lostexpectation
New Member
why did you let another one again anyway?
you already disected his points firmly to discredit him on the last one
you already disected his points firmly to discredit him on the last one
Possible 'false-flag' terror as prelude to World Cup 5th-6th June
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
Seriously, I think you need some professional help. Being that paranoid and gullible must be really bad for you.Jazzz said:er editor did you note the word 'possible' in the thread title? And the idea was to stop it happening. It's a bit much to go bananas now (especially after waiting to make sure nothing happened).
How on earth would posting a thread on U75 help to stop a FALSE FLAG operation ?!Jazzz said:er editor did you note the word 'possible' in the thread title? And the idea was to stop it happening. It's a bit much to go bananas now (especially after waiting to make sure nothing happened).
Indeed, as I asked before, WHO would be preventing the false flag operation from going ahead ?
You can`t give precise dates unless your privy to some kind of inside information or suchlike. Its fruitless to do so.
However to make an observation like; A terror attack during the summer would help the drive for war in Iran along nicely, is perfectly reasonable.
Thats my stance anyway.
To be fair Jazzzs hearts in the right place. Which is more than can be said for some on here.
However to make an observation like; A terror attack during the summer would help the drive for war in Iran along nicely, is perfectly reasonable.
Thats my stance anyway.
To be fair Jazzzs hearts in the right place. Which is more than can be said for some on here.
editor
hiraethified
Sure. But he started an entire thread with specific dates claiming that a 'false flag' operation was about to take place, entirely based on bonkers information from a FruitSpud Deluxe with a talking terrier and a fake charity.Azrael23 said:
What next? Sooty and his friend say that 9/11 was a cover up?
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
One would hope that he's learnt that taking bonkers conspiraloon sites at face value without checking up on basic facts is a daft thing to do.Azrael23 said:
But I doubt it....
liampreston
Spend time, not money
The conspiriloon threads would be of interest if they didn't spin around the same old subjects without ever reaching a conclusion. If Jazz were to post another one of his threads I would hestitate before reading it (more than usual 
) because of its almost certain recycled content.
) because of its almost certain recycled content.
Azrael23 said:
Incapable of listening to what is said, I see.
Editor - I would support you if you banned any more loonspud threads and banned the authors. There was a period of time on u75 when 9/11 CT threads were banned, but they seem to have crept back again.
I understand that it is hard to draw strict lines around what is and isn't a CT thread - the BBC News24 is right now running a story about the 'secret CIA flights' - although the difference is that they have actual evidence rather than just a load of made-up and bogus speculation.
However, you have given so many specific warnings about specific threads and linking to specific websites that maybe you don't have to make a 'general' ban - you can just ban all the *specific* bullshit by the preexisting posters we have had so far, with extra bans introduced as new twats arrive and new bullshit is invented?
At the very least it would free you up to spend your time and energy on worthwhile threads not all this shite.
At the moment I am using the 'ignore' function, but this doesn't change the underlying impact these threads have on the content, character and credibility of these forums.
I understand that it is hard to draw strict lines around what is and isn't a CT thread - the BBC News24 is right now running a story about the 'secret CIA flights' - although the difference is that they have actual evidence rather than just a load of made-up and bogus speculation.
However, you have given so many specific warnings about specific threads and linking to specific websites that maybe you don't have to make a 'general' ban - you can just ban all the *specific* bullshit by the preexisting posters we have had so far, with extra bans introduced as new twats arrive and new bullshit is invented?
At the very least it would free you up to spend your time and energy on worthwhile threads not all this shite.
At the moment I am using the 'ignore' function, but this doesn't change the underlying impact these threads have on the content, character and credibility of these forums.
So you accept the Anti-Terrorist Branch stance when they say "We carried out this operation with the object of stopping something bad happening. Not that we can be absolutely sure anything was stopped because of our action."?Jazzz said:
Azrael23 said:
Most people posting on these boards don't care much for what you think. To be quite fucking honest.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Azrael23 said:
Seems like you'll believe anything. Why can't you accept that the Dalai Lama might be a nazi?
Similar threads
