJ was certainly in on it, but the highly compartmentalized nature of the crime is evident in Ruby's fragmented recount of who is "responsible".
Another great and quick example of manipulation by omission would be the 1999 unanimous civil trial verdict in which the family of Martin Luther King won suit against the local, state, and federal government for conspiracy in the wrongful death of her husband. Seemingly every member of the family was present for the December 9th press conference to announce the verdict.
MLK's wife, Coretta Scott King, summarized succinctly the jist of things in the very first line of the families first remarks: "There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief." Ask yourself, did YOU ever hear this reported in the news in December 1999 or EVER?
Why not?
Free press?
Here is one more great and shining example of both how self-serving our media has become, and how inherently untrustworthy so many of our "trusted sources" and authority figures are.
The topic of 9\11 is certainly very controversial, much like JFK's death was (and to a large extend still is) until the light of history managed to shed enough into the corners of darkness to make certain things clearer. Intending to prove nothing here with regards to a "conspiracy" or even to seriously question "what really happened" that day, the behavior of the media and authority figures regarding the many events of 9/11 is sometimes inexplainable by any honest measure.
To date the most concrete example of this clear and direct obfuscation of provable truth comes delivered in the very same manner i above talked about with reference to Soledad O'Brien. With calculated "authority" (and again mildly diffident, with visible annoyance at the question), the NIST representative in this small press conference on WTC 7 blatantly LIES OUTRIGHT about what was and was not observed on the ground at the WTC complex (and this guy is no moron, he is what i would call a mid-level manager for NIST).
Now note, i don't even want to question WHAT those molten pools implicate. It is very possible that this massive heat was provided by various highly particulized elemental components of the office rubble (like computer components and furniture fabric) that when combined under the realtively high pressure of the debris pile these various chemicals catalyzed high temperature reactions with the steel. That is certainly possible. But this man DENIED that this phenomenon even OCCURED. And the video link clearly shows DOZENS of eye witness accounts (including official government testimony!) of this having happened. He knows of NO ONE who saw molten metal and ground zero? He is either daft, or lying through is teeth. Why?
That brings me to my final example,
also on the subject of 9/11, and also highly controversial,
of the not-so-new charges of thermite (and now "nano-thermite") being used in the WTC complex.
Again, i don't want you to too-seriously consider which "side" here is more or less full-of-shit, just focus on the fact that the media ONLY gives you one side. Consistently.
Here is now ever so controversial scientist, Associate Proffessor Niels H. Harrit, of the Department of Chemistry for Copenhagen University (verify here, his picture just above the Head of "the Nano-Science center" itself), expert in nano-science and explosives research, announcing his peer-reviewed and re-worked (to incorporate the peer-review comments) scientific paper that he claims conclusively proves nano-thermite was used to melt and bring down the World Trade Center complex, and that they actually have found un-reacted therimite in the WTC debris.
Niels H. Harrit on Danish TV2 announcing nano-thermite in WTC debris.
Now obviously, this WAS on Dutch TV, which illustrates there is still some modicum of journalistic integrity left in the realm. But ON THE WHOLE, this story has been buried and ignored by the media at large.
WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD ABOUT THIS? (good short blog here)
Is the magnitude of the "news" in question? Certainly not.
Is the validity of the claim in question? Yeah i bet it is, but based on what?
Popular opinon, as shaped by the very same media which refused to give this type of information a fair chance in the court of public opinion? Absolutely.
Is the integrity of Niels H Harrit being called in to question?
By whom? I would like to know. He still seems to sit in his university position.
Surely the University of Copenhagen would like to disavow this "crazyness" from their professor?
Wouldn't the mass media at least like to discredit or drag this guy through the mud?
Or maybe they can't? Or they just can't be bothered? With "nuts like him", i mean.
What do YOU think?
You think he is CRAZY, don't you?
You think WE are crazy.
I get it.
But why.
Based on what.
On who's carefully scripted presentation of reality are you going off of?
and that brings us very quickly back to concentration camps, to close.
"Continuity of Goverment" is nothing new, it goes back to Kennedy at least. FEMA is nothing new. Rex 84 is nothing new.
The fact that the government WILL NOT TELL ITS ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ABOUT THESE PLANS IS NOTHING NEW.
Dem. Rep. Jack Brooks being denied the ability to discuss "continuity of government" in open hearing around the time of the North trials over Iran-Contral. It's "classified", of course. [1:00 mark is money shot]
And much more recently, here is Dem. Rep Peter DeFazio talking about "W. Bush's" (not really just Bush's plans but the MIC at large) plans for "Continuity of Government", and how THE ENTIRE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS WAS DENIED ACCESS TO THOSE PLANS ... again, "classified", of course.
Given that our very own government tells us that our very own elected government representatives are not trustworthy with the very plans for continuing on with the very fabric of our alleged Republic in the event of a catastrophe, even the ones specifically appointed by official committee to represent homeland security itself aren't trusted, why would such things as "concentration camps" be considered "crazy"? We have proof the government isn't telling us shit about these COG programs. We have very good reason to believe that the classified nature of those programs (and the public details we have gotten about certain Bush executive orders concerning COG CONFIRMS THIS suspicion) is reason enough to implicate that the nature of these programs IS ITSELF UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why do we need programs that specifically violate the constitution and specifically iterated "constitutional rights" (rights granted by god, and not held to the discriminant will of men) in order to "PROTECT" said rights? It is incongruous. Citizen detention facilities are real, their intial authorized purpose under Rex84 for "illegal aliens" in case of a massive border crisis\influx with mexico.
2:30am. end of rant.
If I opened it now would you not understand?