Welcome to World War 3

King Mob · 30-12-2008 7:14am

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Nice try, but I specifically said US

No you said:

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

World leaders of import will never speak out against Israel, they'll condemn attacks, or regret the actions, or encourage caution or some ****, but never fullón condmenation.

I would think the UN Secretary General is pretty important.

And I doubt you would find someone in the current administration speaking out against Israel what with all the support and what not.
What's your point?

Mahatma coat · 30-12-2008 7:19am

King Mob wrote: »

No you said:
I would think the UN Secretary General is pretty important.

why, is he gonna slap Israel with sanctions, NO, because the US will veto.

And I doubt you would find someone in the current administration speaking out against Israel what with all the support and what not.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/

What's your point?

I think you just made the point for us

Thanks

Patricide · 30-12-2008 7:27am

Gareth37 wrote: »

Laugh and mock all you want.

Let those with eyes open them and those with ears keep them open and free from mud.

When you see great cities in ruins you will know the time is close. Even this country may be shook by earthquakes and there will warnings galore that will be put down to "global warming".

Please explain how earthquakes could be accredited to global warming, im no sceintist here but i hardly think carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to change lava flow underground...therefore unless im missing somthing here i think sceintists might think like me too....

King Mob · 30-12-2008 7:27am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

why, is he gonna slap Israel with sanctions, NO, because the US will veto.

Wow look at those goal posts move.
The original point was that no world leader of import would condemn the attacks. This has been shown to be not true. I never claimed that there would be sanctions.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I think you just made the point for us

Thanks

That the Bush administration supports Israel?
Not exactly a revelation.

I can point to a lot of people who are of the opinion that the US should not support Israel. And I can point to a few news articles about the bad **** Israel has done.
I am still waiting to hear the conspiracy. And why the "Blatantly Zionist media" isn't covering this up?

Mahatma coat · 30-12-2008 7:58am

how did I move theGoalposts we know that the UN is toothless in this situation,so its hardly a World Leader of Import

the Conspiracy, Israel and its Lizzzzzzzzzzzzzard allies want the Gaza strip, they have conspired to bring about a situation where their invasion and the extermination of the Palestinians is justified in the yes of the world

you sayin this is not a conspiracy

you sayin that this is not being orchestrated/allowed by the NWO

I suppose that all these events just ocured coincidentaly

Nehaxak · 30-12-2008 8:04am

Gareth37 wrote: »

2 Days after Christmas Day the Jews strike Jesus' people. Who killed Jesus? Was it the Jews or the Roman Empire?

This is the start of many great victories for the antichrist. War after war is to follow and victory after victory for the antichrist.

The great trial for the Catholic Church and all Christians is looming ahead of us. The antichrist whos name begins with B will roar loudly about his great victories after WW3.

The guns are firmly pointed at the head of Jesus Christ and ALL His followers.

However, after the battles are fought Jesus will come in all His might and glory through the clouds to save all few that will survive and allow themselves to be persecuted by the great 7 year trial.

This is the war that ends all wars and then will come the day that ends all evil.

Stock up with your own supply of food and fresh water for the years ahead of us.

WELCOME TO WORLD WAR 3

1. jesus christ never existed
2. There is no god
3. There is no devil
4. Nobody really cares either way
5. Religious fanaticism such as that from yourself is putting off a lot of people who read/post on this Conspiracy Theory forum - you are only trolling with your stupid jesus christ this and that posts
6. You have and give NOTHING whatsoever to back up your posts, ever !
7. Referring to yourself as a "prophet" even if saying you don't want to appear as a "false prophet" shows clearly that you need to seek professional help.

This forum has "gone to hell" since you started posting in it.

Mahatma coat · 30-12-2008 8:22am

Again, I would like to implore posters to leave off atacking Garreths beliefs, fel free to ignore him, however wandering in and mocking him is frowned upon

Actually

line drawn, Me, Bonkey and Miju are the Mods here, we will make the decisions as to how gareth is dealt with, any further attempts at back seat moddin will result in

A one Week Ban

that is all

Nehaxak · 30-12-2008 8:28am

...and that is where I exit this forum then, never even to read a post in here again.
I cannot put up with this continued carry-on from a religious nut-job posting his crap without EVER EVER EVER backing up ANYTHING he posts and REFUSING to even debate his posts. It's plain and simple fanatical religious propaganda and if that's the kind of thing that goes on and is allowed in here then I refuse henceforth to participate.

Ciao...

Mahatma coat · 30-12-2008 9:13am

Sorry you feel that way, really, I take a slightly different view of the situation

I had typed a long post outlining my reasons for defendng Garreth, but then I realised that I was contributing to taking this debte back into the realm of PURE insanity, and we were doing so well.

So I've made a statement on this, lets continue on with some proper debate please

<edit> Whalofshi, banned for a bit</edit>

King Mob · 30-12-2008 2:03pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

how did I move theGoalposts we know that the UN is toothless in this situation,so its hardly a World Leader of Import

Exactly that. First it was "no world leader of import condemned the attacks" then it was "no one in the US" now the UN Secretary General doesn't count. Yea thats called moving the goalposts.
The original point was "World leaders of import will never speak out against Israel, they'll condemn attacks, or regret the actions, or encourage caution or some ****, but never fullón condmenation." This has been shown not to be true.
Isn't the UN a NWO plot as well? Or is that only when it's convient to your "theory".

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the Conspiracy, Israel and its Lizzzzzzzzzzzzzard allies want the Gaza strip, they have conspired to bring about a situation where their invasion and the extermination of the Palestinians is justified in the yes of the world

Funny how noone believes the extermination of the Palestinians is a good thing. All those protests against Israel must be a double bluff.
And all those news reports about the Israeli's killing a disproportionate amount of Palestinians must be some kinda of trick.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

you sayin this is not a conspiracy

you sayin that this is not being orchestrated/allowed by the NWO

I suppose that all these events just ocured coincidentaly

What events exactly?
How do you know it was the NWO and not someone else or just a normal alliance?
What evidence leads you to believe it's a NWO conspiracy.

Sofa_King Good · 30-12-2008 3:19pm

King Mob wrote: »

Exactly that. First it was "no world leader of import condemned the attacks" then it was "no one in the US" now the UN Secretary General doesn't count. Yea thats called moving the goalposts.
The original point was "World leaders of import will never speak out against Israel, they'll condemn attacks, or regret the actions, or encourage caution or some ****, but never fullón condmenation." This has been shown not to be true.
Isn't the UN a NWO plot as well? Or is that only when it's convient to your "theory".

Funny how noone believes the extermination of the Palestinians is a good thing. All those protests against Israel must be a double bluff.
And all those news reports about the Israeli's killing a disproportionate amount of Palestinians must be some kinda of trick.

What events exactly?
How do you know it was the NWO and not someone else or just a normal alliance?
What evidence leads you to believe it's a NWO conspiracy.

I stand by what I said, and to clarify "no one in the US" was a reference to any mainstream US news piece you could provide questioning America's alliance with Israel, which you still have not provided, despite your own logical approach. Here is another video from another Zionist puppet, Kofi Annan, who married a Swedish Rotschild and was appointed on the insistence of another zionist, Madeleine Albright. - http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1821438n

You'll find it is strangely reminiscent of your earlier video, as you will find media coverage in general will be like-for-like of the Lebanon conflict. However, what affect had this caused to Israeli policy? None I would say. Reportage will be Pro-Israel, or at best neutral, how is this balanced?

What kind of effect do you think any protests would have? 1million people marched against the war in Iraq in Britain. It is said that for every one person out there are another 50 at home sympathethic. That means 50 Millon Britons disagreed with Britains involvement in the war in Iraq. What did that change?

As for the conspiracy, here are the Zionists in their own words on Palestine - http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm

King Mob · 30-12-2008 5:32pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I stand by what I said, and to clarify "no one in the US" was a reference to any mainstream US news piece you could provide questioning America's alliance with Israel, which you still have not provided, despite your own logical approach.

Then why did you direct it at my post showing the UN secretary general condemning the attacks?
And I'll say it again: that would be an opinion piece not a presentation of facts.
Can you provide one instance of the facts being changed in order to help the NWO? Can you find an article in the mainstream media praising the actions of Israel. (Fox doesn't count because it's barely journalism. And noone takes them seriously anyway.)

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Here is another video from another Zionist puppet, Kofi Annan, who married a Swedish Rotschild and was appointed on the insistence of another zionist, Madeleine Albright. - http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1821438n

Proof of those accusations would be nice. And if he is a Zionist puppet why did he condemn Israel as well?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

You'll find it is strangely reminiscent of your earlier video, as you will find media coverage in general will be like-for-like of the Lebanon conflict. However, what affect had this caused to Israeli policy? None I would say. Reportage will be Pro-Israel, or at best neutral, how is this balanced?

So pro hamas or anti Israeli would be perfectly balanced then?
What exactly is Pro-Israeli about reporting the Palestinian death toll and people like UN secretary general condemning Israel?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

What kind of effect do you think any protests would have? 1million people marched against the war in Iraq in Britain. It is said that for every one person out there are another 50 at home sympathethic. That means 50 Millon Britons disagreed with Britains involvement in the war in Iraq. What did that change?

Never claimed it would change anything but that indicates that this supposed NWO to paint Palestinians as terrorist isn't working.
But if it didn't change anything why would they need to control the media anyway?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

As for the conspiracy, here are the Zionists in their own words on Palestine - http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm

Not exactly the most balanced website there.

starn · 30-12-2008 6:18pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

<edit> Whalofshi, banned for a bit</edit>

Hi. Ive kept quite on this thread thus far as a result of my frustation with a certain poster, I'm going off topic for a moment and just wondering why Whalofshi has been banned for. Its not very clear and I havent seen him post for a few pages. Just wondering ?

Sofa_King Good · 30-12-2008 6:44pm

King Mob wrote: »

Then why did you direct it at my post showing the UN secretary general condemning the attacks?
And I'll say it again: that would be an opinion piece not a presentation of facts.
Can you provide one instance of the facts being changed in order to help the NWO? Can you find an article in the mainstream media praising the actions of Israel. (Fox doesn't count because it's barely journalism. And noone takes them seriously anyway.)

Proof of those accusations would be nice. And if he is a Zionist puppet why did he condemn Israel as well?

So pro hamas or anti Israeli would be perfectly balanced then?
What exactly is Pro-Israeli about reporting the Palestinian death toll and people like UN secretary general condemning Israel?

Never claimed it would change anything but that indicates that this supposed NWO to paint Palestinians as terrorist isn't working.
But if it didn't change anything why would they need to control the media anyway?

Not exactly the most balanced website there.

From the NY Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?_r=1 Here you'll find no critical analysis just the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center spin.

It claims that teh attacks on civilians were necessary because hezbollah were present in the area. NO PROOF is provided.

Human rights groups Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2006/08/02/fatal-strikes and Amnesty http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/033/2006 say otherwise.

Even if it was, it does not exclude Israel from the accusation of war crimes due the Geneva convention.

Okay Kofi - http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/nobel.100/stories/profile.annan.html

"Annan has been married to his second wife, Nane Lagergren, a Swedish lawyer and judge, since 1984. She is the niece of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who is credited with saving the lives of many Jews in World War II.

Raoul Wallenberg

"Raoul Wallenberg belongs - or belonged - to one of the most famous families in Sweden, the large Wallenberg family. It is a family that has contributed to Sweden bankers, diplomats and politicians during several generations. Raoul's father, Raoul Oscar Wallenberg, was an officer in the navy, and cousin to Jacob and Marcus Wallenberg, two of Sweden's most famous bankers and industrialists. Raoul was born August 4, 1912, three months after his father's death. His mother, Maj Wising Wallenberg, remarried Fredrik von Dardel in 1918. Raoul's grandfather, Gustav Wallenberg, took care of Raoul's education. The plan was for him to continue the family tradition and become a banker, but he was more interested in architecture and trade." From http://xiaodongpeople.blogspot.com/2005/06/infiltrating-bilderberg-2005.html

Obviously there are levels of condemnation, and the UN are toothless when it comes to Israel, so it matters not if they moderately condemn them, it would be strange if they did not.

Are you honestly asking me why anyone would need to control the media to suit their agenda? Or at the very least that it would not be preferable? I Don't think that requires an answer to be honest.

If its not working, can you name me one positive connotation that you have regarding Palestine?

Balanced website??? Its simply quotes. It could just as easily be a pro-zionist site!

Why don't you please comment on the quotes instead as you've now read them.

King Mob · 30-12-2008 7:31pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

From the NY Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?_r=1 Here you'll find no critical analysis just the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center spin.

And the mentions of Amnesty's and Hezzbollah's objections.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

It claims that teh attacks on civilians were necessary because hezbollah were present in the area. NO PROOF is provided.

No it says very clearly Israel claims the attacks were necessary. It is also very clear that this is a report on the Israelis response to critics NOT the event itself.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Human rights groups Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2006/08/02/fatal-strikes and Amnesty http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/033/2006 say otherwise.

the article wrote:

Correction: December 7, 2006

Because of an editing error, a front-page article on Tuesday about an Israeli report that accused Hezbollah militants of using Lebanese civilians as human shields during the war this summer referred imprecisely to how Amnesty International handled the issue. While it was not addressed in Amnesty’s Sept. 14 report on the war, it was in a Nov. 21 report, in which the organization acknowledged the presence of Hezbollah fighters and weapons in civilian areas. But it said this was not conclusive evidence of intent to use civilians as human shields.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Even if it was, it does not exclude Israel from the accusation of war crimes due the Geneva convention.

Never said it did.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Okay Kofi - http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/nobel.100/stories/profile.annan.html

"Annan has been married to his second wife, Nane Lagergren, a Swedish lawyer and judge, since 1984. She is the niece of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who is credited with saving the lives of many Jews in World War II.

Raoul Wallenberg

"Raoul Wallenberg belongs - or belonged - to one of the most famous families in Sweden, the large Wallenberg family. It is a family that has contributed to Sweden bankers, diplomats and politicians during several generations. Raoul's father, Raoul Oscar Wallenberg, was an officer in the navy, and cousin to Jacob and Marcus Wallenberg, two of Sweden's most famous bankers and industrialists. Raoul was born August 4, 1912, three months after his father's death. His mother, Maj Wising Wallenberg, remarried Fredrik von Dardel in 1918. Raoul's grandfather, Gustav Wallenberg, took care of Raoul's education. The plan was for him to continue the family tradition and become a banker, but he was more interested in architecture and trade." From http://xiaodongpeople.blogspot.com/2005/06/infiltrating-bilderberg-2005.html

And? That proves what exactly?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Obviously there are levels of condemnation, and the UN are toothless when it comes to Israel, so it matters not if they moderately condemn them, it would be strange if they did not.

Yes but you claimed that no world leader would condemn Israel. This has been shown to be false.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Are you honestly asking me why anyone would need to control the media to suit their agenda? Or at the very least that it would not be preferable? I Don't think that requires an answer to be honest.

I'm asking for 1. evidence that the media is under someone's control and 2. why they aren't covering up Israel's attacks. Yet to receive an adequate answer.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

If its not working, can you name me one positive connotation that you have regarding Palestine?

Nope don't know enough about their culture or history to possibly comment. Haven't been arsed to research it to be honest.
But I certainly don't believe that they are all terrorists or any such bigoted bull****.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Balanced website??? Its simply quotes. It could just as easily be a pro-zionist site!

Why don't you please comment on the quotes instead as you've now read them.

They look to be very out of context. Also a site that promote a boycott of everything Israeli might be just a tad baised.

Sofa_King Good · 30-12-2008 7:55pm

King Mob wrote: »

And the mentions of Amnesty's and Hezzbollah's objections.

No it says very clearly Israel claims the attacks were necessary. It is also very clear that this is a report on the Israelis response to critics NOT the event itself.

Never said it did.

And? That proves what exactly?

Yes but you claimed that no world leader would condemn Israel. This has been shown to be false.

I'm asking for 1. evidence that the media is under someone's control and 2. why they aren't covering up Israel's attacks. Yet to receive an adequate answer.

Nope don't know enough about their culture or history to possibly comment. Haven't been arsed to research it to be honest.
But I certainly don't believe that they are all terrorists or any such bigoted bull****.

They look to be very out of context. Also a site that promote a boycott of everything Israeli might be just a tad baised.

So the best thing you can say about Palestine is that they are not all terrorists? Why is it you or generally anyone else know anything positive about the Palestinians do you think?

on the site with the quotes you've just repeated your attack on the site, despite it being essentially quotes. When this is the mindset of those murdering innocent women and children. The mindset of the IDF bulldozer driver who ran over the American protestor Corrie, can't remember her first name, and is on video reversing over her just in case. The IDF are like workers in an abbatoir killing chickens or whatever. The view the lives of Palestinians as as worthless a animals.

Did you see this on BBC recently? http://www.freepressreleases.co.uk/Press_Releases/Society/INTERPAL_UNDER_THREAT_2008111839115/ Hardly, it wasn't there. Do you consider it newsworthy? I personally do. By the way this guy blank http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4650240.stm is a prominent zionist.

Was it in the press the last 4 weeks, despite human rights groups shouting from the rooftops about the abuses taking place? No? why? maybe because the controlled media wanted to suggest that the Hamas rockets breached the ceasefire, when in fact the ceasefire had expired and their had been provovation from the Israeli side leading up to it.

King Mob · 30-12-2008 8:10pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

So the best thing you can say about Palestine is that they are not all terrorists? Why is it you or generally anyone else know anything positive about the Palestinians do you think?

Because they haven't been arsed to research it as I have said. Are you claiming that the media is withhold information on Palestinian history and culture?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

on the site with the quotes you've just repeated your attack on the site, despite it being essentially quotes. When this is the mindset of those murdering innocent women and children. The mindset of the IDF bulldozer driver who ran over the American protestor Corrie, can't remember her first name, and is on video reversing over her just in case. The IDF are like workers in an abbatoir killing chickens or whatever. The view the lives of Palestinians as as worthless a animals.

Because you have a intimate knowledge of the mindset every member of the IDF?
I don't remember claiming that Israel where perfectly innocent. I do remember saying quite cleary that the have done some pretty bad ****.

Did you see this on BBC recently? http://www.freepressreleases.co.uk/Press_Releases/Society/INTERPAL_UNDER_THREAT_2008111839115/ Hardly, it wasn't there. Do you consider it newsworthy? I personally do. By the way this guy blank http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4650240.stm is a prominent zionist.

Mmh point? Are you claiming that the BBC in fact did a report on this and it was covered up?
There is rather alot about Interpal on the BBC website you know.

Funny how you are using an agency you claim are controlled as a source.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Was it in the press the last 4 weeks, despite human rights groups shouting from the rooftops about the abuses taking place? No? why? maybe because the controlled media wanted to suggest that the Hamas rockets breached the ceasefire, when in fact the ceasefire had expired and their had been provovation from the Israeli side leading up to it.

Yes the where several articles I saw that talked about the end of the ceasefire coming up. And they still mention it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7802515.stm

bbc wrote:

Truce expires on 19 Dec; both sides blame each other for its breakdown; rocket fire increases

So what evidence do you have of the media being controlled and why aren't they covering this up?

Sofa_King Good · 30-12-2008 8:41pm

I am claiming that the BBC chose not to run this story. Do you think it is newsworthy?

Heard many opinions from orthodox jews on BBC? probably not, so here are some http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Statements/20080123.cfm.

My point was there was little or nothing in the mainstream press about the human rights abuses in weeks leading up to the end of the ceasefire.

Haven't got time to read all the interpal stuff, but a lot of it seems to be about one accusation or another of it supporting terrorism.

Sofa_King Good · 30-12-2008 8:47pm

Examples of media cover-ups - http://www.wanttoknow.info/mediacover-up

It is really not hard to find out who are the controllers of the media as long as your internet is working.

King Mob · 30-12-2008 8:50pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I am claiming that the BBC chose not to run this story. Do you think it is newsworthy?

Yes it probably is. But that is far from evidence of a conspiracy.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Heard many opinions from orthodox jews on BBC? probably not, so here are some http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Statements/20080123.cfm.

I not sure that BBC have any orthodox Jews on staff. Nor was I aware that the BBC was an outlet of opinions rather than facts.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

My point was there was little or nothing in the mainstream press about the human rights abuses in weeks leading up to the end of the ceasefire.

There was much about the human rights abuse in Africa either or Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter. However the information is still there if you want to find it.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Haven't got time to read all the interpal stuff, but a lot of it seems to be about one accusation or another of it supporting terrorism.

Oh and this one. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4564784.stm

So why exactly are they not covering up these attacks?

King Mob · 30-12-2008 8:53pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Examples of media cover-ups - http://www.wanttoknow.info/mediacover-up

It is really not hard to find out who are the controllers of the media as long as your internet is working.

Yea a site that promotes "free energy" is not reliable.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/freeenergy

Diogenes · 30-12-2008 10:53pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

simplification is thekey to gaining an understanding

like this simple graphic

Yeah because a massive social, geopolitical, and religious conflict needs simplication.

Mahtma seeing as you like to vilify every jew in a sweeping gneralisation maybe you're the one to call for calm in this debate?

I mean you're proven that you're horrendously biased.

Diogenes · 30-12-2008 11:16pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

and as you say innocent people are dying. from Reuters - "The Palestinian toll from the onslaught rose to 335 dead and 800 wounded, medical officials in Gaza said." and "Four Israelis have been killed by rockets since the offensive began Saturday."

Also from Reuters, I hate to trivialise death, especially murder of innocents but I feel it is necessary to point out the massive differential
. this folding couch has killed 25% as much as Hamas rockets have in the last 7 days.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0919437820080709

So lets be clear on this paradox, Hamas has launched dozens of missiles with a poor death toil, Isreali has launched a similar amount of rockets with, depressingly, a much larger death toil.

So essentially your argument is that the Palestinians are the wronged party because they broke the cease fire, their technology was inferior, and were related by a better armed foe. By your logic a man with a knife attacking bruce lee, shouldn't be held accountable for his actions.

If Hamas had effective weapons technology they use it. And they'd be happy iif an they could launch a barrage of rockets and kill thousands of people.

If israeli decided that Hamas' rocket attacks were a big jape, and ignored them

A) Israeli Citizens would deal with random rocket attacks, which are so much fun.

Hamas would get the range of Israeli houses.

C) Hamas would improve rocket design.

Now I'm not saying I agree with Israeli policy, but if you really thing people should endure sustained rocket attacks for days, and then get told "hey could be worse you could get killed by a folding couch" is just absurd.

Suggesting that Hamas has not place in the blame of this.

Oh and MC suggesting that the situation needs to be simplified, is just ignorant. Your, well documented racism is on display again.

Mahatma coat · 31-12-2008 12:47am

King Mob wrote: »

Yea a site that promotes "free energy" is not reliable.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/freeenergy

the relevance of one point to the other is sketchy at best

also just because you dont understand 'free energy' we're supposed to dismiss the entire concept.

back somewhat on topic please

King Mob · 31-12-2008 12:51am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the relevance of one point to the other is sketchy at best

also just because you dont understand 'free energy' we're supposed to dismiss the entire concept.

back somewhat on topic please

It shows quite clearly that the authors of the site lack crictical thinking and a grasp of facts.
Case and point they believe cold fusion works.
It's a fair assumption that their political analysis is just as good.

I understand the concept of Free energy quite well as a matter of fact.

starn · 31-12-2008 1:18am

Hi guys I know Im going off topic again. But can anyone tell me what Whalosh was banned for, or has nobody else noticed. And is MC back deleting posts he dosent like again. Cause I cant see any recent posts from WSL that violate anything in the charter. Can anyone enlighten me. MC are you there ?

Mahatma coat · 31-12-2008 1:31am

WhaloShi got a one week Ban for Backseat moddin and generally provokin a situation having been warned and infracted

Starn, this is your Warning, leave it off, next up is either a Ban or an infraction

starn · 31-12-2008 1:43am

Please dont take this as being smarmy or smart, because its not ment to be. But can I ask what exactly my warning is for. Can you please point out which part of the charter Ive broken

Mahatma coat · 31-12-2008 1:49am

Diogeness, I am not going to be drawn into this with you again

sufficed to say you seem to be blissfully ignorant of the Attack the Post not the Poster Rule.

but seing as this is directed specificaly at me I will leave the decision onyour fate to Bonkey or Miju

Sofa_King Good · 31-12-2008 3:00pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes it probably is. But that is far from evidence of a conspiracy.

I not sure that BBC have any orthodox Jews on staff. Nor was I aware that the BBC was an outlet of opinions rather than facts.

There was much about the human rights abuse in Africa either or Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter. However the information is still there if you want to find it.

Oh and this one. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4564784.stm

So why exactly are they not covering up these attacks?

I'm not trying by to single out the BBC but here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1101744/Stephen-Glover-Pontificating-Mr-Peston-self-indulgent-bloggers-BBC-stop-putting-opinion-facts.html - My point was that have you ever seen orthodox jews quoted in any news article on the BBC?

An out of court settlement? must try harder I feel.

It would be impossible to cover up the attacks. The just have to semi-legitimise them, which is what is happening.

Welcome to World War 3

Comments