Welcome to World War 3

King Mob

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Because this has been the result
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/S-9resolution12jan08.pdf

Is it still justified in your opinion?

This explains were the cease-fire was violated

Nov 4th - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/21/israel-palestine-gaza

Nov 5th - http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=33024

I don't think Diogenes ever said the Israeli attacks were justified.

But have we given up on trying to show a conspiracy? Maybe you should take this to the politics section.

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think Diogenes ever said the Israeli attacks were justified.

But have we given up on trying to show a conspiracy? Maybe you should take this to the politics section.

Conspiracy, Yes. Theory, No.

Here is a conpiracy, that of Fatah conspiring with the Zionists - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3349967,00.html

What would be suspicious If the stage was set through Emanuel to bring peace to the region on Obama's arrival in the White House.

King Mob

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Conspiracy, Yes. Theory, No.

Here is a conpiracy, that of Fatah conspiring with the Zionists - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3349967,00.html

What would be suspicious If the stage was set through Emanuel to bring peace to the region on Obama's arrival in the White House.

And how did this cause the current situation? The article is from 2007?
And you know that the article is reporting on Hamas' claim that Fatah are conspiring with the Zionists.

And how come you never mentioned this when I asked you before for evidence of a conspiracy, but then went on about a non-existent media conspiracy?

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

And how did this cause the current situation? The article is from 2007?

"Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago" - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050426.html

King Mob wrote: »

And you know that the article is reporting on Hamas' claim that Fatah are conspiring with the Zionists.

Yes I do. Well you asked for a conspiracy...

King Mob wrote: »

And how come you never mentioned this when I asked you before for evidence of a conspiracy, but then went on about a non-existent media conspiracy?

I didn't and don't know a whole lot about it to be honest.

King Mob

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

"Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago" - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050426.html

So ignoring the part about the tunnel then?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Yes I do. Well you asked for a conspiracy...

Well yea, first I asked for evidence of a NWO conspiracy, then one controlling the media. Now it seems however you just googled "gaza israeli conspiracy" trawled through the links to NWO lizards stuff till you found the first reliable website. Did you even read the article? It's a claim that Fatah are conspiring with Zionists.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I didn't and don't know a whole lot about it to be honest.

Case and point. You have no idea whether or not there is a conspiracy at play and certainly not provided any such evidence save for poorly interprated news articles (many from the zionist controlled media).

Maybe you should air your (simplistic, black and white) views on the politics forum and see how long they last.

Sofa_King Good

Damned if I do and damned if I don't.

You asked for a conspiracy! I was honest in admitting the gaps in my knowledge. Isn't that the righr thing to do?

Well it's pretty certain to me that the media (not to mention, academia, medicine, philantropic societies, banking, movie industry, government etc are Zionist influenced (backtracking a little here I know).

To prove as such to your satisfaction (if such a thing exists) would take hours of research and analysing which I am not in a postion to commit to right now.

For now perhaps you can take the word of the Shah of Iran - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=albtkqfQQnY

The alternative would be in my view anti-semitic. Suggesting that because of Jewish ownership, it automatically follows that a) they are zionist and b) have zionist editorial policies.

If there can be connections made, again I do not have the time.

King Mob

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Damned if I do and damned if I don't.

You asked for a conspiracy! I was honest in admitting the gaps in my knowledge. Isn't that the righr thing to do?

You claimed there was a conspiracy weeks ago. You now provide an article you had no knowledge as evidence? Why did you claim a conspiracy back then when you didn't know about this till now?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Well it's pretty certain to me that the media (not to mention, academia, medicine, philantropic societies, banking, movie industry, government etc are Zionist influenced (backtracking a little here I know).

And if you look for a pattern hard enough you'll convince your self you've found one.
What reasoning leads you to believe that they are zionist influenced?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

To prove as such to your satisfaction (if such a thing exists) would take hours of research and analysing which I am not in a postion to commit to right now.

And to empirically prove to you the earth is round i'd have to do a lot of calculations and research. But wait, luckily someone has done it before. The empirical verifiable evidence is there on the net for free.
Something like say a newspaper covering up a story or facts of a story for the benefit of a zionist conspiracy would be easy enough to find, and might even be from a reliable source.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

For now perhaps you can take the word of the Shah of Iran - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=albtkqfQQnY

Can't you take Bush's word for it?
Besides he makes the same claim thousands of people have made before and offered the same amount of verifiable evidence: zero.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

The alternative would be in my view anti-semitic. Suggesting that because of Jewish ownership, it automatically follows that a) they are zionist and b) have zionist editorial policies.

If there can be connections made, again I do not have the time.

The alternative to what exactly?

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

So why post it as evidence?
It's very misleading and intellectually dishonest.

Here is a follow up on that picture to put it into context.
http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:pJsSfP-jDdYJ:www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml%3FitemNo%3D1054461%26contrassID%3D0%26subContrassID%3D0+%22Haaretz%22+IDF+troops+posing+as+Hamas+men&hl=de&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=de&client=firefox-a

trentf

take it from me as a former believer in this nonense if you really want to know what it is it is your paranoid mind playing tricks on you and thats all you need to know. Ever wonder why the more you find out but the little you can proove. Thats the hint right there for you and it all seems very real. You want to know who the illuminati is? take a look in the mirror.

Nick_oliveri

trentf wrote: »

take it from me as a former believer in this nonense if you really want to know what it is it is your paranoid mind playing tricks on you and thats all you need to know. Ever wonder why the more you find out but the little you can proove. Thats the hint right there for you and it all seems very real. You want to know who the illuminati is? take a look in the mirror.

I think people are more easily swayed than others, when given a rebellious or anti establishment hive of "information" we sometimes lose ourselves. Especially if that hive strenghtens your opinion on the most trivial subjects or theories.

Wheres the middle ground in skepticism? There isn't one... Theres always this "with us or against us" mentality and we fall into our cliques destined to repeat the same arguments.

CT'er: "Theres no proof linking Osama to 9/11."
Skeptic: "What? Of course he is responsible, show me evidence to the contary"
CT'er: "Well the FBI have admitted they have no evidence linking him to the event."
Skeptic: "He's admitted complicity" ***links to sources
CT'er: Of course he will admit complicity, he will be a martyr and the face of the event.

Thats more or less a conversation I had with another user, notice im the CT'er because for this arguement thats what the casual observer will think and to the Skeptic, well..... im arguing with a skeptic over 9/11 on a conspiracy theories board. DONT argue technicalities with skeptics on this board if you dont want to be tarred and feathered with the woo brush.

I dont particulary give a shiite what clique anyone thinks im part of, notice in the "Scientists" thread I agreed that the subject warranted further research and we actually had a good debate and I didnt get tarred and feathered, that was unusual.

You shouldn't come in here to bolster either sides opinion on a subject for the sake of appearing to be on one side or the other, if you have your questions, ask them, your doubts, voice them. Dont get dragged into making conclusions that it was the NWO or other shady organisation that botched the investigation or distorted the facts on purpose, be it 9/11 or blaming Hatfill and another poor scientist for the Anthrax attacks.

It isnt always so complicated. Also I think that some posters on the CT side draw very strange conclusions without presenting an arguement, i really think that this shouldn't be allowed. (This thread for instance, born out of religious extremism and weird photoshopped images)

Skeptics, present your opinion without this "Hivemind" attitude. Let "them" see that you can have an opinion, you are not towing the supposed line in precise amounts, even if it deviates from the "official story" very slightly, it will help your arguement and stance more than you could ever know.

Our arguements get heated, I've made some enemies and there are people on both sides that will get very defensive and argumentive when I challenge them on something. I can argue without any snideness or bad vibes towards my "nemesis", its great sometimes to take a break mid thread/argument and have a laugh or a bit of banter with your nemesis, some of us might assume that the poster we are arguing with only tows his or her line in all apects of life. We might not see each other in other forums...maybe rarely.

This post assumes that the hypothetical thread can lead to healthy debate, that there are no incredible assumptions or links made without why the "OP" came to that assumption, that the argument in the "OT" was put across coherently by either side.

Assumption is the mother of all ****ups

seanybiker

if their only killing jesus followers i be grand. To the pub tomorrow as usual.

Mahatma coat

The Israeli Government has come out and said puiblicly that no member of the IDF will face the International Courts for their 'alleged' War Crimes in Gaza.