Immigrants, Not Briton's, Must Adapt

[Chris]

Thirdly : Last time I checked' date=' the BBC was a state owned organisation. -[b'] Erm no. It gets its subsidisation from the Government, but it's hands are firmly tied by the Murdoch corperation.

That's a total falsehood. The BBC is widely respected around the world as an independant, unbiased media (albeit state funded). It is wholly paid for by the licence fee and has no association with Rupert Murdoch's News Corp or Sky.

Can you please link to some sources to back up that strange claim?

[Hog]

Christ almighty Bux, what on earth have you been taking?

Firstly : Jeb Bush is the governor of Florida.

Secondly : Murdoch is an Australian

Thirdly : Last time I checked, the BBC was a state owned organisation.

Fourthly : Bill Gates might have something to say about Murdoch owning MSN

Fifthly : Echelon might very well pick up what you said, but don't you think the Americans are going to have sophisticated technology to immediately dismiss it as a rant? From what I've read, Echelon is more of a system to save stuff for later analysis anyway.

Sixthly : Falklands War, anyone? Kinda disproves the point that the United States have fought alongside the UK in every war.

Keith Rupert Murdoch (born March 11, 1931) is an Australian-born American media proprietor who is the majority shareholder and managing director of News Corporation, one of the world's largest and most influential media corporations.

Im just shit stirring Cloudster:up:

[Cloud]

Firstly : Jeb Bush is the governor of Florida. - Doesn't disproove he's a fraud.. Does proove Im shit at Geography

And why is he a fraud? I'm as anti-Bush as the next person' date=' but uh..wasn't it the Supreme Court in Florida who settled it all, not Jeb Bush? Don't you think that if Jeb Bush had the power to do what he's accused of doing, there wouldn't have been any fuss over the result? The sad reality is that Florida in 2000 proved that the judicial process in the United States is heavily influenced by politics - but then again, that's been the case for countless years.

Secondly : Murdoch is an Australian - Fair enough, doesn't disproove what i said though. Does disproove I dont know where he was born.

Thirdly : Last time I checked, the BBC was a state owned organisation. - Erm no. It gets its subsidisation from the Government, but it's hands are firmly tied by the Murdoch corperation.

What on earth are you on about? I dare say a lot of people who work for the BBC would slap you very hard for even suggesting that Murdoch influences them in any way. The BBC is very, very proud of their independent reputation - and one of the strongest arguments for retaining the licence fee is that there's simply no way that the BBC could maintain their independence if it was to be funded commercially instead of through a tax.

But yes, got any verifiable facts to prove that Murdoch influences the BBC?

Fourthly : Bill Gates might have something to say about Murdoch owning MSN - MSNBC is what I meant, sorry!!

Wikipedia says that MSNBC is owned by Microsoft and NBC Universal, which was formed out of General Electric's NBC and Vivendi Entertainment (A French company). No sign of any Murdoch involvement there.

Fifthly : Echelon might very well pick up what you said, but don't you think the Americans are going to have sophisticated technology to immediately dismiss it as a rant? From what I've read, Echelon is more of a system to save stuff for later analysis anyway. - Your point is noted collectively, but, that was kinda the point I made no?

What's wrong with that? It's a bit of a dodgy concept, but at the end of the day, who knows what Echelon has prevented?

Sixthly : Falklands War, anyone? Kinda disproves the point that the United States have fought alongside the UK in every war. - Britain against Argentina!!! I vividly said that we entered into it as Aliies for the United States and not the other way around. And anyway I think it was 1982 that war kicked off. It was something like '86 when the treaty was signed, to the best of my knowledge.

What's wrong with such a treaty anyway? What's the difference between that treaty and say Belarus being mates with Russia? Absolutely sod all.

Christ almighty, lay off the conspiracy theory websites eh?

[Benji]

Firstly : Jeb Bush is the governor of Florida. - Doesn't disproove he's a fraud.. Does proove Im shit at Geography

And why is he a fraud? I'm as anti-Bush as the next person' date=' but uh..wasn't it the Supreme Court in Florida who settled it all, not Jeb Bush? Don't you think that if Jeb Bush had the power to do what he's accused of doing, there wouldn't have been any fuss over the result? The sad reality is that Florida in 2000 proved that the judicial process in the United States is heavily influenced by politics - but then again, that's been the case for countless years.

Secondly : Murdoch is an Australian - Fair enough, doesn't disproove what i said though. Does disproove I dont know where he was born.

Thirdly : Last time I checked, the BBC was a state owned organisation. - Erm no. It gets its subsidisation from the Government, but it's hands are firmly tied by the Murdoch corperation.

What on earth are you on about? I dare say a lot of people who work for the BBC would slap you very hard for even suggesting that Murdoch influences them in any way. The BBC is very, very proud of their independent reputation - and one of the strongest arguments for retaining the licence fee is that there's simply no way that the BBC could maintain their independence if it was to be funded commercially instead of through a tax.

But yes, got any verifiable facts to prove that Murdoch influences the BBC?

Fourthly : Bill Gates might have something to say about Murdoch owning MSN - MSNBC is what I meant, sorry!!

Wikipedia says that MSNBC is owned by Microsoft and NBC Universal, which was formed out of General Electric's NBC and Vivendi Entertainment (A French company). No sign of any Murdoch involvement there.

Fifthly : Echelon might very well pick up what you said, but don't you think the Americans are going to have sophisticated technology to immediately dismiss it as a rant? From what I've read, Echelon is more of a system to save stuff for later analysis anyway. - Your point is noted collectively, but, that was kinda the point I made no?

What's wrong with that? It's a bit of a dodgy concept, but at the end of the day, who knows what Echelon has prevented?

Sixthly : Falklands War, anyone? Kinda disproves the point that the United States have fought alongside the UK in every war. - Britain against Argentina!!! I vividly said that we entered into it as Aliies for the United States and not the other way around. And anyway I think it was 1982 that war kicked off. It was something like '86 when the treaty was signed, to the best of my knowledge.

What's wrong with such a treaty anyway? What's the difference between that treaty and say Belarus being mates with Russia? Absolutely sod all.

Christ almighty, lay off the conspiracy theory websites eh?

Ok I will take back the BBC thing, as I have been digging into it and cant find anything solid. Fair enough I was wrong with that and I apologise to anyone who may take offence.

But I know for a fact that The Murdoch corporation owns 75% of all western media that includes FOX networks and it's affiliates which include MSNBC, that's all I'm saying about it, you can search for your own info onto that.

Trident Submarine Treaty.

http://cryptome.org/pm-secret.htm:

All the discussion on the Iraq war is essentially a diversion. There is a secret clause in the Trident submarine treaty that was signed by Mrs Thatcher in 1983. The secret clause states that the British Prime Minister is required to go to war if he/she gets the order from the President of the United States. You will appreciate that this information explains a lot, notably why Blair has repeatedly gone to war, but only when required to by the Americans. It also explains why Blair is so different from his Labour predecessors, such as Harold Wilson, who refused to send our troops to Vietnam in 1968. The secret agreement was designed by Thatcher to secretly tie the hands of British Prime Ministers for many years to come.

Some people may try to dissuade you from raising this information in your campaign. That would be a grave mistake. it could cause a sea change if you can get it into the media. It is convincing, it is true and it explains things. If you can get it into the news somehow, you will be able to take the initiative, even if you lose this election. This information will be of immense value to your movement 'Military Families Against War'. It can be used to focus your campaign around a priority objective, which is to get the treaty revised and the secret clause removed.

Owing to the subordination of our national sovereignty to foreign interests - American and even Israeli - there is significant dissent within the armed forces and the security services. It don't think it will take much for people with courage to speak out in your support. After all, it's obvious. Already Britain has a varied record of dissent in such matters: several people have spoken out on sensitive issues. If not in Britain, they have done it in America, thanks to the First Amendment.

End: Again if this information is false then I can only apologise, but as I see it, it seems very logical that this COULD be the case.

What do you mean whats wrong if this was the case?? All you need to do is look to the London Bombings for your answer. We are apart of a war that has nothing to do with us.

You said:

Wikipedia says that MSNBC is owned by Microsoft and NBC Universal, which was formed out of General Electric's NBC and Vivendi Entertainment (A French company). No sign of any Murdoch involvement there.

I find this hilarious, your telling me that your Wikpedia'ing your info. and expecting it to be accurate over conspiracy theories. Cool!

Why do you disbelieve in Jeb Bush's ways of vote rigging, That has been found out, and is not a conspiracy.

Navy voters, prison voters, etc etc They were all on the electrol register and voted bush without them knowing. Cheating?? Yes.

And if your way of thinking is in favour of the Echelon clause, then you be as well put the shackles on yourself as your apart of the problem and not the solution. We are being spyed on every time we communicate thats whats wrong.

All Im trying to do here is open some eyes to the truth of whats really going on. You can argue these points if you want but at the end of the day, I am right, and so are you.

And if this is the crack with some home truths, then I dare speak of the 5th Dimension..lol..

[Cloud]

But I know for a fact that The Murdoch corporation owns 75% of all western media that includes FOX networks and it's affiliates which include MSNBC' date=' that's all I'm saying about it, you can search for your own info onto that.[/quote']

75% of Western media, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International

He doesn't really own much of the UK market - even once you factor in Sky News, Murdoch only has control over a small portion of the UK market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation

Looking at that, it's safe to say that although he controls a lot of seperate interests, he doesn't have anywhere near 75% of the entire Western media. For instance, where's his ownership over French and German media?

And, for the last time, MSNBC has *nothing* to do with Murdoch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Universal

80% owned by General Electric. There's a link via Barry Diller, but he quit Fox nearly 15 years ago and additionally doesn't own any sort of controlling stake in MSNBC. So just where are you getting your statements from?

Trident Submarine Treaty.

Care to find any credible sites that use verifiable sources to back up this claim?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Trident+Submarine+Treaty%22&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=0&sa=N

A bunch of blog sites and other sites of dubious integrity. Also a bunch of blog posts reposting exactly the same thing. They all seem to have the common "TONY BLAIR IS A WAR CRIMINAL" hysteria about them. Again, absolutely no credibility to the claim.

I find this hilarious, your telling me that your Wikpedia'ing your info. and expecting it to be accurate over conspiracy theories. Cool!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiable

Do I need to say anymore? If it's wrong, find proof and edit it. Anyone can do it - so you're telling me that a site subject to such intense peer review (Wikipedians are notoriously annoying when it comes to verifying stuff) is going to be less accurate than a bunch of crackpot conspiracy sites?

Why do you disbelieve in Jeb Bush's ways of vote rigging, That has been found out, and is not a conspiracy.

Navy voters, prison voters, etc etc They were all on the electrol register and voted bush without them knowing. Cheating?? Yes.

Don't kid yourself that the Democrats wouldn't do exactly the same thing. America has always been about who has the most power anyway - what do you think the American Dream was really about? Anyway...why worry about 2000? It happened, but don't you think it says something that Bush actually got re-elected this time?

And if your way of thinking is in favour of the Echelon clause, then you be as well put the shackles on yourself as your apart of the problem and not the solution. We are being spyed on every time we communicate thats whats wrong.

Of course we are, but that's just a quirk of intelligence. I'm sure Russians, Poles, Latvians, etc are all spying on us too - and we're undoubtably spying on them.

I'm more concerned about the spread of CCTV, ANPR, etc than about some system that monitors communication - but at the same time, given our state's history of utterly cocking up every major computer system, it doesn't worry me that much. If we can't even get tax credits or child support right, what's the chances of them getting a huge survellience network actually working? Nil.

[Cloud]

Keith Rupert Murdoch (born March 11' date=' 1931) is an Australian-born American media proprietor who is the majority shareholder and managing director of News Corporation, one of the world's largest and most influential media corporations.

Im just shit stirring Cloudster:up:[/quote']

bastard

Nah, I don't doubt that he has his finger in a lot of pies compared to most people, but to say 75% of Western media is the most ridiculous claim ever.

[HeinzHines]

Nah' date=' I don't doubt that he has his finger in a lot of pies compared to most people, but to say 75% of Western media is the most ridiculous claim ever.[/quote']

I think thats one of those statistics that are correct and wrong all at once, like he wont own 75% of all media companies, but the companies he owns will feed news etc...to about 75% of the western media.

I think he owns all of sky tv these days and about a half share in LWT, he is a rich and powerful man, there is no debate on that!

[paranoid]

Yea I kinda go off the tangent a bit' date=' but here's the thing.. don't read it if you don't want to know the result, or, ban meh!

Paranoid ?..no my clichic friend, Im not paranoid, I've done some reaserch on this and know the crack with the world I live in, try doing the same before throwing stones from yer wee glass hoosie..

It's ok to cry big guy, let it out.[/quote']

That's nice, and the All Seeing Eye has what to do with this? I'm genuinely interested since you've "done some research", it would be good to see where you are coming from.

Of course you've skirted the issue twice already......................

[HairyScaryMark]

He doesn't really own much of the UK market - even once you factor in Sky News' date=' Murdoch only has control over a small portion of the UK market.

[url']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation

This website puts his share of British newspaper circulation at around 37%. No other single company or individual has such a large share of the British media.

http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/media/mediaown.html

I believe Viacom are currently placed as the worlds largest media company.

I wouldn't exactly call it a 'small proportion'. Atlhough I think his power is often overstated and he probably dosen't have the ability to determine the outcome of an election by himself. I think News Coporation are a huge threat to democract in Britain and around the world. There is also a strong case to be made that says he usaully gets a special favour from the British prime minister, in return of his support. In the case of Thatcher it was bypassing the monopolies commission so he could own The Times, in the Blair era Murdoch was able to monopolise digital TV market.

[Cloud]

This website puts his share of British newspaper circulation at around 37%. No other single company or individual has such a large share of the British media.

http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/media/mediaown.html

But is 37% that much' date=' really? He's been shrewd enough to place The Sun and The Times as being critically important to any politically campaign - look at the damage The Sun did to Kinnock to see just how much influence he does wield. But does that make him bad, or does it just mean that he knows how to get people to buy his papers?

I wouldn't exactly call it a 'small proportion'. Atlhough I think his power is often overstated and he probably dosen't have the ability to determine the outcome of an election by himself. I think News Coporation are a huge threat to democract in Britain and around the world. There is also a strong case to be made that says he usaully gets a special favour from the British prime minister, in return of his support. In the case of Thatcher it was bypassing the monopolies commission so he could own The Times, in the Blair era Murdoch was able to monopolise digital TV market.

Couple of points :

What makes News Coroporation any worse than the others? Is it because Murdoch is unashamedly about selling newspapers? Remeber, The Times was in a pretty bad way before he took it over, The Sun wasn't in a great position either - so really, he's achieved his newspaper domination through skillful management, rather than simply buying his way there.

Curiously, where do you get the idea that he got a favour from Thatcher? Owning two tabloids (The Sun and The News Of The World) and two broadsheets (The Times and The Sunday Times) hardly makes him an abusive, dominant operator.

As for getting favours from Blair as far as becoming the dominant operator in digital TV - Murdoch had already beaten out the state-sponsored competitor BSB in the race to become the sole satellite operator (at the time, there was no way that it was a big enough market for two operators). Why did he beat out BSB when they were "the chosen ones"? It's not to do with favours or influence, it's to do with simple economics - Sky weren't based in the UK and therefore weren't bound by the restrictions that BSB were under. BSB were late coming to market, and Sky managed to get receivers in people's houses before BSB did. Additionally, Sky was simply better - so seeing as both companies were losing money hand over fist, Sky was simply in the stronger position and came out on top after the merger between the two companies. All this happened in roughly 1990, so where does Blair come into it?

Now, Murdoch skillfully guided BSkyB from being a free service into a paid-for service, wisely used sports to make it a must-have service, and has generally pushed the technology further and further as time goes on.

But...let's look at the accusation of monopoly. OnDigital, later ITV Digital failed because of ridiculous management and the fact that subscribing didn't guarantee you reception, whereas Sky did. Sky also offered more for the same amount, and pretty much won that war through offering a better package all round. On the other hand, Freeview has been a huge success, bigger than they dared to imagine. The BBC is also launching a free satellite service, which may or may not knock the wind right out of Sky's sails. NTL are also poised to become a force in the digital communications world, and have a physical presence - they might not have the money at the minute to expand their network to new places, but once the money from the Telewest and possible Virgin mergers come in, I wouldn't be surprised to see them start to really push to roll out cable.

May I ask, why is he a threat to democracy when others aren't? Are you saying that all media companies bar state funded ones are a threat to democracy? Are The Mirror Group a threat based on the amount of downright libellous rubbish they've printed in the past? What about the Independent, are they a threat based on their lib dem-esque policies? What about ITV, are they a threat seeing as they control part of Freeview and the ITV companies in England?

Murdoch is just a scapegoat for those who want to believe.

[Benji]

Murdoch is just a scapegoat.. Please Cloud, stop drinking the hard stuff yea?

Murdoch's corperation are the fore-front of sensationalism: It's fair to say that Iraq really does proove that.

[Cloud]

Murdoch's corperation are the fore-front of sensationalism: It's fair to say that Iraq really does proove that.

Of course they are, sensationalism sells papers/gets viewers/etc. I never once denied that Murdoch has pushed trash TV/journalism in order to make money. But what has his style of media production got to do with the point at hand?

[Benji]

Of course they are' date=' sensationalism sells papers/gets viewers/etc. I never once denied that Murdoch has pushed trash TV/journalism in order to make money. But what has his style of media production got to do with the point at hand?[/quote']

What is the point in hand cloud?

Are we still in your Bush doesn't need to cheat mode? Or do you accept that he is a devil worshipping faggot, who uses the Evangalists vote to get him into power, becasue his office knows; That's all they need.

The point in Murdoch's senasationalist doings, is simple really.

Again I refer to the Problem, reaction, solution method.

Bush Snr has been trying to invade Iraq for years, I hope we can agree on that part at least.

But as we know public support will not allow this. So, you give the public a reason why you are doing this and keep the actual reason undercover.

Bush is telling us that our freedom is under attack constantly from the Iraqi's and that we have to fight back and protect ourselves. When there is no freedom to be threatened, but you blow up a couple of buildings.. make it seem as if war has struck America and say "Enough is Enough, we are going to invade iraq" - Even tho. the trade centre/pentagon attacks were allegdly from the Afgan's, whom Bush/Cheney are buisness partners with..lol.

So the problem from a corporate scale is : Iraq harbors the 2nd highest amount of oil in the world, next to the saudi's. Without Oil, the wheel of civilisation in the U.S. will grind to a halt, obviously.

The Problem from a 'Joe Bloggs' point of view is.. The towel heads just blew up our trade centres and attacked our way of life. We won't stand for that - This gives the Government 2 advantages, 1) Our People are scared into believing that a war is going on. 2) Army recruitment will triple.

Reaction - As I said before about the WWI + WWII, the people are mentally and physically driven down by the corporate whore that leaves them with only one Question: What are they going to do about it?. .. They being the ame people who made the problem in the first place. (There's so much evidence out there that will astound you cloud.. Like bomb on the bottom of the planes, bombs on every 20 floors, security ID system going down 2 days before the attacks..for the 1st time ever for security upgrades, the pentagon "plane" that was actually a missile)

Solution - We invade iraq, use sensationalistic methods to get our people believing that iraq is evil, and that they are trying to kill us and that this war will help the people of Iraq see the light.. In the meantime back here, blow up things and blame it on there suicide bombers. Whilst everyday keep installing the idea that iraq and the likes of are still trying to resist our way of life, at the same time keep on printing absolute shit about their evil ways and people, so it buys both the US + Uk time in iraQ.

I'm not trying to argue the point I'm trying to make. I'm just sick to the skin of me trying to convince you all of the truth...

..That Bush Snr and Co. are planning New World Order... The foundation has already been paved and before long you'll see the likes of 'chipping' and other wierd ass stuff, hell, the patriot act is basically the building blocks for this order.

But thats just My opinion, and I can't make you see that. You seem to be a clever guy, do some research (not wikipedia..lol..).

[Cloud]

What is the point in hand cloud?

Are we still in your Bush doesn't need to cheat mode? Or do you accept that he is a devil worshipping faggot' date=' who uses the Evangalists vote to get him into power, becasue his office knows; That's all they need.[/quote']

Devil worshipping? Where do you get that from?

As for the Christian vote - his policies obviously appeal to them. It's their choice - but let me find a little number for you. 62,040,610 people voted for Bush in 2004, a clear 3 million votes ahead of Kerry. Bush also obtained more than 50% of votes cast, meaning that he was returned with a majority of voters voting for him. So he's obviously a popular guy.

Source : http://uselectionatlas.org/

The point in Murdoch's senasationalist doings, is simple really.

Again I refer to the Problem, reaction, solution method.

Bush Snr has been trying to invade Iraq for years, I hope we can agree on that part at least.

But as we know public support will not allow this. So, you give the public a reason why you are doing this and keep the actual reason undercover.

Bush is telling us that our freedom is under attack constantly from the Iraqi's and that we have to fight back and protect ourselves. When there is no freedom to be threatened, but you blow up a couple of buildings.. make it seem as if war has struck America and say "Enough is Enough, we are going to invade iraq" - Even tho. the trade centre/pentagon attacks were allegdly from the Afgan's, whom Bush/Cheney are buisness partners with..lol.

If you did your research, you'd know that the Taliban were no friends of the Americans once the Soviet Union fell. The Americans were only on good terms with them to begin with because of the war that the Soviets were fighting - the enemy of my enemy is my friend type affair.

As for the Afghan war - I think it's pretty much accepted that Bush had to be seen to do something after the attacks, and what better than a good war to get people going? Didn't exactly hurt Thatcher, anyway.

So the problem from a corporate scale is : Iraq harbors the 2nd highest amount of oil in the world, next to the saudi's. Without Oil, the wheel of civilisation in the U.S. will grind to a halt, obviously.

Yup, and Saddam had started pricing oil in Euro, not Dollars - which was obviously a huge problem for the Americans as far as their economy goes. I agree completely that part of the justification of war was to secure oil supplies.

The Problem from a 'Joe Bloggs' point of view is.. The towel heads just blew up our trade centres and attacked our way of life. We won't stand for that - This gives the Government 2 advantages, 1) Our People are scared into believing that a war is going on. 2) Army recruitment will triple.

And so people want revenge. Remeber, as I said above, over 50% of voters in the US indirectly supported the war by voting for Bush in 2004. So cool, we've established that people wanted to fight Iraq.

Reaction - As I said before about the WWI + WWII, the people are mentally and physically driven down by the corporate whore that leaves them with only one Question: What are they going to do about it?. .. They being the ame people who made the problem in the first place.

WWI was caused by the corporate whore? That's a new one, I always thought it started because of a complex set of treaties leading everyone into fighting each other. But hey.

(There's so much evidence out there that will astound you cloud.. Like bomb on the bottom of the planes, bombs on every 20 floors, security ID system going down 2 days before the attacks..for the 1st time ever for security upgrades, the pentagon "plane" that was actually a missile)

I've read about it all. I'm not convinced by any of it - for one simple reason. If it WAS a huge cover up, how on earth do you expect all the relevant parties to keep quiet? It's just not possible. But let's talk about the conspiracy theories...

Bomb on the bottom of the plane : ever heard of photoshop?

Bombs on every 20 floors : Don't be ridiculous. Does it not make perfect sense that if you destroy the top of something, the rest is likely to go tumbling down? Any architect will tell you that it's testament to the design of the building that it held out and then collapsed the way it did - sure, it could've been designed better, but were they really expecting planes to hit them?

Security system going down : happens all the time, it's nothing special.

Pentagon plane : Do you not think that the intense fires and heat in a confined space is going to destroy a lot of stuff? Think about all the aviation fuel, that stuff burns well, as witnessed by previous disasters

Solution - We invade iraq, use sensationalistic methods to get our people believing that iraq is evil, and that they are trying to kill us and that this war will help the people of Iraq see the light.. In the meantime back here, blow up things and blame it on there suicide bombers. Whilst everyday keep installing the idea that iraq and the likes of are still trying to resist our way of life, at the same time keep on printing absolute shit about their evil ways and people, so it buys both the US + Uk time in iraQ.

And what has that got to do with Murdoch? Other forms of media are doing exactly the same - but are you now blaming the London attacks on the Goverment too? And if you are, I would tread very carefully.

I'm not trying to argue the point I'm trying to make. I'm just sick to the skin of me trying to convince you all of the truth...

Now you are sounding like some conspiracy nutter. It's funny, they all have the same line "I'm sick of trying to convince you all of the truth"...if it was the truth, don't you think more people would believe it? Credibility is everything.

..That Bush Snr and Co. are planning New World Order... The foundation has already been paved and before long you'll see the likes of 'chipping' and other wierd ass stuff, hell, the patriot act is basically the building blocks for this order.

Oh jeez...haven't people been planning a New World Order since day 0? I seem to recall reading about how the Nazi's thought that the Jews were, then the Kennedy's, now it's Bush...who next?

The Patriot Act is worrying, but at the same time, I don't see it surviving for long in its current guise, especially if the Democrats regain control of all three branches of Congress. But hey, don't you think Russia, China, France, etc might have something to say about a US New World Order? They all have nuclear weapons too, don't forget...

But thats just My opinion, and I can't make you see that. You seem to be a clever guy, do some research (not wikipedia..lol..).

What's wrong with Wikipedia? It's subject to intense peer review, it's well known for being utterly anal about verifiability and it has a great deal of respect for managing to be accurate despite the nature of it all. It could be better, but can't everything?

Here's a question : are your conspiracy nut websites verified by the same intense peer review that Wikipedia is? And if they aren't, why not, if it's the truth?

Bux...nice try, but remeber, all forms of media are controlled by those who write it. This applies equally to Murdoch as it does to those conspiracy nut websites.

[Benji]

Right!

The devil worshipping claim... Bush (as said earlier) is apart of the secret society of the Illuminati ! Do you agree?

Find out what they do for initaiting new members..

______________________________________________

John Kerry Is George Bush's Cousin, and is also a member of the illuminati.

George Bush Snr is apart of the illuminati.. I don't know the names given to the other 2, but Bush Snr is called 'Magog' which in ancient mythology is the army of the devil fighting against christianity!!

The two symbols of the illuminati, are the owl, and the all seeing eye. The Bohemian club burn an effigy named 'care' under a 40ft Owl. This was infiltraited for the first time ever by Alex Jones in 2001. See the vid to believe, I did, and trust me...No photoshop was used.

______________________________________________

The Taliban .

I get what your saying, but answer these simple questions:

How and why did the Bin Laden Family get out of America on the same day of the 9/11 attacks, when no other plane was allowed to enter the sky.?

If the attacks were done by the Al Queda of Afghanistan, why and where is Bin Laden?

MI5/6 funds/funded the Taliban ..... FACT.

________________________________________________

World War 1 + 2

I see what your saying, but again can you answer these O so simple questions?

Can you explain why IBM, and the Bank of England funded the Nazi Campaign?

Mrs. Battenburg otherwise known as the Queen is German.. Do you not think that she would have something to say about Germany being a force?

__________________________________________________

9/11

Bomb on the plane could easily be Photoshop, prove to me it is.

The security system has never lapsed, so don't say it happens all the time. And for it to happen 2 days before the attacks for the first time EVER! Bit of a cooincidence? Fair enough.

This part confuses me totally, but, for some reason every Bulgarian that worked in the Trade centres, were phoned and told to phone in sick on 9/11 under mysterious circumstances.

9/11 WAS an inside job, this is so close to being common knowledge. You say that other parties would know etc. They do, there are hundreds of Whistle-Blowers on the go, I think your looking in the wrong places tbh dude.

Pearl harbour was an inside job.

Operation NorthWoods.. etc etc

www.infowars.com www.prisonplanet.com

___________________________________________________

I really don't think you have the capacity to believe in this. As you say all the conspiarists are wrong. And the World is fine. Go back to sleep people, your world is under control.

I don't mind debating this fact, but if your not willing to open your mind to at least some of this stuff, there's absolutely no point in me helping you see "The Truth"! lol.

Wikipedia is cool for common knowledge I'm not debating the verification of the place, I'm saying these kind of places won't tell you what you need to know on this subject.

[paranoid]

What is the point in hand cloud?

.............

But thats just My opinion' date=' and I can't make you see that. You seem to be a clever guy, do some research (not wikipedia..lol..).[/quote']

And the All Seeing Eye comes in where?

I'm growing tired of asking, but you seemed so sure it is a sinister thing that you've sparked my interest. I await your explaination with baited breath.

[paranoid]

The two symbols of the illuminati' date=' are the owl, and the all seeing eye.[/quote']

One group of people using an innocent symbol who turn out to be "evil" (inverted commas used as the Illuminati has not been officially branded evil, only sensationalist American websites claim an evil presence).

Erm, Nazi's use of the Swastika anyone?

[Benji]

And the All Seeing Eye comes in where?

I'm growing tired of asking' date=' but you seemed so sure it is a sinister thing that you've sparked my interest. I await your explaination with baited breath.

[/quote']

I've sparked YOUR interest. What is this - a fucking Joke!?

There's one simple thing you can do, that I've done.....LEARN ABOUT IT... gees!

I'm not trying to be a smartarse here, all i'm trying to do is open a couple of doors for you to see the real World that you apart of.

It's up to you to walk through the door, and as Alice found out - See how far the rabbitt hole really does go!

simple thing to do if your really keen:

Get winamp > Go to winamp tv > watch some Freedom tv > David Icke is a bit out there, but he has a lot of good points tbh. Except for the 5th dimension talk ..lol..

Alex Jones is a much better fact finder tbh... Actual Facts derived from independant newspapers etc.

I hope you take this seriously, unlike some..

[Benji]

to be honest a lot of you people are taking the piss... Understandably really... But if you want to debate, then debate... Don't try and act the fool because you think someone you know might come in and see what you've written and think "freak"..lol.

Ether anyone? lol..

[paranoid]

If you hadn't guessed, I have a genuine interest, but not in the same way you have. I was trying to make the point that you are bringing a perfectly innocent thing into very dodgy ground. The All Seeing Eye has been used by the Illuminati yes, but there are different organisations, such as Freemasonary, that use it also. I am concerned that people reading this will blindly google your "power words" and find sites that claim Freemasonary is some terrible corrupt organisation.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

[paranoid]

to be honest a lot of you people are taking the piss... Understandably really... But if you want to debate' date=' then debate... Don't try and act the fool because you think someone you know might come in and see what you've written and think "freak"..lol.

Ether anyone? lol..[/quote']

People can think "freak" all they want.

Gah, I listen to ICP for god sake, do you not think I get enough of that?

[Benji]

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Yeah totally man.

The Skull & Crossbones however...Dodge City... Along with the Scroll & Key club..

[paranoid]

Yeah totally man.

The Skull & Crossbones however...Dodge City...

I could get into another one there, but I wouldn't be able to argue that one effectively.

All I'll say is Power word: Knights Templar

[Mr Shankly]

Are we still in your Bush doesn't need to cheat mode? Or do you accept that he is a devil worshipping faggot' date=' who uses the Evangalists vote to get him into power, becasue his office knows; That's all they need. [/quote']

Doesn’t every politician have core supporters to get elected? If you didn’t know, religion is quite important in America and therefore both political parties try to get their support.

The point in Murdoch's senasationalist doings' date=' is simple really. [/quote']

Your ramblings on Rupert Murdoch have reminded me of an interview with the so-called left-wing American actor Tim Robbins where he complained about the American media, and in turn praised the quality of the UK media. He said something along the lines of Murdoch’s press is destroying political debate in the US and he commented that he wished the US had quality UK newspapers such as “The Times”…

Regarding Murdoch, if there was not a demand for trashy right-wing media then there wouldn’t be Fox News or The Sun, but there is, so I guess you will have to deal with it. Anyway, do you think that someone who wanted a balanced view on the Iraq situation would have looked to Fox or The Sun for enlightenment? I think not.

Of course the enlightened, like you, read “independent” websites where far right-wing whackos associate with so-called leftists and anti-Semites to get their opinion about the World across.

“It is the American Government that is evil, no it is the Zionists, yeah, but, no, but, yeah, but…the Zionists control the US Government…SHUT UP! The US Government was behind the 9/11 attacks…there is no jihadist movement…they are just fighting imperialism.”

Bush Snr has been trying to invade Iraq for years' date=' I hope we can agree on that part at least. [/quote']

Don’t you mean Bush Jnr?

I haven’t read any statements from him before he came to power saying that he wanted to invade Iraq. In fact, he campaigned on a right-wing isolationist foreign policy.

If you are referring to close allies of Bush, such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, then yes they signed a letter to President Clinton in the mid-90’s calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, which is not actually an usual act considering Saddam Hussein’s record of tyranny. Surely everyone is happy Saddam Hussein is not in power in Iraq anymore, then again…

Bush is telling us that our freedom is under attack constantly from the Iraqi's and that we have to fight back and protect ourselves.

I never heard Bush say “Iraqis” were a threat to America; he made it clear that the State of Iraq with Saddam Hussein in power was a threat to the West. Of course' date=' that threat was probably exaggerated, but considering Hussein’s record in power, it was not an unbelievable premise that Hussein could be a threat to the West and his own neighbours.

So the problem from a corporate scale is : Iraq harbors the 2nd highest amount of oil in the world, next to the saudi's. Without Oil, the wheel of civilisation in the U.S. will grind to a halt, obviously.

Blood for oil, eh? Surely now that Iraq is an emerging democratic Country, (it would be a democratic Country, if not for the Jihadists and ba’athists intent on making Iraq a totalitarian State again) the Iraqi Government and people will be able to benefit from its oil wealth and trade with the West. Unlike before, where the economy was wholly privatised to the bank account of the Hussein family or in various Middle-East Countries where oil wealth is used to buy palaces and to fund extreme Islamist ideologies.

The Problem from a 'Joe Bloggs' point of view is.. The towel heads just blew up our trade centres and attacked our way of life. We won't stand for that - This gives the Government 2 advantages' date=' 1) Our People are scared into believing that a war is going on. 2) Army recruitment will triple.

Reaction - As I said before about the WWI + WWII, the people are mentally and physically driven down by the corporate whore that leaves them with only one Question: What are [i']they going to do about it?. .. They being the ame people who made the problem in the first place. (There's so much evidence out there that will astound you cloud.. Like bomb on the bottom of the planes, bombs on every 20 floors, security ID system going down 2 days before the attacks..for the 1st time ever for security upgrades, the pentagon "plane" that was actually a missile)

So the US Government was behind the 9/11 attacks, yes very logical, indeed.

Could you explain why Bin Laden took responsibility for those attacks? If the US carried out the 9/11 attacks, who carried out the attacks on Bali, Madrid, Jordan, Turkey, London and numerous other places that have fallen foul of barbarism? Who are beheading and deliberating killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan today? A teacher in Afghanistan who committed the evil sin of educating a girl was beheaded only last week. Of course, the teacher should expect such an action. I mean the teacher is obviously a Western collaborator and committing an evil sin against “Islam”.

I'm just sick to the skin of me trying to convince you all of the truth...

The Truth?

[jester1470]

Right!

The devil worshipping claim... Bush (as said earlier) is apart of the secret society of the Illuminati ! Do you agree?

Find out what they do for initaiting new members..

I've done a lot of research about the Illuminati and havent found any proof whatsoever fo their existance' date=' you'd think there might be something... I'm more inclined to believe Iain Banks' book the Business.

John Kerry Is George Bush's Cousin, and is also a member of the illuminati.

George Bush Snr is apart of the illuminati.. I don't know the names given to the other 2, but Bush Snr is called 'Magog' which in ancient mythology is the army of the devil fighting against christianity!!

The two symbols of the illuminati, are the owl, and the all seeing eye. The Bohemian club burn an effigy named 'care' under a 40ft Owl. This was infiltraited for the first time ever by Alex Jones in 2001. See the vid to believe, I did, and trust me...No photoshop was used.

I've seen these pictures - it's hardly conclusive - what you're saying is you'll believe one person about these meetings, which surely if the Illuminati were as all powerfull as you think they would have killed the guy or got the pictures out of the public eye, the guy really doesnt seem to be all there.

The Taliban .

I get what your saying' date=' but answer these simple questions:

How and why did the Bin Laden Family get out of America on the same day of the 9/11 attacks, when no other plane was allowed to enter the sky.?

If the attacks were done by the Al Queda of Afghanistan, why and where is Bin Laden?

MI5/6 funds/funded the Taliban ..... FACT.

[/quote']

The Bin Laden family were taken out of America for a number of reasons, security of the family being one of them, would you want to be a Bin Laden in the US after 9/11 ? It was also part of a treaty and meetings with Saudi Aradia IIRC.

World War 1 + 2

I see what your saying' date=' but again can you answer these O so simple questions?

Can you explain why IBM, and the Bank of England funded the Nazi Campaign?

Mrs. Battenburg otherwise known as the Queen is German.. Do you not think that she would have something to say about Germany being a force?

[/quote']

Erm lots of people were involved in funding the Nazi Campaign, Germany was a strong industrial power before WW2. That was the legacy Hitler gave them, hence the support he had. The Queen is a figurehead, i'm not sure what kind of power you think she weilds but its not that much.

9/11

Bomb on the plane could easily be Photoshop' date=' prove to me it is.

The security system has never lapsed, so don't say it happens all the time. And for it to happen 2 days before the attacks for the first time EVER! Bit of a cooincidence? Fair enough.

This part confuses me totally, but, for some reason every Bulgarian that worked in the Trade centres, were phoned and told to phone in sick on 9/11 under mysterious circumstances.

9/11 WAS an inside job, this is so close to being common knowledge. You say that other parties would know etc. They do, there are hundreds of Whistle-Blowers on the go, I think your looking in the wrong places tbh dude.

Pearl harbour was an inside job.

Operation NorthWoods.. etc etc

[url']www.infowars.com www.prisonplanet.com

Actually I dont believe for a second that there was a bomb on the plane, it would be slightly self defeating if something went wrong and it went off early etc. OK so a computer system went down that does happen all the time that this one happened then is probably just coincidence. Do you think that the fact that the Lone Gunmen TV show featured a plane being hijacked and crashed into the trade centre is coincidence 6 months before it happened ?

I've never heard that Bulgarian thing, ios there any positive proof for this or just more conspiracy websites ? I know someone who was in a building opposite and watched the plane go into the second tower, there was no bombs mentioned by him.

I cant help thnking if most of this was true there really would be more actual evidence, not circumstantial, not stuff that looks photoshopped or altered. It's not difficult for someone to fake this, give me something and I'm pretty sure I could fake up anthing using photoshop.

I really don't think you have the capacity to believe in this. As you say all the conspiarists are wrong. And the World is fine. Go back to sleep people' date=' your world is under control.

I don't mind debating this fact, but if your not willing to open your mind to at least some of this stuff, there's absolutely no point in me helping you see "The Truth"! lol.

Wikipedia is cool for common knowledge I'm not debating the verification of the place, I'm saying these kind of places won't tell you what you need to know on this subject.[/quote']

OK I've done a fair bit of research on various websites etc and other things and nothing has made me think 9/11 and the aftereffects were anything more than retaliation against bad American Foreign Policy, If Bush was Illuminati I cant help thinking that he wouldnt come across as so mind blowingly stupid.

Just out of interest, in a different type of thing have you ever read Von Daniken, old time conspiracy theories about evolution etc.

Cheers

Stuart