the real conspiracy

SNAKEDOC

i was just thinking. how come no conspiracy has been uncovered properly even the real bad ones, such as the killing of the british man who was very outspoken about the 2003 invasion of iraq saying very publicly there are no wmd's and before the invasion he's found dead. the invasion goes ahead and they find nothing. his name was david something to lazy to look it up. anyway that all just went away noone held accountable. then others like JFK still nothing there even with facts like on the tour he rode a closed limo but in dallas he was put in an open top one on arrival in dallas at the airport and the deputy cheif of staff of the white house insisted no secret service run along side which would have disrupted the field of view for any shooter. it seems to me the real conspiracy is that not one of these ever got leaked out as a cover up. so i'm thinking these are linked to someone or something, further example the Diana accident.

food for thought

Jonny7

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

i was just thinking. how come no conspiracy has been uncovered properly even the real bad ones, such as the killing of the british man who was very outspoken about the 2003 invasion of iraq saying very publicly there are no wmd's and before the invasion he's found dead. the invasion goes ahead and they find nothing. his name was david something to lazy to look it up. anyway that all just went away noone held accountable. then others like JFK still nothing there even with facts like on the tour he rode a closed limo but in dallas he was put in an open top one on arrival in dallas at the airport and the deputy cheif of staff of the white house insisted no secret service run along side which would have disrupted the field of view for any shooter. it seems to me the real conspiracy is that not one of these ever got leaked out as a cover up. so i'm thinking these are linked to someone or something, further example the Diana accident.

food for thought

David Kelly, and it was extremely suspicious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)

The Hutton Enquiry was largely seen as a whitewash at the time.

jackiebaron

Well, if you doubted the official explanation of Bloody Sunday for 35 years then you were a conspiracy nut banging on about paras who lied, evidence that was tampered with, government cover-ups etc. But in the light of the Saville Inquiry it turns out that the conspiracy was exposed and the conspiracy theorists were fully vindicated. The British PM even made a public apology.

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well, if you doubted the official explanation of Bloody Sunday for 35 years then you were a conspiracy nut banging on about paras who lied, evidence that was tampered with, government cover-ups etc. But in the light of the Saville Inquiry it turns out that the conspiracy was exposed and the conspiracy theorists were fully vindicated. The British PM even made a public apology.

That's a nonsense generalisation. I don't know a soul in Ireland who believed the official version of events.

So we must all be conspiracy theorists then

namloc1980

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well, if you doubted the official explanation of Bloody Sunday for 35 years then you were a conspiracy nut banging on about paras who lied, evidence that was tampered with, government cover-ups etc. But in the light of the Saville Inquiry it turns out that the conspiracy was exposed and the conspiracy theorists were fully vindicated. The British PM even made a public apology.

Most people knew the initial investigation was a load of bull. Can you show us evidence of people being labelled "conspiracy nuts" for questioning the Bloody Sunday original story?

jackiebaron

namloc1980 wrote: »

Most people knew the initial investigation was a load of bull. Can you show us evidence of people being labelled "conspiracy nuts" for questioning the Bloody Sunday original story?

Oh Christ, unbelieveable.

For thirty five years people have been talking, raging in fact about the massacre and what were they met with? The exact same crap from the naysayers. The same rationalisations and excuses and shabby reasons. People who didn't want to believe that a coverup was afoot or that Crown Forces could have acted in such a savage and barbaric manner came up with the same tired old bullshït such as "The IRA were there and attacked", "The civilians were laden with nailbombs", "They shouldn't have been there in the first place" yada, fücking yada! Same crap that you hear being barfed out in relation to OWS rallies. I even remember a neighbour spewing out about how there's absolutely no way that the Parachute Regiment would have opened fire unless they were ambushed.

And don't give me this crap about there not being a soul in the country who didn't think the official line was a crock. That's almost as laughable as the thousands of idiot mothers whose kid was being raped by the CB's but her choosing to slap the kid and believe the priest. Denial....an amazing thing.

namloc1980

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh Christ, unbelieveable.

For thirty five years people have been talking, raging in fact about the massacre and what were they met with? The exact same crap from the naysayers. The same rationalisations and excuses and shabby reasons. People who didn't want to believe that a coverup was afoot or that Crown Forces could have acted in such a savage and barbaric manner came up with the same tired old bullshït such as "The IRA were there and attacked", "The civilians were laden with nailbombs", "They shouldn't have been there in the first place" yada, fücking yada! Same crap that you hear being barfed out in relation to OWS rallies. I even remember a neighbour spewing out about how there's absolutely no way that the Parachute Regiment would have opened fire unless they were ambushed.

And don't give me this crap about there not being a soul in the country who didn't think the official line was a crock. That's almost as laughable as the thousands of idiot mothers whose kid was being raped by the CB's but her choosing to slap the kid and believe the priest. Denial....an amazing thing.

So no evidence then. That's all you had to say dude instead of going on a rant. You might show us who these naysayers were because EVERYONE I know (including myself) knew the offical story was a load of bull. Looks like I'm a "conspiracy nut". :rolleyes:

jackiebaron

namloc1980 wrote: »

So no evidence then. That's all you had to say dude instead of going on a rant. You might show us who these naysayers were because EVERYONE I know (including myself) knew the offical story was a load of bull. Looks like I'm a "conspiracy nut". :rolleyes:

You're the one who claimed that most people thought that the official line was a crock. Yeah? You have stats regarding that? I was called a scumbag shinner for suggesting that the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were innocent back in 1986.....by more people than those who actually listened. Kinda like the same way you're now called a "terrorist sympathiser" if you say that waterboarding is torture or that those in Guantanamo should be charged or released.

Jeboa Safari

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well, if you doubted the official explanation of Bloody Sunday for 35 years then you were a conspiracy nut banging on about paras who lied, evidence that was tampered with, government cover-ups etc. But in the light of the Saville Inquiry it turns out that the conspiracy was exposed and the conspiracy theorists were fully vindicated. The British PM even made a public apology.

More nonsense, plenty of people didn't believe the official version, a quick look at some newspaper archives from the days afterwards throws up articles accusing the British of intentional murder

SNAKEDOC

lads bloody sunday is not a conspiracy. there were too many witnesses and the truth finally was released and an apology made. I am speaking about true conspiracies that can not readily be verified. as mr gibson says in the movie a good conspiracy is an unprovable one. now what do all the major conspiracies of the last sixty years have in common. roswell JFK Kelly War in iraq Diana Zero point energy and so on. they all just go away and the only people still talking about it are conspiracy buffs.. Hence my point they are all linked t one source be it a person a group or whatever. some conspiracies that have been vindicated or down right twarted were simply not linked to this source.

namloc1980

jackiebaron wrote: »

You're the one who claimed that most people thought that the official line was a crock. Yeah? You have stats regarding that? I was called a scumbag shinner for suggesting that the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were innocent back in 1986.....by more people than those who actually listened. Kinda like the same way you're now called a "terrorist sympathiser" if you say that waterboarding is torture or that those in Guantanamo should be charged or released.

Who the hell says that? Is this just more baseless nonsense?

davoxx

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

lads bloody sunday is not a conspiracy. there were too many witnesses and the truth finally was released and an apology made. I am speaking about true conspiracies that can not readily be verified. as mr gibson says in the movie a good conspiracy is an unprovable one. now what do all the major conspiracies of the last sixty years have in common. roswell JFK Kelly War in iraq Diana Zero point energy and so on. they all just go away and the only people still talking about it are conspiracy buffs.. Hence my point they are all linked t one source be it a person a group or whatever. some conspiracies that have been vindicated or down right twarted were simply not linked to this source.

correct, it is not any more. but it was ...

if that is not enough, imagine the people of france, and a few of them thinking that the uk story was lies ... they would have been right about it being a conspiracy theory ... once it is verified it no longer becomes an conspiracy theory ...

think WMD of iraq .. that was a CT, now a fact.
pat tillman not being killed in combat, was a CT, now a fact.
pat tillman current story not being true .. still a CT ...

does that make sense?

jackiebaron

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

lads bloody sunday is not a conspiracy. there were too many witnesses and the truth finally was released and an apology made. I am speaking about true conspiracies that can not readily be verified. as mr gibson says in the movie a good conspiracy is an unprovable one. now what do all the major conspiracies of the last sixty years have in common. roswell JFK Kelly War in iraq Diana Zero point energy and so on. they all just go away and the only people still talking about it are conspiracy buffs.. Hence my point they are all linked t one source be it a person a group or whatever. some conspiracies that have been vindicated or down right twarted were simply not linked to this source.

There were plenty of witnesses yes and those witnessed were simply called liars by the Widgery Tribunal. That's how you cover sh!t up. There were plenty of witnesses at the Kennedy Assassination too who claimed to see other gunmen, hear multiple different pitch gunshots, who claim to see a government agent pick up shell casings and put them in his pocket. All these witnesses have been ignored or lambasted.

All these other conspiracies that you speak of would be solved or settled IF a transparent independent inquiry were allowed to investigate them. The fact that an inquiry actually blew open Bloody Sunday makes it not a conspiracy anymore because the conspiracy to cover it up has been quashed.

jackiebaron

namloc1980 wrote: »

Who the hell says that? Is this just more baseless nonsense?

Pretty much any right-wing nutcase.

jackiebaron

davoxx wrote: »

correct, it is not any more. but it was ...

if that is not enough, imagine the people of france, and a few of them thinking that the uk story was lies ... they would have been right about it being a conspiracy theory ... once it is verified it no longer becomes an conspiracy theory ...

think WMD of iraq .. that was a CT, now a fact.
pat tillman not being killed in combat, was a CT, now a fact.
pat tillman current story not being true .. still a CT ...

does that make sense?

Precisely!

In the Middle Ages anyone who believed that the Earth was round instead of flat was not only accused of being the equivalent of a conspiracy nut, they were often threatened with death. Poor old Gallileo had to recant his belief in Copernicanism, that the Earth went round the sun, (in fact he could prove it) because he didn't want to die just to prove a point. You see these are the kind of people who rage against those who challenge their rigid and entrenched beliefs because they're scared sh!tless of having to admit that they wholeheartedly put their faith into something and for it now to be false. It's like the victim of a scam refusing to believe that he let the Nigerian get away with his money.

Those creationist assholes still cling to the notion that evolution is one big conspiracy even though it's been proven. They still try to shift the goalposts and come up with pathetic and bullsh!t counter arguments in favour of some kind of "intelligent designer", citing rubbish about how an eye is so complex that it couldn't have evolved and had to be created.....even though master scientists prove them wrong.

When it was finally proven that the Earth was round and/or that it was not the centre of the universe, a lot of peoples' lives were shattered. They had difficulty coming to terms with the fact that they had wasted a large portion of their lives believing a non-truth. It is fear of this that causes people to dig their heels in and flatly refuse to allow inquiries into what they deem to be conspiracies. They'll even go so far as to lie to themselves by believing an obviously flawed and corrupted investigation if it backs up their own beliefs.

I read about a senior geologist (can't remember his name) who went to his grave in the 1960's STILL denying that plate-techtonics existed even though it was proven. He DIED clinging to false beliefs because he couldn't bring himself to admit he was wrong. That's just pathetic.

So you see, throughout history there have been instances and episodes of conspiracy theories that are no longer conspiracies because they have been proven and now years later those who believed otherwise are viewed with something bordering on amusement if not ridicule...or pity.


"The Church tells me that the Earth is flat. But I've seen the shadow on the moon and I trust the shadow more than I trust the Church."

--Ferdinand Magellan

Jeboa Safari

jackiebaron wrote: »

Precisely!

In the Middle Ages anyone who believed that the Earth was round instead of flat was not only accused of being the equivalent of a conspiracy nut, they were often threatened with death. Poor old Gallileo had to recant his belief in Copernicanism, that the Earth went round the sun, (in fact he could prove it) because he didn't want to die just to prove a point. You see these are the kind of people who rage against those who challenge their rigid and entrenched beliefs because they're scared sh!tless of having to admit that they wholeheartedly put their faith into something and for it now to be false. It's like the victim of a scam refusing to believe that he let the Nigerian get away with his money.

Those creationist assholes still cling to the notion that evolution is one big conspiracy even though it's been proven. They still try to shift the goalposts and come up with pathetic and bullsh!t counter arguments in favour of some kind of "intelligent designer", citing rubbish about how an eye is so complex that it couldn't have evolved and had to be created.....even though master scientists prove them wrong.

When it was finally proven that the Earth was round and/or that it was not the centre of the universe, a lot of peoples' lives were shattered. They had difficulty coming to terms with the fact that they had wasted a large portion of their lives believing a non-truth. It is fear of this that causes people to dig their heels in and flatly refuse to allow inquiries into what they deem to be conspiracies. They'll even go so far as to lie to themselves by believing an obviously flawed and corrupted investigation if it backs up their own beliefs.

I read about a senior geologist (can't remember his name) who went to his grave in the 1960's STILL denying that plate-techtonics existed even though it was proven. He DIED clinging to false beliefs because he couldn't bring himself to admit he was wrong. That's just pathetic.

So you see, throughout history there have been instances and episodes of conspiracy theories that are no longer conspiracies because they have been proven and now years later those who believed otherwise are viewed with something bordering on amusement if not ridicule...or pity.


"The Church tells me that the Earth is flat. But I've seen the shadow on the moon and I trust the shadow more than I trust the Church."

--Ferdinand Magellan

If you did any research, you'd know the belief in the flat earth theory is a myth.

jackiebaron

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

If you did any research, you'd know the belief in the flat earth theory is a myth.

I'm well aware that anyone with a smidgen of an education going back thousands of years was aware that the earth was a ball. It was the thick, great unwashed masses who could neither read nor write who believed the Earth was flat. They also believed in witches, changelings, dragons, fairies, magic, demons and other nonsense. These people rarely had much to do with the small core of educated people as they were too bsuy scratching out some kind of a living around the hut or tent they lived in.

But, and it's a very important "but" .. the only people who seem to try to debunk the flat Earth myth are christians. So here we have a bunch of people who believe in a bearded skywizard and they're supposed to have us believe them purely on the basis that the flat earth myth tends to attack christianity. Strange that.

Jeboa Safari

jackiebaron wrote: »

I'm well aware that anyone with a smidgen of an education going back thousands of years was aware that the earth was a ball. It was the thick, great unwashed masses who could neither read nor write who believed the Earth was flat. They also believed in witches, changelings, dragons, fairies, magic, demons and other nonsense. These people rarely had much to do with the small core of educated people as they were too bsuy scratching out some kind of a living around the hut or tent they lived in.

But, and it's a very important "but" .. the only people who seem to try to debunk the flat Earth myth are christians. So here we have a bunch of people who believe in a bearded skywizard and they're supposed to have us believe them purely on the basis that the flat earth myth tends to attack christianity. Strange that.

Thats a very dim view you take of our ancestors. I'm sure if anyone posted something similar about Africans or some other race you'd be up in arms

hooradiation

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Thats a very dim view you take of our ancestors. I'm sure if anyone posted something similar about Africans or some other race you'd be up in arms

It's chronological snobbery at it's finest, really.

Tea_Bag

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

lads bloody sunday is not a conspiracy. there were too many witnesses and the truth finally was released and an apology made. I am speaking about true conspiracies that can not readily be verified. as mr gibson says in the movie a good conspiracy is an unprovable one. now what do all the major conspiracies of the last sixty years have in common. roswell JFK Kelly War in iraq Diana Zero point energy and so on. they all just go away and the only people still talking about it are conspiracy buffs.. Hence my point they are all linked t one source be it a person a group or whatever. some conspiracies that have been vindicated or down right twarted were simply not linked to this source.

did a Google but nothing CT related came up, what's this zero point energy CT you're talking about. sorry if this is too off topic.

jackiebaron

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Thats a very dim view you take of our ancestors. I'm sure if anyone posted something similar about Africans or some other race you'd be up in arms

No not really. Apparently the Chinese had flat-Earth beliefs as late as the 18th century....even though they were the world's superpower for 18 out of the first 20 AD centuries.

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

If you did any research, you'd know the belief in the flat earth theory is a myth.

really? any links to back this up ...

humanji

jackiebaron wrote: »

No not really. Apparently the Chinese had flat-Earth beliefs as late as the 18th century....even though they were the world's superpower for 18 out of the first 20 AD centuries.

17th century, I think. It was the last of the great civilisations to let go of the idea. Flat Earth theory was generally debunked at the start of the middle-ages in Europe and far sooner in many other cultures (i think the Sumerians had a writings about a spherical Earth in around 4000bc).

But that's getting away from the simply point Jackiebaron is making. Lots of stuff is assumed to be true, then some people doubt it, and occasionally the doubters are proven right (despite wide spread mockery and occasional excommunication).

But the problem lies with peoples interpretation of facts. A widely misunderstood one, from the original post, is David Kelly. He fully believed there were WMD's in Iraq (and it was fairly obvious that they had had them, considering they used them in the Iran/Iraq war), but what he claimed was the "labs" that a report said were used for making them, were completely unsuitable and it was not possible for them to be produced there. The reports were "sexed up" to speed things along, and he spoke out about that.

This doesn't mean he wasn't murdered, but it shows that many people don't start out with the correct facts, and incorrect conclusions can be drawn. And it's difficult for any of us to move away from the first conclusion we come to, even when we're shown that we're wrong. So, this just results in us chasing our tales and never making progress, because we're only looking for one type of evidence.

And that leads to the other problem, that we don't and almost never will have the full story of any conspiracies. Sometimes this is because there isn't a conspiracy, and sometimes because it's too well hidden. It's not unless something huge comes along that we can move towards a truth (such as the full investigation into Bloody Sunday, or if someone were to admit to a JFK cover up).

So since all conspiracies are generally hidden, there's no way to say if they're connected. It's all just opinion and guess work.

Jeboa Safari

humanji wrote: »

But that's getting away from the simply point Jackiebaron is making. Lots of stuff is assumed to be true, then some people doubt it, and occasionally the doubters are proven right (despite wide spread mockery and occasional excommunication).

There's a world of difference between ancient philosophers and scientists predicting the world was round, and being able to prove it, and posters pushing a stupid conspiracy theories which are easily debunked or rely on biased nonsense more grounded in anti-western fantasy than reality. And jackie claiming that people were called deluded conspiracy theorists for not believing the official story on Bloody Sunday (despite many not believing it) is comparable with people who scream nwo/jews/evil americans is rubbish. There was good reason to doubt Bloody Sunday, with many prominent witnesses. Most of the nonsense posted here and on other ct sites has no credibility, and is propagated by people who think they are better than the majority (of sheep as they like to say), and the only ones who can see past supposedly the world controlled media nwo agenda, yet will happily let themselves be deluded by someone able to throw together a few youtube videos and articles longer than a few paragraphs because it fits in with agenda.

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

There's a world of difference between ancient philosophers and scientists predicting the world was round, and being able to prove it, and posters pushing a stupid conspiracy theories which are easily debunked or rely on biased nonsense more grounded in anti-western fantasy than reality. And jackie claiming that people were called deluded conspiracy theorists for not believing the official story on Bloody Sunday (despite many not believing it) is comparable with people who scream nwo/jews/evil americans is rubbish. There was good reason to doubt Bloody Sunday, with many prominent witnesses. Most of the nonsense posted here and on other ct sites has no credibility, and is propagated by people who think they are better than the majority (of sheep as they like to say), and the only ones who can see past supposedly the world controlled media nwo agenda, yet will happily let themselves be deluded by someone able to throw together a few youtube videos and articles longer than a few paragraphs because it fits in with agenda.

There is a world of difference between what you describe i.e. the perjorative "CTer" with all the associated negative stereotypes and what you are actually dealing with here. When was the last time anyone mentioned the term "sheep" or "NWO" here? Serious question. If you could manage to get past your own prejudices you would see that the only people making intelligent arguments are by-and-large people like jackie, davoxx and Ed.

SNAKEDOC

Tea_Bag wrote: »

did a Google but nothing CT related came up, what's this zero point energy CT you're talking about. sorry if this is too off topic.

zero point energy is basically an energy source that hasn'd been discovered yet and has been employed by the US in their bid to make there tech look like aliens. te story is that it is wat they managed to reverse engineer from the crash at roswell and other subsequent landings such as the one in england in the 80's near an american air base. creating energy from dark matter the anti substance holding the universe together. i can't quite get my head around it there is a book about it

http://www.amazon.com/Hunt-Zero-Point-Classified-Antigravity/dp/0767906276

have a read some interesting theories

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is a world of difference between what you describe i.e. the perjorative "CTer" with all the associated negative stereotypes and what you are actually dealing with here. When was the last time anyone mentioned the term "sheep" or "NWO" here? Serious question. If you could manage to get past your own prejudices you would see that the only people making intelligent arguments are by-and-large people like jackie, davoxx and Ed.

jackies thread yesterday mentions the nwo, and the word sheep mightn't be used as much as before on this site but its not uncommon to see jackie post nonsense ridiculing the intelligence of anyone who doesn't agree with what he posts. Lumping ed in with the other two is probably a bit unfair to him.

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

jackies thread yesterday mentions the nwo, and the word sheep mightn't be used as much as before on this site but its not uncommon to see jackie post nonsense ridiculing the intelligence of anyone who doesn't agree with what he posts. Lumping ed in with the other two is probably a bit unfair to him.

you're right for once ed is a much better man than davoxx is, davoxx does not tolerate fools ...

but to be fair to jackie and davoxx, if someone say 2+2=orange, they can't be blamed for drawing the conclusion that that someone's intelligence is not the sharpest cookie in the drawer of the picnic basket of life ...

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

you're right for once ed is a much better man than davoxx is, davoxx does not tolerate fools ...

but to be fair to jackie and davoxx, if someone say 2+2=orange, they can't be blamed for drawing the conclusion that that someone's intelligence is not the sharpest cookie in the drawer of the picnic basket of life ...

but its more common for jackie and davo to ignore 2+2=4 and instead retort with 2+2=tomato/potato

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

but its more common for jackie and davo to ignore 2+2=4 and instead retort with 2+2=tomato/potato

that could be true, but since davoxx and jackie have never ever gotten the 2+2=4 to ignore, they have never gotten the chance to use your retort ... but they both agree that you're the master here :P

infact, davoxx asks you to provide evidence of this ...

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

that could be true, but since davoxx and jackie have never ever gotten the 2+2=4 to ignore, they have never gotten the chance to use your retort ... but they both agree that you're the master here :P

infact, davoxx asks you to provide evidence of this ...

Here's you're evidence:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

You'll find threads that go something like this:

ed: 2+2=orange, what do you think?
skeptic: 2+2=4
davo: wow really, 2+2=4? your going to have to show me proof of this...
jackie: anyone that thinks 2+2=4 has an iq lower than room temperature. jesus lads :pac:
bb: and who benefits from this? again, its the jews {copy/pastes some select articles/quotes} (thanked by dathi)

And so on

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Here's you're evidence:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

You'll find threads that go something like this:

ed: 2+2=orange, what do you think?
skeptic: 2+2=4
davo: wow really, 2+2=4? your going to have to show me proof of this...
jackie: anyone that thinks 2+2=4 has an iq lower than room temperature. jesus lads :pac:
bb: and who benefits from this? again, its the jews {copy/pastes some select articles/quotes} (thanked by dathi)

And so on

well that was a very specific example .. thanks ... :rolleyes:

now you can see why when all i'm given is lemons, i throw them back at the idiots that gave me them ...

you had a chance to redeem yourself, but you've just proven my case for me ... thanks!!

but just to show i'm not talking crap, remember this:

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

If you did any research, you'd know the belief in the flat earth theory is a myth.

this is a response to a body of text where you only pulled apart the first sentence, incorrectly i might add ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth


how about this?

jackiebaron wrote: »

elections!

Another CNN camera shot of 20 people with their purple fingers raised in the air joyously cheering before being given their $50 and told to fcuk off.

which you reply with ...

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

If all this is about controlling the Middle East, why did the colonial powers give them up after world war two?

but this is the best one ..

here is a piece of you saying 2+2 = igloo and i reply with a nice 2+2 = 4 which gets ignored by you. then you submit another 2+2 = carrot, to which i correct you again ...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75635194&postcount=594

i seem to be correcting you a lot ... maybe it you learnt from your mistakes, i would not have to repeat myself

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

well that was a very specific example .. thanks ... :rolleyes:

now you can see why when all i'm given is lemons, i throw them back at the idiots that gave me them ...

you had a chance to redeem yourself, but you've just proven my case for me ... thanks!!

Indeed, you keep up the form of avoiding answers and instead asking for evidence and proof of things that are simple to find. You're not that helpless that you can't do even basic research are you?

davoxx wrote: »

but just to show i'm not talking crap, remember this:

this is a response to a body of text where you only pulled apart the first sentence, incorrectly i might add ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

eh, what?

davoxx wrote: »

how about this?

which you reply with ...

More a question directed at jackies general nonsense, and now that you highlight it, I never did get an answer

davoxx wrote: »

but this is the best one ..

here is a piece of you saying 2+2 = igloo and i reply with a nice 2+2 = 4 which gets ignored by you. then you submit another 2+2 = carrot, to which i correct you again ...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75635194&postcount=594

i seem to be correct you a lot ... maybe it you learnt from your mistakes, i would not have to repeat myself

Yes, you kept completely missing the point, and never answered the question.

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Indeed, you keep up the form of avoiding answers and instead asking for evidence and proof of things that are simple to find.

how can i answer an unknown question? or your incorrect made up facts? hence i ask for the background information to see if a) you've actually researched it, and b) to make sure you did not misinterpret it ...

you fail to provide anything to back up your claimed facts ... in fact i'd say you actively avoid presenting facts/evidence

if it is so simple to find, why don't you show me it?

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

You're not that helpless that you can't do even basic research are you?

right back at you bud, if you've found them before and they are so easy, just present the evidence ... you're not that helpless that you can't do a link in a post are you?

i've done my research, as shown in my example post, i just wish you would have done yours ...

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

eh, what?

when presented with several facts, you try to pick apart the first point only as though it invalidates the rest of his argument.
you were wrong as well, while there were people who believe the world was round, the majority believed it was flat ... the wiki references some of this too.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

More a question directed at jackies general nonsense, and now that you highlight it, I never did get an answer

it's not worth replying to to be honest ... jackies' point was not about controlling the middle east, it was highlight that these elections are suspect.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Yes, you kept completely missing the point, and never answered the question.

you had a point? you should explain it so .. i answered your non-point question about overthrowing Gadaffi 40 years ago though ...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75635194&postcount=594

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

skeptic: 2+2=4
davo: wow really, 2+2=4? your going to have to show me proof of this...

In your example "davo" is the skeptic. Let's be honest it was Jackie who was calling bull**** on the idiocy of the gay guy/girl in Damascus and the false propaganda stories of the Viagra rape crews sent out by Gadaffi.

Jackie is the skeptic, not the followers who are afraid to go outside the status-quo.

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In your example "davo" is the skeptic. Let's be honest it was Jackie who was calling bull**** on the idiocy of the gay guy/girl in Damascus and the false propaganda stories of the Viagra rape crews sent out by Gadaffi.

Jackie is the skeptic, not the followers who are afraid to go outside the status-quo.

not really, davo will tediously ask for proof of everything, even if the most basic of research will show answers, and as for jackie being a skeptic, well only if it fits in with a way to attack America or the west, and of course throw in an insult.
There's a difference between going against the status qua based on logically looking at the situation, and going against it for the sake of it, or to fit it into your agenda

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

not really, davo will tediously ask for proof of everything, even if the most basic of research will show answers, and as for jackie being a skeptic, well only if it fits in with a way to attack America or the west, and of course throw in an insult.
There's a difference between going against the status qua based on logically looking at the situation, and going against it for the sake of it, or to fit it into your agenda

proof please, this is an unfounded wild accusation that bears not relevance to the facts ... a link please ...

























i kid, i kid .... :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

not really, davo will tediously ask for proof of everything, even if the most basic of research will show answers, and as for jackie being a skeptic, well only if it fits in with a way to attack America or the west, and of course throw in an insult.
There's a difference between going against the status qua based on logically looking at the situation, and going against it for the sake of it, or to fit it into your agenda

davoxx only asks for evidence when someone says something stupid, in the hopes that said person will understand their error while looking for evidence that does not exist ...

this backfires on davoxx as the person will then ignore davoxx's repeated request for evidence, constantly changing their question/point/whatever, requiring davoxx to constantly correct the individual ...

said individual, then says that it is so easy to find, that they themselves can't be bothered copying and pasting it into a post and that davoxx is pedantic ... "crazy davoxx looking for facts to back up a point, davoxx has obviously not researched it like i did!" is the retort that is given ...

this is the point that davoxx has proven beyond all doubt that that individual is talking of out their hole ...

all davoxx asks is that you stop and think about what you are saying, and if in doubt, check the wiki at least ... if you can't do that, davoxx asks that you donate your computer to a child in japan who will make better use of it ...

Penn

Jeboa Safari banned for two days. Keep it clean, folks.

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

not really, davo will tediously ask for proof of everything, even if the most basic of research will show answers, and as for jackie being a skeptic, well only if it fits in with a way to attack America or the west, and of course throw in an insult.
There's a difference between going against the status qua based on logically looking at the situation, and going against it for the sake of it, or to fit it into your agenda

And these are the presumptions you should try to get over. It is too simplistic to say "oh, you would say that because your anti-American". Is everyone that is sceptical of war propoganda of the throwing babies out of incubators quality anti-american? Is everyone that opposes imperialist wars anti-American or anti-Imperialist wars and all the suffering that goes with it?

Look at this brief interview by John Pilger of Duane Claridge, Head of the CIA's Latin American Unit in the 80's. He says that it's okay for the US to overthrow democratically elected governments and the suffering of the people is "okay" if it suits US interests and you "can either like it or lump it"

Being against this is not "anti-US" or having an agenda; all you need is basic morals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNgCyDsvi84

He denies the numbers killed what I can say is that my wife was a baby in Chile at the time, she had family members killed. She still wakes up in a panic as she has done all of her life if she hears fireworks. How many traumatised children/adults do you think there are in the world from US bombs?

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And these are the presumptions you should try to get over. It is too simplistic to say "oh, you would say that because your anti-American". Is everyone that is sceptical of war propoganda of the throwing babies out of incubators quality anti-american? Is everyone that opposes imperialist wars anti-American or anti-Imperialist wars and all the suffering that goes with it?

Look at this brief interview by John Pilger of Duane Claridge, Head of the CIA's Latin American Unit in the 80's. He says that it's okay for the US to overthrow democratically elected governments and the suffering of the people is "okay" if it suits US interests and you "can either like it or lump it"

Being against this is not "anti-US" or having an agenda; all you need is basic morals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNgCyDsvi84

He denies the numbers killed what I can say is that my wife was a baby in Chile at the time, she had family members killed. She still wakes up in a panic as she has done all of her life if she hears fireworks. How many traumatised children/adults do you think there are in the world from US bombs?

When someones posts are almost solely based on attacking the same target over and over with sensationalist language, you get the impression that they are anti whatever they keep ranting and raving about. In jackies case, the US

Jonny7

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

When someones posts are almost solely based on attacking the same target over and over with sensationalist language, you get the impression that they are anti whatever they keep ranting and raving about. In jackies case, the US

The US and to a lesser extent the UK come in for a lot of flak largely because they choose to portray themselves (and are portrayed indirectly in film, TV, books, etc) as shining beacons of democracy, justice, truth, etc.

People just get angry with the whole "hypocrisy" of it, etc and start filtering what they want to hear, sure I used to be that way myself. The Cold War, Vietnam, Bush and Blair, Iraq, etc have all stoked it. I defy anyone to watch "No End in Sight", "Control Room", "The Fog of War" and read "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomski and not develop the same thing...


..the problem is when that turns into an obsession, and next thing you know you are standing in Tripoli "reporting" for Press TV - sorry couldn't resist :P

K-9

jackiebaron wrote: »

You're the one who claimed that most people thought that the official line was a crock. Yeah? You have stats regarding that? I was called a scumbag shinner for suggesting that the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were innocent back in 1986.....by more people than those who actually listened. Kinda like the same way you're now called a "terrorist sympathiser" if you say that waterboarding is torture or that those in Guantanamo should be charged or released.

The difference I see there is, the Irish Government campaigned for a Bloody Sunday Inquiry and reopening of the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 files.

When its often the Irish Government accused of covering up conspiracies, I don't think these qualify.

profitius

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well, if you doubted the official explanation of Bloody Sunday for 35 years then you were a conspiracy nut banging on about paras who lied, evidence that was tampered with, government cover-ups etc. But in the light of the Saville Inquiry it turns out that the conspiracy was exposed and the conspiracy theorists were fully vindicated. The British PM even made a public apology.

Jonny7 wrote: »

That's a nonsense generalisation. I don't know a soul in Ireland who believed the official version of events.

So we must all be conspiracy theorists then

namloc1980 wrote: »

Most people knew the initial investigation was a load of bull. Can you show us evidence of people being labelled "conspiracy nuts" for questioning the Bloody Sunday original story?

See, this is what irritates people like me. Some people go around denying any conspiracy theory but when its found to be true they then say it was obvious all along.

K-9 wrote: »

The difference I see there is, the Irish Government campaigned for a Bloody Sunday Inquiry and reopening of the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 files.

When its often the Irish Government accused of covering up conspiracies, I don't think these qualify.

To suit their own agenda. Big difference.

Di0genes

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

i was just thinking. how come no conspiracy has been uncovered properly even the real bad ones, such as the killing of the british man who was very outspoken about the 2003 invasion of iraq saying very publicly there are no wmd's and before the invasion he's found dead. the invasion goes ahead and they find nothing. his name was david something to lazy to look it up. anyway that all just went away noone held accountable. then others like

You mean Dr David Kelly. Kelly was a UK government weapons inspector, who in fact believed that there were WMDs in Iraq, but however felt the government had altered reports (sexed up) to hype up the threat of Iraq (the 45 minute claims). Kelly had spent time in Iraq and was looking forward to going back to investigate the WMDs he believed were there.

JFK still nothing there even with facts like on the tour he rode a closed limo but in dallas he was put in an open top one on arrival in dallas at the airport and the deputy cheif of staff of the white house insisted no secret service run along side which would have disrupted the field of view for any shooter.

JFK rode around in a open topped convertible pretty much at all times. There was a bubble top, made from perspex that was used in inclement weather, that would have provided no protection from a sniper. JFK himself disliked agents on his running boards (agents did not run along side the car, but instead stood and held on specific mounts on the car's running boards.) On tours in other cities like Florida JFK personally insisted the agents travel in the vechile behind him.

it seems to me the real conspiracy is that not one of these ever got leaked out as a cover up. so i'm thinking these are linked to someone or something, further example the Diana accident.

food for thought

You mean how a speeding car driven by someone who had been drinking heavily crashed and the passengers inside the car who weren't wearing seatbelts died?

You think thats strange?

to lazy to look it up.

Well yes things can look like a conspiracy to people who haven't bothered to investigate the matters filly.

Jonny7

profitius wrote: »

See, this is what irritates people like me. Some people go around denying any conspiracy theory but when its found to be true they then say it was obvious all along.

To suit their own agenda. Big difference.

So you see no difference between something like Bloody Sunday and the theories on NWO, 911, and Chemtrails?

profitius

Jonny7 wrote: »

So you see no difference between something like Bloody Sunday and the theories on NWO, 911, and Chemtrails?

Believe it or not, most people believe what they're told. The vast majority of people don't question things. They're then outraged when they find out they've been lied to.

The only time a majority believe in a CTs is when journalists write about it.

Just like the Guildford 4 seemed obvious to some people, the NWO seems even more obvious to me especially since I can see the signs all around me. Chemtrails, I don't know. I have not looked into that much.

Di0genes

profitius wrote: »

Believe it or not, most people believe what they're told. The vast majority of people don't question things. They're then outraged when they find out they've been lied to.

The only time a majority believe in a CTs is when journalists write about it.

Just like the Guildford 4 seemed obvious to some people, the NWO seems even more obvious to me especially since I can see the signs all around me. Chemtrails, I don't know. I have not looked into that much.

Ah everyone else is just blind and stupid, but you're smarted than the rest of us

weisses

Di0genes wrote: »

Ah everyone else is a blind and stupid, but you're smarted than the rest of us

Not smarter .... Just better in spelling maybe.

studiorat

weisses wrote: »

Not smarter .... Just better in spelling maybe.

I'd say he just has thicker fingers than most;)

Di0genes

weisses wrote: »

Not smarter .... Just better in spelling maybe.

Did you mean "at spelling"?

Penn

Cut the sarcasm, folks. All of you. Discuss the topic or don't post.