|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 29, 2017 19:35:21 GMT
Observe as thorshairspray plays the "You're a fucking retard" card. Poor thing. It's the only card he has left to play. No, it has more to do with the fact that we know Manchester happened. The UK has no reason for this kind of "false flag" since the reaction it will provoke is the opposite of government policy. What would it achieve? Yes, we know it happened. A powder charge was set off, or perhaps the sound of an explosion on a speaker. No shrapnel. Panic. Pandemonium. Fake blood, fake tears, and fake crying. It happened all right. As to what it would achieve, fear and higher anti-Islamic sentiment. And guys like you get a chance to start threads like this, as an extra added bonus. Did you see the one with the girl who has been dead for four years and they still used her photo as one of the Manchester bombing victims? If you looked at her face and felt a great sense of tragedy, then you felt the emotion that you were expected to feel. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 29, 2017 19:38:51 GMT
tpfkar From your ytubes, no doubt.
Would you believe me if I told you that I had communication with them? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 29, 2017 19:42:33 GMT
I'm through collating. Manchester was another hoax, like Boston and Orlando. No bomb. No Islamic suicide terrorist. No kids blown to bits. It's bogus. No it wasn't. Instead of dubious YouTube videos (which I didn't watch), I'd rather get my information from more or less established media. www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/26/the-story-behind-the-fake-manchester-attack-victimsSo: There may have been fake victim reports, made by people for various motivations. Like trolling journalists, or personal revenge, or just a predisposition to scumminess. But it takes a special kind of stupid or despicability to make the leap (or pretend) that because there are false reports about an event, that the event didn't take place at all. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on May 29, 2017 19:47:17 GMT
No, it has more to do with the fact that we know Manchester happened. The UK has no reason for this kind of "false flag" since the reaction it will provoke is the opposite of government policy. What would it achieve? Yes, we know it happened. A powder charge was set off, or perhaps the sound of an explosion on a speaker. No shrapnel. Panic. Pandemonium. Fake blood, fake tears, and fake crying. It happened all right. As to what it would achieve, fear and higher anti-Islamic sentiment. And guys like you get a chance to start threads like this, as an extra added bonus. Did you see the one with the girl who has been dead for four years and they still used her photo as one of the Manchester bombing victims? If you looked at her face and felt a great sense of tragedy, then you felt the emotion that you were expected to feel. So the reports from hospitals are lies, the police reports are lies. UK police have deployed armed police to every airport and police have been present at shopping centres along with the deployment of the military to raise anti islamic sentiment? You realise that all the government would need to do Tell us why the UK government wants to raise anti islamic sentiment? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 29, 2017 19:48:50 GMT
I'm through collating. Manchester was another hoax, like Boston and Orlando. No bomb. No Islamic suicide terrorist. No kids blown to bits. It's bogus. No it wasn't. Instead of dubious YouTube videos (which I didn't watch), I'd rather get my information from more or less established media. www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/26/the-story-behind-the-fake-manchester-attack-victimsSo: There may have been fake victim reports, made by people for various motivations. Like trolling journalists, or personal revenge, or just a predisposition to scumminess. But it takes a special kind of stupid or despicability to make the leap (or pretend) that because there are false reports about an event, that the event didn't take place at all. Wow. The Guardian. Big time. Thank you for your interest in the topic. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 29, 2017 19:52:48 GMT
Yes, we know it happened. A powder charge was set off, or perhaps the sound of an explosion on a speaker. No shrapnel. Panic. Pandemonium. Fake blood, fake tears, and fake crying. It happened all right. As to what it would achieve, fear and higher anti-Islamic sentiment. And guys like you get a chance to start threads like this, as an extra added bonus. Did you see the one with the girl who has been dead for four years and they still used her photo as one of the Manchester bombing victims? If you looked at her face and felt a great sense of tragedy, then you felt the emotion that you were expected to feel. So the reports from hospitals are lies, the police reports are lies. UK police have deployed armed police to every airport and police have been present at shopping centres along with the deployment of the military to raise anti islamic sentiment? You realise that all the government would need to do Tell us why the UK government wants to raise anti islamic sentiment? To throw the country into chaos. That's why the UK government let the Muslims in to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 29, 2017 19:53:00 GMT
So along with the inability to actually answer question The post I replied to didn't contain a question. It's a bit hard to answer an unasked question. By asking if I am campaigning about car accidents, you are saying "why are you concerned about this small number of deaths, when you should be concerned about this larger number of deaths." You started the numbers game by constantly mentioning about 80% of terrorism acts being committed by Muslims. I just played along. If you don't like people beating you at your own game, don't start it. |
|
|
|
Post by papalazarou on May 29, 2017 19:59:58 GMT
9 hours ago The Herald Erjen said: I'm through collating. Manchester was another hoax, like Boston and Orlando. No bomb. No Islamic suicide terrorist. No kids blown to bits. It's bogus. On the plus side, Meryl Streep need not worry that any of these ridiculous clowns will offer her any worthwhile competition in the drama department.  Observe as thorshairspray plays the "You're a fucking retard" card. Poor thing. It's the only card he has left to play. When you make a comment like that what else is he supposed to call you? 22 people lost their lives, the youngest was 8 years old. 116 were injured and thousands have been left mentally scarred, many of them children. Just think about that for a moment. To say that those hoaxer videos that you have posted are in poor taste doesn't even come close. You are a disgrace. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 29, 2017 20:00:39 GMT
Wow. The Guardian. Big time. Yes, the Guardian. A paper that has been existing since the 19th century, and is made by professional journalists. Whom should I believe: A professional paper with a not too bad reputation; or some YouTube conspiracy theorists? If I had to think about this question for more than two seconds, then maybe I should ask to be admitted to a quiet place where plenty of friendly people in white clothes are being nice to me. Thank you for your interest in the topic. You're welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 29, 2017 20:05:19 GMT
9 hours ago The Herald Erjen said: I'm through collating. Manchester was another hoax, like Boston and Orlando. No bomb. No Islamic suicide terrorist. No kids blown to bits. It's bogus. On the plus side, Meryl Streep need not worry that any of these ridiculous clowns will offer her any worthwhile competition in the drama department. Observe as thorshairspray plays the "You're a fucking retard" card. Poor thing. It's the only card he has left to play. When you make a comment like that what else is he supposed to call you? 22 people lost their lives, the youngest was 8 years old. 116 were injured and thousands have been left mentally scarred, many of them children. Just think about that for a moment. To say that those hoaxer videos that you have posted are in poor taste doesn't even come close. You are a disgrace. You don't say? |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on May 29, 2017 20:19:25 GMT
So along with the inability to actually answer question The post I replied to didn't contain a question. It's a bit hard to answer an unasked question. By asking if I am campaigning about car accidents, you are saying "why are you concerned about this small number of deaths, when you should be concerned about this larger number of deaths." You started the numbers game by constantly mentioning about 80% of terrorism acts being committed by Muslims. I just played along. If you don't like people beating you at your own game, don't start it. You dodge every question you don't want to answer. I asked you specifically in the hate crime thread what YOU thought and you responded "I'm not the police" You did the same to Karl Aksel. Don't try to get out of it by by saying I didn't ask a question in the last response. Because its relevant in the context of talking about terrorism. Jesus Christ. Look, If you started a thread about about prostate cancer and somebody raised the numbers killed by breast cancer, that would be relevant. If they started talking about car crashes it wouldn't be. Bringing up traffic accidents in a thread about terrorism is simply a deflection. Is the murder rate relevant if we are talking about obesity related deaths? How about the numbers of suicides compared to starvation? God above. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on May 29, 2017 20:23:39 GMT
So the reports from hospitals are lies, the police reports are lies. UK police have deployed armed police to every airport and police have been present at shopping centres along with the deployment of the military to raise anti islamic sentiment? You realise that all the government would need to do Tell us why the UK government wants to raise anti islamic sentiment? To throw the country into chaos. That's why the UK government let the Muslims in to begin with. Why would the government want a nation in chaos? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 29, 2017 20:25:47 GMT
To throw the country into chaos. That's why the UK government let the Muslims in to begin with. Why would the government want a nation in chaos? To enforce more police state nonsense. Why are you pretending to be more stupid than you really are? |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on May 29, 2017 21:11:49 GMT
Why would the government want a nation in chaos? To enforce more police state nonsense. Why are you pretending to be more stupid than you really are? So you think the UK government wants to kill children and spend billions of pounds to create chaos so that it can introduce legislation to enforce a police state. Further that the British police, military and health service are willing pawns? You realise that that is dramatic overkill to introduce legislation, right? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 29, 2017 21:20:24 GMT
To enforce more police state nonsense. Why are you pretending to be more stupid than you really are? So you think the UK government wants to kill children and spend billions of pounds to create chaos so that it can introduce legislation to enforce a police state. Further that the British police, military and health service are willing pawns? You realise that that is dramatic overkill to introduce legislation, right? Your government doesn't give a flying flip about dead children. And neither does mine. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on May 29, 2017 21:27:53 GMT
So you think the UK government wants to kill children and spend billions of pounds to create chaos so that it can introduce legislation to enforce a police state. Further that the British police, military and health service are willing pawns? You realise that that is dramatic overkill to introduce legislation, right? Your government doesn't give a flying flip about dead children. And neither does mine. Dude, you're off your nut. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 30, 2017 0:20:09 GMT
tpfkar  I guess that's better than "Just shut up." "80% of terrorist attacks are done by Muslims." Perhaps right now. What's been going on in the Mideast the last few years that might have kept things stirred up I wonder. And the vast majority by men (forever), and by humans (for ever long there has been terrorism), and whatever other blah blah blah that you fling that means so much less than you want it to.
There is a serious problem within the Muslim Asian community when it comes to the sexual abuse of young girls(mainly white). |
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on May 30, 2017 1:09:43 GMT
tpfkar I guess that's better than "Just shut up." "80% of terrorist attacks are done by Muslims." Perhaps right now. What's been going on in the Mideast the last few years that might have kept things stirred up I wonder. Well, after all your wondering, what do you think? In the last few years, since the start of 2011 to be precise, we've seen these developments in the Mideast: 1. Libya disintegrated into various militia controlled zones (at least three) with everybody being Sunni. 2. Yemen disintegrated into three or more zones with Houtis (Shiites) in the west, Al Qaeda Sunnis and an internationally recognized government with no power. 3. Syria is divided into Alawite (Shiites?), ISIS, Kurdish and non-ISIS Sunni districts. OK, which of those conflicts keep(s) things stirred up Muslim terror attacks, in your view? Or is there some other source for the stirring? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 30, 2017 1:16:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on May 30, 2017 1:29:57 GMT
Yes, as you pointed out it is a list, albeit a partial one. But I already knew that. Which of those that I listed incited the recent Manchester attack? Were there any other Mideast events that caused the massacre? |
|
