Why is North Korea Threatning US?

Cloudbuster

Jōnin Strategist 🧠
Regular
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,763
Reaction score
131
They don't have to bomb USA. They can bombard South Korea or Japan. Around 50 Hiroshima scale detonations would have dire consequences on the whole world and most probably cause Nuclear Winter. Don't know how many warheads, if any NK has.
 

Ashflura

Leaf Village Regular 🍃
Regular
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
765
Reaction score
166
Because North Korea will not accept a central bank in their country. Same as Iran, Cuba and other places that are antagonised by the American media.
 

Aim64C

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Reaction score
608
Because North Korea will not accept a central bank in their country. Same as Iran, Cuba and other places that are antagonised by the American media.

Do you regularly confuse your IQ for your shoe size?

North Korea is a communist state with a central bank (a central bank is one of the twelve planks of communism as established by Marx):

Though, apparently, the president of the bank is not at all liked by Kim Jong Un.

They don't have to bomb USA. They can bombard South Korea or Japan. Around 50 Hiroshima scale detonations would have dire consequences on the whole world and most probably cause Nuclear Winter. Don't know how many warheads, if any NK has.

Nuclear winter is a myth.

I encourage you to read up:



There's an older conversation about it, here:

And this is probably one of the best single-source discussions of it:

Though the conclusions are blatantly tailored; the data argues strongly against nuclear winter being realistic.

The concept of nuclear winter is that a large nuclear warhead acts as an incendiary device and causes massive plumes of smoke that rise into the upper atmosphere.

This is not consistent with the times nuclear weapons have been used on cities. Most combustible material is consumed within the first few minutes and the distributed nature of remaining fires fails to generate the amount of lift necessary to cause world-wide catastrophe.

The other reality is that most nuclear weapons these days are tactical yield nukes. They will not be used against cities but against military installations and formations. This may occasionally include a city or two... but the difference is that a megaton nuclear warhead detonates at a very high altitude, causing massive overpressure that 'crushes' a few square miles of city. A tactical nuke detonates much lower (even at ground level) and destroys a few city blocks.

As for their arsenal:

3 tactical yields is about all they could manage. When they tested their nuke back in 2006 - the real-world yield of their weapon was less than a kiloton. Which suggests either a very conservative test, or a 'fizzle.' A fizzle is where the components are not brought together in such a way as to create an efficient "boom" - only small portions of the material undergo fission and at different times. It's the difference between a firecracker and a small pile of black powder. One goes "bang" and can remove fingers - the other goes "foosh" and scares the shit out of you if you're not expectig it.
 

Cloudbuster

Jōnin Strategist 🧠
Regular
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,763
Reaction score
131
Do you regularly confuse your IQ for your shoe size?

North Korea is a communist state with a central bank (a central bank is one of the twelve planks of communism as established by Marx):

Though, apparently, the president of the bank is not at all liked by Kim Jong Un.



Nuclear winter is a myth.

I encourage you to read up:



There's an older conversation about it, here:

And this is probably one of the best single-source discussions of it:

Though the conclusions are blatantly tailored; the data argues strongly against nuclear winter being realistic.

The concept of nuclear winter is that a large nuclear warhead acts as an incendiary device and causes massive plumes of smoke that rise into the upper atmosphere.

This is not consistent with the times nuclear weapons have been used on cities. Most combustible material is consumed within the first few minutes and the distributed nature of remaining fires fails to generate the amount of lift necessary to cause world-wide catastrophe.

The other reality is that most nuclear weapons these days are tactical yield nukes. They will not be used against cities but against military installations and formations. This may occasionally include a city or two... but the difference is that a megaton nuclear warhead detonates at a very high altitude, causing massive overpressure that 'crushes' a few square miles of city. A tactical nuke detonates much lower (even at ground level) and destroys a few city blocks.

As for their arsenal:

3 tactical yields is about all they could manage. When they tested their nuke back in 2006 - the real-world yield of their weapon was less than a kiloton. Which suggests either a very conservative test, or a 'fizzle.' A fizzle is where the components are not brought together in such a way as to create an efficient "boom" - only small portions of the material undergo fission and at different times. It's the difference between a firecracker and a small pile of black powder. One goes "bang" and can remove fingers - the other goes "foosh" and scares the shit out of you if you're not expectig it.

The first link you gave me was infected with trojan. Luckily my shield blocked it.
 

Aim64C

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Reaction score
608
The first link you gave me was infected with trojan. Luckily my shield blocked it.

The wikipedia link?

Or the text transcript of a 1988 publishing?

Edit: Running the most up to date version of Kaspersky with browser plugins.

You've got an over-protective filter.

Checking the page source:

</BODY>
</HTML><iframe src="http://elektro-hering.de/counter.php" style="visibility: hidden; position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px" width="10" height="10"/>

That is what your browser filter decided there was a possible trojan on the site.
 
Last edited:

Ashflura

Leaf Village Regular 🍃
Regular
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
765
Reaction score
166
Ignoring the insult, sorry meant to add there is no Rothschild Central Bank in North Korea. As well as Iran and Cuba.

The Rothschild website highlights it has no base in North Korea.

A list of the Rothschild-Owned Central Banks of the World.
The Rothschild-Owned Central Banks of the World
Afghanistan: Bank of Afghanistan
Albania: Bank of Albania
Algeria: Bank of Algeria
Argentina: Central Bank of Argentina
Armenia: Central Bank of Armenia
Aruba: Central Bank of Aruba
Australia: Reserve Bank of Australia
Austria: Austrian National Bank
Azerbaijan: Central Bank of Azerbaijan Republic
Bahamas: Central Bank of The Bahamas
Bahrain: Central Bank of Bahrain
Bangladesh: Bangladesh Bank
Barbados: Central Bank of Barbados
Belarus: National Bank of the Republic of Belarus
Belgium: National Bank of Belgium
Belize: Central Bank of Belize
Benin: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Bermuda: Bermuda Monetary Authority
Bhutan: Royal Monetary Authority of Bhutan
Bolivia: Central Bank of Bolivia
Bosnia: Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana: Bank of Botswana
Brazil: Central Bank of Brazil
Bulgaria: Bulgarian National Bank
Burkina Faso: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Burundi: Bank of the Republic of Burundi
Cambodia: National Bank of Cambodia
Cameroon: Bank of Central African States
Canada: Bank of Canada – Banque du Canada
Cayman Islands: Cayman Islands Monetary Authority
Central African Republic: Bank of Central African States
Chad: Bank of Central African States
Chile: Central Bank of Chile
China: The People’s Bank of China
Colombia: Bank of the Republic
Comoros: Central Bank of Comoros
Congo: Bank of Central African States
Costa Rica: Central Bank of Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Croatia: Croatian National Bank
Cuba: Central Bank of Cuba
Cyprus: Central Bank of Cyprus
Czech Republic: Czech National Bank
Denmark: National Bank of Denmark
Dominican Republic: Central Bank of the Dominican Republic
East Caribbean area: Eastern Caribbean Central Bank
Ecuador: Central Bank of Ecuador
Egypt: Central Bank of Egypt
El Salvador: Central Reserve Bank of El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea: Bank of Central African States
Estonia: Bank of Estonia
Ethiopia: National Bank of Ethiopia
European Union: European Central Bank
Fiji: Reserve Bank of Fiji
Finland: Bank of Finland
France: Bank of France
Gabon: Bank of Central African States
The Gambia: Central Bank of The Gambia
Georgia: National Bank of Georgia
Germany: Deutsche Bundesbank
Ghana: Bank of Ghana
Greece: Bank of Greece
Guatemala: Bank of Guatemala
Guinea Bissau: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Guyana: Bank of Guyana
Haiti: Central Bank of Haiti
Honduras: Central Bank of Honduras
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Monetary Authority
Hungary: Magyar Nemzeti Bank
Iceland: Central Bank of Iceland
India: Reserve Bank of India
Indonesia: Bank Indonesia
Iran: The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Iraq: Central Bank of Iraq
Ireland: Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland
Israel: Bank of Israel
Italy: Bank of Italy
Jamaica: Bank of Jamaica
Japan: Bank of Japan
Jordan: Central Bank of Jordan
Kazakhstan: National Bank of Kazakhstan
Kenya: Central Bank of Kenya
Korea: Bank of Korea
Kuwait: Central Bank of Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan: National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia: Bank of Latvia
Lebanon: Central Bank of Lebanon
Lesotho: Central Bank of Lesotho
Libya: Central Bank of Libya
Lithuania: Bank of Lithuania
Luxembourg: Central Bank of Luxembourg
Macao: Monetary Authority of Macao
Macedonia: National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia
Madagascar: Central Bank of Madagascar
Malawi: Reserve Bank of Malawi
Malaysia: Central Bank of Malaysia
Mali: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Malta: Central Bank of Malta
Mauritius: Bank of Mauritius
Mexico: Bank of Mexico
Moldova: National Bank of Moldova
Mongolia: Bank of Mongolia
Montenegro: Central Bank of Montenegro
Morocco: Bank of Morocco
Mozambique: Bank of Mozambique
Namibia: Bank of Namibia
Nepal: Central Bank of Nepal
Netherlands: Netherlands Bank
Netherlands Antilles: Bank of the Netherlands Antilles
New Zealand: Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Nicaragua: Central Bank of Nicaragua
Niger: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Nigeria: Central Bank of Nigeria
Norway: Central Bank of Norway
Oman: Central Bank of Oman
Pakistan: State Bank of Pakistan
Papua New Guinea: Bank of Papua New Guinea
Paraguay: Central Bank of Paraguay
Peru: Central Reserve Bank of Peru
Philippines: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Poland: National Bank of Poland
Portugal: Bank of Portugal
Qatar: Qatar Central Bank
Romania: National Bank of Romania
Russia: Central Bank of Russia
Rwanda: National Bank of Rwanda
San Marino: Central Bank of the Republic of San Marino
Samoa: Central Bank of Samoa
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency
Senegal: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Serbia: National Bank of Serbia
Seychelles: Central Bank of Seychelles
Sierra Leone: Bank of Sierra Leone
Singapore: Monetary Authority of Singapore
Slovakia: National Bank of Slovakia
Slovenia: Bank of Slovenia
Solomon Islands: Central Bank of Solomon Islands
South Africa: South African Reserve Bank
Spain: Bank of Spain
Sri Lanka: Central Bank of Sri Lanka
Sudan: Bank of Sudan
Surinam: Central Bank of Suriname
Swaziland: The Central Bank of Swaziland
Sweden: Sveriges Riksbank
Switzerland: Swiss National Bank
Tajikistan: National Bank of Tajikistan
Tanzania: Bank of Tanzania
Thailand: Bank of Thailand
Togo: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Tonga: National Reserve Bank of Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago: Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia: Central Bank of Tunisia
Turkey: Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
Uganda: Bank of Uganda
Ukraine: National Bank of Ukraine
United Arab Emirates: Central Bank of United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom: Bank of England
United States: The Dirty Nasty Stinky Fed, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Uruguay: Central Bank of Uruguay
Vanuatu: Reserve Bank of Vanuatu
Venezuela: Central Bank of Venezuela
Vietnam: The State Bank of Vietnam
Yemen: Central Bank of Yemen
Zambia: Bank of Zambia
Zimbabwe: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe

What also brings attention to the recent rage on North Korea, is the pattern with Libya and how almost overnight rebels appeared. A Bank of Benghazi was set up in just a few short weeks during the Civil War.
 

Aim64C

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Reaction score
608
fortfreedom one ;) You should check it out, maybe you got infected.

I can't help but take that as sarcasm.

The point isn't the site that hosts it. The paper hosted there was published before the 'internet' existed and was a critical analysis of Segan's claims regarding strategic nuclear warfare.

Not that it matters. I am infinitely more knowledgeable on the subject. There is no debate to be had here. I simply like to educate those lacking.

Ignoring the insult, sorry meant to add there is no Rothschild Central Bank in North Korea. As well as Iran and Cuba.

And here I thought I was the one prone to conspiracy theories.


The Rothschild website highlights it has no base in North Korea.



Neither does McDonald's. Those things are even starting to spring up in the former USSR.

What also brings attention to the recent rage on North Korea, is the pattern with Libya and how almost overnight rebels appeared. A Bank of Benghazi was set up in just a few short weeks during the Civil War.

Business seeks expansion into markets with which it can easily compete or dominate. They will -capitalize- on events caused or incidental.

That said - Libya's rebels can be tied to the Muslim Brotherhood (as can a lot of generally negative things in the middle east). The Muslim Brotherhood has become increasingly active in the wake of increased economic activity around Iraq and Afghanistan that was previously unheard of.
 

Ashflura

Leaf Village Regular 🍃
Regular
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
765
Reaction score
166
And here I thought I was the one prone to conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theories form when information is kept from the public. I don't mean to sound skeptic, but some events lead to certain theories when you try to piece things together. Traits of someone who likes to solve logic puzzles.



Neither does McDonald's. Those things are even starting to spring up in the former USSR.
Read the article. I'm more open to the history of the Rothschild Family and their original intentions, but that still doesn't change my opinion on the pattern of Rothschild Banks springing up in countries that have seemed to "cause an act on terror". Conspiracy or not, whenever a country is put in negative light in the media, either due to an act of terrorism or unstable government - it seems to be appropriate to invade that country or 'help' it.
9/11 allowed America to announce the War on Terror. By 2003, Iraq and Afghanistan suddenly had a central bank.
By 2011, Gaddafi was assassinated, the 'rebels were freed'. Libya had a Central Bank.
2013, North Korea, although always been antagonised is getting quite a bit more attention that normal. I'm curious to see how the next year plays out...

Business seeks expansion into markets with which it can easily compete or dominate. They will -capitalize- on events caused or incidental.

That said - Libya's rebels can be tied to the Muslim Brotherhood (as can a lot of generally negative things in the middle east). The Muslim Brotherhood has become increasingly active in the wake of increased economic activity around Iraq and Afghanistan that was previously unheard of.
It still doesn't justify anything. It is probably that method of business that allows so many theories to spout about the Rothschild family.

And the Muslim Brotherhood is another organisation that is mysterious, provoking conspirators.
 

Ciao

Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
Elite
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
760
They need the world's attention to make them feel powerful. If they really thought they could take on South Korea, Japan, and the United States, they would've attacked by now. Announcing that you're going to go to war with a country but not attacking is a crappy strategy. Soldiers at the DMZ are always on standby and now we've got F22s, B2s, submarines, and warships ready to decimate their military at the first sign of attack. I honestly hope that the DPRK launches a nuke and it comes straight back down on them and kills their own soldiers.
 

Turson

Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
Elite
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
9,690
Reaction score
430
South Korea isn't match against north Korea power so south Korea
Told usa to provide them help against north korea since they are allied.

Actually, North Korea would get owned in conventional war against South Korea. SK have one of biggest and most technically advanced armies in the world. NK army is bigger, but when it comes to quality... there is no comparison. Nukes are the main reason why world fears NK that much. That said, we dont even know if NK has nuclear bomb right now. Producing nuclear device that can explode and producing actual nuclar bomb that can be delivered on battlefield and properly used are two different things.
 

RasenUchihaChaos

Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
Elite
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
9,150
Reaction score
702
so if Nk is no threat then why is america protecting Sk from them
 

Turson

Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
Elite
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
9,690
Reaction score
430
so if Nk is no threat then why is america protecting Sk from them
Its not like NK is no threat. Most of their weaponary may be a relicts of past century, but its still large. There are also other factors. Seul, capital city of SK is very, very close to the border with NK. Thing is, NK placed a sh*tload of artilery on their side of the border, and Seul is in its range. If war will brake out Seul will be in really bad situation, since an hour of massive fire from that artillery will be able to damage the city even more and kill more people than direct nuclear attack with 15 kiloton warhead, so its not like SK has nothing to worry. However, when it comes to armies of both countries SK has the advantage. NK army may be bigger, but in present times quality means more than quantity.
 

Turson

Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
Elite
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
9,690
Reaction score
430
BTW. Watch out, people, it seems that Vegeta is our only salvation. ->
 

The Work

Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
Elite
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
6,264
Reaction score
302
Because we stopped trading with them
 

Strawberry

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
10,051
Reaction score
404
they think their boos but aint
 

Aim64C

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Reaction score
608
Conspiracy theories form when information is kept from the public. I don't mean to sound skeptic, but some events lead to certain theories when you try to piece things together. Traits of someone who likes to solve logic puzzles.

I used to be pretty prone to conspiracy theories until I joined the military and got to see quite a few things that typically drive conspiracy websites nuts with speculation. Generally speaking - the number one flaw in a conspiracy theory is the assumption that there is an organized system in place.

Honestly, for the first couple years I was in the military, I couldn't believe half the stuff I was seeing. Packs of raving monkeys are only marginally less effective than a lot of the systems we have in place. Hell, I'm quite certain that half the military, at any given time, is operating purely off of dogmatic principle - meaning entire volumes of paperwork and even certain reimbursements are carried out -against- true policy... but miscommunications and anecdotes get passed along until they become established dogmatic doctrine that actually fills a functional role.

Even though they're technically operating against some MILPERS, NAVPERS, etc publication.

And we're supposed to be one of the most organized and effective militaries on the planet... I can't even begin to imagine what the other guys are like.

Anyway - I've seen a lot of things in my relatively short and narrow military experience; and seen how the reality gets distorted and then later re-interpreted by people on the outside (heck, half the time no one on the inside really knows what the hell is going on).

So, I have lost a lot of the belief that there -can- be very unified and organized conspiracies in place. Sure - there can be smaller ones that have larger impacts (by enticing other interest groups to hop on board) - but the general nature of human beings is to engage in politics for their own benefit. For sweeping conspiracies to exist - a huge number of people have to be participating and voluntarily contributing to the overwhelming benefit of one person or party. If they are in a position to pass that much power up to another person - they are typically in a position to sequester that power for themselves when given the chance (thus causing the conspiracy group to fragment into fratricide).

About the only exception to this is when we see very tightly controlled environments like North Korea - and even there, a huge amount of effort goes into sustaining that system... and it requires a lot of external assistance that simply doesn't exist in free-ranging systems.

Read the article. I'm more open to the history of the Rothschild Family and their original intentions, but that still doesn't change my opinion on the pattern of Rothschild Banks springing up in countries that have seemed to "cause an act on terror". Conspiracy or not, whenever a country is put in negative light in the media, either due to an act of terrorism or unstable government - it seems to be appropriate to invade that country or 'help' it.

The U.S. wet its own bed long ago during its proxy wars with the USSR. The CIA was conducting very intensive operations throughout the middle east and western asia in an effort to disrupt the rule of states held by the USSR and to assist partisans who desired to separate from the USSR.

There was a sort of expectation that if we helped them overthrow the USSR (what we wanted) - we would help them become something free and with a higher standard of living - to have us help them establish rule and make things better. In some cases - this was a doomed idea from the beginning. Those regions are largely tribal in ways we tend not to think of... they don't even recognize the borders we use to distinguish their nations - they have tribal borders and systems that just don't function according to the same political principles we tend to operate on.

Those tribes fight and squabble with each other like medival lordships did. So in agreeing to help one tribe against the USSR - things turned around later that that tribe began to impose itself upon other tribes in the way that they always had (but it was 'like America' because the members of tribes on the 'good list' got a say in political decisions... and they don't see anything wrong with that line of reasoning). So - in those cases - we kind of played "whose your dictator."

In other cases where it -would- have worked according to plan... the Berlin wall fell and the CIA was decapitated by Congress (because the CIA kept tabs on our political leaders, their affiliations, and had a lot over them - and got away with it because the CIA was credited with being the linchpin in the U.S.'s strategic capability against the USSR). Along with that - a lot of the intel and support networks evaporated - and we left a lot of those countries and regimes to fend for themselves after we had helped to overthrow the status-quo leadership.

Which is kind of a **** move.

But it established us as self-centered interventionists in a lot of their people's minds - and made us a popular target for political rantings and ravings. Bad-mouth the U.S. - get political support (which, rather than being rendered by votes, might have been rendered by people willing to kill others for you... or simply who would not try to kill you).

Even if internal politics is the primary driving factor behind the anti-U.S. sentiment - it's only natural that some of that transfer to affected actions against the U.S. Which is why we've had incidents of terrorism.

Though Europe has been dealing with it for decades (even centuries). When the protestants and catholics aren't killing each other; the Shiites and Sunis are... and when they aren't doing that - it's a four-way battle royale.

The middle-east incidents of terrorism get more attention because they actually appear to represent the behavior of a nation as opposed to just psychotic activist/political parties.

For example - there's these guys: in Japan.

Or these guys: (they're a real bottle of sunshine).

9/11 allowed America to announce the War on Terror. By 2003, Iraq and Afghanistan suddenly had a central bank.
By 2011, Gaddafi was assassinated, the 'rebels were freed'. Libya had a Central Bank.

They do not have a 'central bank owned by the Rothschilds.' They have operations as a global investment bank. Investment banks are not really central banks: . And while they are one of the oldest investment banking firms in existence - they are far from the largest:

Hell - the Rothschilds are one of the few remaining, valid private-side banks. JP Morgan Chase has nearly 100 times the operating income and 250 times the number of employees.

2013, North Korea, although always been antagonised is getting quite a bit more attention that normal. I'm curious to see how the next year plays out...

It's because their new leader, the youngest son of Kim Jong Il, Kim Il Sun, has taken power and has started saying that he's going to wage war against the U.S. and other such stuff.

While that's not -entirely- new, he's taking it to a level that has not been seen in a very, very long time.

Considering that Korea is, basically, the world's only manufacturer of advanced shipping hulls for various tankers and other forms of commercial shipping (one of the reasons Korea has placed in one of the top ten economies in the world despite having a land mass the size of Indiana) ... and their northern neighbor is basically making promises to use nuclear weapons on anything and everything (and they're the only ones really in effective range of North Korea's weapons)....

That could be why we're getting a little more antsy than normal. Because North Korea is doing far more than simply making speeches - we've got them on satellites moving equipment around like they rarely do (and on scales that haven't been seen for a while). It's going to new levels.

It still doesn't justify anything. It is probably that method of business that allows so many theories to spout about the Rothschild family.

If I'm a prefabricated home manufacturer - and I see on the news that we just invaded a country and there is a need for premanufactured homes... what do you think I'm going to do?

A country that has largely been impractical to survey for raw materials (such as precious metals, rare earth compounds, etc) for political reasons is going to have a sort of 'gold rush' of prospectors looking to invest in territory and of people offering to conduct varying survey methods to find resources for those who own property (whether they are foreign investors or residents who are just like: what? You think the rocks back there are worth something and would give me enough money to buy 300 Corollas every year if it turns out to be what you think it is? I think you're crazy, but knock yourself out." (A lot of the people in that region of the world seem to use the Corolla as an income metric - the vehicle is quite popular).

It's no different than how a lot of contractors flocked to the regions around Joplin, Missouri after an F-5 tornado -erased- the town.

Did they cause the tornado to happen? No. But there was a business opportunity - people needed homes and businesses rebuilt. Thus, they came.

And the Muslim Brotherhood is another organisation that is mysterious, provoking conspirators.

They're a bit of a complex organization. I've seen reports that the face of the Muslim Brotherhood is changing. Where it used to be a sort of cross-tribal anti-american party, the younger generations have been utilizing it in an attempt to genuinely unify the various Islamic tribes and nations (with far less Anti-American sentiment).

I can't help but feel like the older generations are using the younger generation's enthusiasm and idealism to centralize power for their own purposes... but it's quite possible that the will of the newer generations will simply over-power any cleverly contrived plots. Generally speaking, though - I'm suspicious of bandwagons. Any time I find myself a part of one, it's right after asking: "Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
 

Ashflura

Leaf Village Regular 🍃
Regular
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
765
Reaction score
166
You have a way with words. I'm going into further research, and not coming to post informatively on the forum until I'm confident in what I'm writing. Thanks dude for the insight, and all the best in the military~
 

Klaus

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Messages
10,362
Reaction score
653
I don't know much, haven't watched the news in awhile since ive been so focused on school and work lately.
Can anyone explain whats really going on. All i know is nuclear threats, but why is North Korea threatening to attack?

Not try to troll or anything, just wanna know.

The United States and North Korean conflict goes way back from the Cold War Era, maybe even further back. In the Korea attacked a US Gun boat which we could say started a some what hostility in these countries. After World War II The United Nations Organization Divided the Korean Peninsula in 1950 the Korean War broke loose that's where a battle between North Korea and the US started. Its all history. So then its just all coming back since the WW2 Post Era. All we can do is wait and see if the battle really starts.
 
Top