chalga Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 @catpus Did you provide any hard evidence to support your position? I (and I'm sure others) would be interested to hear what it is, is you have any. The ranting wall of text approach is a bit of turn-off. It's what Conspiracy Theorists do,you know them as 'Alternative Facts',otherwise known as lies,these are the sickos who want you to believe that dead people in terrorist attacks are paid actors,just like this one who asks how do you know that anyone got hurt in Salisbury?,post 367,.......sick or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert smith Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 Some posters on this subject have made me wonder what would have happened in 1938 if their attitude to our security had been around at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 It's what Conspiracy Theorists do,you know them as 'Alternative Facts',otherwise known as lies,these are the sickos who want you to believe that dead people in terrorist attacks are paid actors,just like this one who asks how do you know that anyone got hurt in Salisbury?,post 367,.......sick or what? What was the name of that other chap who was a big fan of big walls of text? Genuinely seemed mentally ill to me that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 What was the name of that other chap who was a big fan of big walls of text? Genuinely seemed mentally ill to me that one. Unbeleiver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 Unbeleiver? Nah, this guy was unhinged - always banging on about gas chambers. Unbeliever never went that far;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 It's what Conspiracy Theorists do,you know them as 'Alternative Facts',otherwise known as lies,these are the sickos who want you to believe that dead people in terrorist attacks are paid actors,just like this one who asks how do you know that anyone got hurt in Salisbury?,post 367,.......sick or what? I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with questioning the official narrative (as put forward by the state of which you're a citizen); so long as you approach it with fairness, balance, objectivity etc. I guess some people tend to go a bit over the top with it though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Some posters on this subject have made me wonder what would have happened in 1938 if their attitude to our security had been around at that time. i suppose you could ask the same about 1914, would you get thousands upon thousands flocking to the colours to end up dead in a muddy ditch? with this lot, you probably wouldnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockdoctor Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Some posters on this subject have made me wonder what would have happened in 1938 if their attitude to our security had been around at that time. Luckily there was no social media and 24 hour news channels around then. I think most of the UK public believe what the UK Government say about this incident and it is only a small minority who are behaving in a treacherous manner. I believe the situation would have been much worse if the Policeman had died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catpus Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 @catpus Did you provide any hard evidence to support your position? I (and I'm sure others) would be interested to hear what it is, is you have any. The ranting wall of text approach is a bit of turn-off. Thanks for your civil reply. I do agree that overly long texts are off putting for most people. But the information I give has been researched from many sources and I do have a dilemma sometimes what to leave out because it is all relevant? Although the transcript from the Tonight programme was perhaps unnecessary, but I wanted to make a point. :+) The 'hard evidence' you ask for is exposed in alternative sources, and is far more relevant than the standard go to rhetoric from the simpering May that ''Russia did it, because I said so''which belongs in the Nursery, imo and those who believe her belong there too, because they refuse to see the bigger picture or do some research for themselves, Not all people refuting this manufactured evidence are conspiracy theorists... or Russian sympathisers, but simply those who can see, hear and collate evidence from History. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Nah, this guy was unhinged - always banging on about gas chambers. Unbeliever never went that far;) Umm I do seem to recall someone like that... going to bug me now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now