Cops shilling on this forum?

[simplesimon]

marky 54 wrote:

so what are you saying here? the war was not illegal and anyone saying it is shilling to ferther the agenda of the NWO?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Of course it was "illegal". So what? Would it be ok if the UN declared it legal? Would the napalmed residents of Fallujah get any comfort from a UN resolution? War IS the crime (morally). My point was that to complain that it is illegal presupposes the legitimacy of the UN, which I reject. I think that the UN (and EU, and soon the NAU if they are allowed to get away with it) were brought to you by the same people who brought you WW2. Likewise WW1 and the LON.

strange how this forum works sometimes, i thought most here thought the war in iraq was illegal, i've never heard anyone equate it with shilling or ferthering the nwo agenda before.

I didn't say that anyone who does is, I was simply saying that if they were, they would, if you follow.

so howcome when others say it it's because they are concerned about the reasons for war and the injustice of war? but when bushwacker says it it's because hes ferthering the NWO agenda?

I didn't say he WAS a shill, I said (meant) that a shill would say those (3 substantive examples) things. I think you might agree with me on the 2nd & 3rd, but not the first. Which is fine. Hence "If you're not with me here, no hard feelings and respectful regards."

(Added last before submitting: Actually, re-reading my post, I understand why "they are exactly the words of a shill" might read as "I accuse". That was unintentional and sloppy. Sorry. If it was that which caused your vociferous response, I apologise.)

do you think the war in iraq is justified or illegal?

NO and YES. But in the abstract, it could be NEITHER or BOTH (leaving aside for now discussing the concept of so called "just war" and self defence).

are you ferthering the NWO agenda if you think it's illegal?

I am simply saying that WAR IS THE CRIME, IRRESPECTIVE of what the UN says, that to look to the UN for legal or moral authority is to be suckered by the globalists.

or are you just making it up as you go along to make it seem bushwacker is a shill because he dos'nt agree with a lot of stuff on here?

I'm not trying to make anything seem like anything, just putting in my 2p worth of honest opinion. I don't even know if he supports the OCT, or not. I've only read a few of his posts, and on that limited evidence I'll assume here that he does (with apologies if I'm wrong). On that basis, perhaps he's just naive enough to think "they wouldn't be so evil". Perhaps he's genuinely offended, or frightened, that people are seriously questioning his world view, and doesn't want his rug pulled out from under him. I don't know. I do think it strange that he spends so much time here, if he does in fact support the OCT. Again, I stress that I haven't been able to find definitively (in the time I've spent) whether he supports the OCT or not.

i think the war was illegal also, am i a shill for expressing my opinons to people on that subject because it ferthers world goverment?

I would only accuse someone of shilling on very strong evidence, but I respectfully suggest that if you further the cause of world government, you have been suckered into supporting the most dangerous threat to humanity.

nevermind its the same with the peter power thing, threads are started about police harrasment(like the guy filming in his own garden and the police turn up to question him and impose themselves on him when he was doing nothing illegal). then people are frowned upon for pointing out that imposing themselves on somebody and chasing people around has the reverse effect as it is a form of harrasment.
don't think i defend bushwacker or peter power, but when ever was it a case of it's fine for us but not for them? if it is a case of that i was not informed about it.

As I said elsewhere:
In my opinion Peter Power is at best an accomplice to mass murder, and at worst an enthusiastic NWO operative. His own words suggest the latter.
Note which I think is worse. Either way, worrying about Power's feelings, who could probably have killed the brave W.A.C. folks with his bare hands, is not an order of priorities that I can agree with.

if theres one thing i hate it is shill labeling, because i find in every case the labels are only ever given to those who disagree with somebody, yet it is far more likely shills will be playing a role of a truther and trying to guide people in the desired direction and being able to tell one way or the other is near impossible without evidence.

I mostly agree, excepting 'in every case'. However, if you believe "it was an inside job", you logically have to believe that "they" will shill. Disrupt the enemy's operations. Divide them. Who you think is a shill depends largely on what you think their ultimate agenda is. I'm new here, and discovering that there are people here who support world government scares me more than I can express. It's the globalists' solution to problems they created.

I think a fascist one world police state is their ultimate plan. The enemy they seek to disrupt is "the domestic enemy" in their terms. That's ordinary people. The population. "Useless eaters". That's you and me.

[marky 54]

(Added last before submitting: Actually, re-reading my post, I understand why "they are exactly the words of a shill" might read as "I accuse". That was unintentional and sloppy. Sorry. If it was that which caused your vociferous response, I apologise.)

i understand you now, you were coming from the point of view of why a shill would have no problem saying it, and was not trying to twist bushwackers words into evidence he is a shill. i assumed the latter.

I respectfully suggest that if you further the cause of world government, you have been suckered into supporting the most dangerous threat to humanity.

there is no way any of us can know if we are helping to advance agenda's, i would say if we are we are unaware of it, all we can do is inform ourselves the best we can and inform people or campaign in the areas it is obvious things are not right and injustice is committed against the people. what choice is there if no effort is made? die or die as far as i can tell so i certainly agree with you.

I mostly agree, excepting 'in every case'. However, if you believe "it was an inside job", you logically have to believe that "they" are shilling.

100% gaurenteed. however telling who is or is'nt without absolute proof is near impossible and labeling people in general based on them disagreeing is certainly not how it works imo. shills do not have to disagree, infact i'd say they would be in a stronger postion agreeing and gaining trust, it would make it easier to guide people.

I think a fascist one world police state is their ultimate plan. The enemy they seek to disrupt is "the domestic enemy" in their terms. That's ordinary people. The population. "Useless eaters". That's you and me.

if the depopulation is one of the agenda's and many suggest it is then there is only two things to take comfort from, you are a whole being who experienced life in a way they could never experience life, so they can have power or whatever but they can never have experience of oneness and love for all things. therefore they have enslaved their own souls by doing what they are doing, sure on a pyshical level and in the present being they have what they want, but they will enslave themselves on a spiritual level and who knows what awaits after this life, i suggest bad energy gets left behind or rejected if consciouness is love of all then its not a good idea to have an overbalance of bad energy that goes against the principles of the universe, life certainly aint about possesions and power no matter how much people like them, they may help while here but what about after here?(maybe this one is belief based but there is a reason why the vast majority have to be manipulated into doing bad things, and deep down i think we all know the answer why that is, it would rarely happen naturally because everything is tipping towards oneness and love for all things).

the other thing is those who blindly help the agenda or purposily do it thinking they will be fine are not going to be needed once the agenda is seen through and 80% of the population is gone. less police needed, less spy's needed, less miltary, less media, etc etc, infact a lot of those covering anything up are only needed now due to population size at its current size, once they are laid off from their jobs as population decreases they become one of us. not hard to figure out really.

[William James]

This is partially copied from a previous thread about Peter Power being confronted by WAC
As it's taking over that thread I decided to repost here.

Did the copper, Bushwacker, do it in his own spare time online, or was he paid to do it. I'd guess the former.

Well we have the evidence now that it was the latter as it is a police network he's posting from.

Unless he's been shilling in his lunch-break.

Gosh we have a confirmed shill - that's what evidence can do




And Bushwacker had been spending a lot of police time....

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Total posts: 1379
[1.37% of total / 2.95 posts per day]

I supose it's only a small step from putting groups like ours under surveillance to registering on the forum and beginning to mess things up by posting lies and contradicting evidence as it emerges. Is that what Scotland Yard has come to these days?

Maybe we should go back through bushwacker's posts and see where he's been intervening... then we'll know the most damning evidence that the 7/7 perps are most afraid of getting out to a wider public, and the crown prosecution service.

BTW - if anyone suspects a post of being from a cop or other shill just PM your favourite admin with the exact URL of that post (not just the topic) and we'll check it out publishing the IP on that thread if it's dodgey.

I am new to this site. But feel I must cast my opinion. I think maybe Tony is our of order here. If he has or can get the evidence, then he must publish it. If I were Bushwacker. I would take screenshots and present it to his legal people. Liable is liable. If however Tony is right, then he must have the evidence to support his accusatation. As an administrator. You have a responsibilty to be fair and impartial. Without evidence you have commited liable.

[William James]

If Bushwacker is what you say he is and the evidence is overwhelming ,why don't you ban him afterall Mason Free Party was banned for far less.

Just a thought

I agree with this guy. Whats sauce for the goose and so on..... By the way NI. Love the videos on yours and Dave Sherlocks glass asylum sites.

[simplesimon]

William James wrote:

I am new to this site. But feel I must cast my opinion. I think maybe Tony is our of order here. If he has or can get the evidence, then he must publish it. If I were Bushwacker. I would take screenshots and present it to his legal people. Liable is liable. If however Tony is right, then he must have the evidence to support his accusatation. As an administrator. You have a responsibilty to be fair and impartial. Without evidence you have commited liable.

Hello Mr. James. Welcome to the forum from another newbie. I'd like to offer you some well meant advice, based on my experience with internet forums in general.

Read before you post. It's clear from this thread that Tony Gosling made a mistake, and has acknowledged it and apologised.

It's one thing for you to think that bushwacker has been "liabled", another to think that he needs your advice, and another to post without reading in sufficiently.

If you think it was anything other than a genuine mistake, or maliciously intended, you might want to carefully think about explicitly saying so. But your post might lead some to think that you are just here to make trouble, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that.

Also, while most here (per my limited reading) will give you a pass on mistakes like "liable" for libel, and not take cheap shots, (addressing instead the actual point you are making) some might mistake this for a standard technique of those we call "shills", and think that you are trying to arouse irritation in people who are irked by such errors. They might think that you're trying to provoke others into attacking you for this simple error, when there are more important things to discuss. If you take care and time to formulate your posts, perhaps with the aid of an online dictionary, you'll make your point more effectively, and gain more respect from those reading them.

Anyway, I hope you'll accept this in the spirit intended, and tell us something of how you came to be here, and "where you're at" in terms of false flag terrorism, geopolitics, the NWO, whatever you consider important as it relates to our discussions, our commen porpoise.

Regards,
Simon

[festival of snickers]

hi coppers

im in usa

can i pull you by an ear?or blow your whistle?

give the citizens back their guns and screw the criminals

we hate criminals -why dont you?

[William James]

William James wrote:

I am new to this site. But feel I must cast my opinion. I think maybe Tony is our of order here. If he has or can get the evidence, then he must publish it. If I were Bushwacker. I would take screenshots and present it to his legal people. Liable is liable. If however Tony is right, then he must have the evidence to support his accusatation. As an administrator. You have a responsibilty to be fair and impartial. Without evidence you have commited liable.

Hello Mr. James. Welcome to the forum from another newbie. I'd like to offer you some well meant advice, based on my experience with internet forums in general.

Read before you post. It's clear from this thread that Tony Gosling made a mistake, and has acknowledged it and apologised.

It's one thing for you to think that bushwacker has been "liabled", another to think that he needs your advice, and another to post without reading in sufficiently.

If you think it was anything other than a genuine mistake, or maliciously intended, you might want to carefully think about explicitly saying so. But your post might lead some to think that you are just here to make trouble, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that.

Also, while most here (per my limited reading) will give you a pass on mistakes like "liable" for libel, and not take cheap shots, (addressing instead the actual point you are making) some might mistake this for a standard technique of those we call "shills", and think that you are trying to arouse irritation in people who are irked by such errors. They might think that you're trying to provoke others into attacking you for this simple error, when there are more important things to discuss. If you take care and time to formulate your posts, perhaps with the aid of an online dictionary, you'll make your point more effectively, and gain more respect from those reading them.

Anyway, I hope you'll accept this in the spirit intended, and tell us something of how you came to be here, and "where you're at" in terms of false flag terrorism, geopolitics, the NWO, whatever you consider important as it relates to our discussions, our commen porpoise.

Regards,
Simon

With statements like "your post might lead some to think that you are just here to make trouble" is a statement to make a person to look like a trouble maker. If you call that an apology, then you failed to see the mocking statement straight after. "Apologies for the mistake which I hope you'll agree was understandable. Can Bushwacker sue for libel? I think not, but sorry just the same folks".
So please do not tell me how to handle a situation, before you check your own facts first. And as for the spelling "commen porpoise". Mr. Gosling sounds like an intelligent and eloquent person. I sure he can defend himself.

.

[ian neal]

If I were Bushwacker. I would take screenshots and present it to his legal people. Liable is liable. If however Tony is right, then he must have the evidence to support his accusatation. As an administrator. You have a responsibilty to be fair and impartial. Without evidence you have commited liable.

The word is libel and I would love to see an anonymous pseudonym sue for libel, presuming of course Bushwacker is his/her real name and not a pseudonym. It seems Tony jumped to incorrect but understandable conclusions. End of story. Unless of course we receive a solicitors letter from a Mr Bushwacker.

[marky 54]

Unless of course we receive a solicitors letter from a Mr Bushwacker.

lol if that happened then you may as well be sued for calling mickey mouse fake.

[Alulim]

marky 54 wrote:

so it pays to promote the fact the war was illegal? sorry i don't see it, if anything promoting international law exposes how those who caused the war have not been tried for war crimes.

It pays if you are shilling for single world government. Pundits will call for "strengthening international institutions", and well meaning folks can be led to think "if only there were someone... something... some BODY that could rein in the USA... (or Iran, AL-CIA-DUH, "global terrorism", "global warming", whatever. Same trap, different bait). As for "war crimes", that issue alone demonstrates my point. It is widely known that the USA/UK/Israel have broken numerous "laws of war" and flout "international law" with impunity, and most of the world's people consider the US to be the greatest threat to world peace. Some may be fooled into calling for a stronger UN, not realising that the purpose of international law is to have international law, and forgetting that lawmakers make laws for themselves, but ignore their own laws when it suits them.

It's a basic disinfo technique to claim some common ground with the target. Hence shysters like George Monbiot who rails against "the injustices of globalisation", but calls for a world parliament "to make it fairer".

Anyway. That reflects my view that the "NWO" is the real threat, that "9/11" was "just" a power play in their plan. If you're not with me here, no hard feelings and respectful regards.

why do i still keep tracks of the news even though i know they do not report the whole truth if any?

I can tell you why I do. I think that "Every word is a lie, including 'and', 'the', and 'but'". But I want to know what lies they are telling. So that when they say "look over there!" I know it's likely I should be looking elsewhere. To try, within my very limited capability, to read between the lines. To know something of the enemy and their plan.

You show great insight here. Indeed, what better way to induce the masses to demand "world courts", etc., than to commit egregious crimes which threaten world peace and stability? Especially if you can commit them by proxy (through puppets such as Bush). I'm inclined to believe that may be the real motive behind Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Mind you, we really don't know what is going on in Guantanamo. If it were revealed that the whole thing is primarily a drug-running operation, I will not be surprised.

Achieving multiple gains from their crimes is something these Nazgûl seem to excel at. Sure, they got an über-war out of 9/11, but there were so many other advantages I can't even list them.

[William James]

If I were Bushwacker. I would take screenshots and present it to his legal people. Liable is liable. If however Tony is right, then he must have the evidence to support his accusatation. As an administrator. You have a responsibilty to be fair and impartial. Without evidence you have commited liable.

The word is libel and I would love to see an anonymous pseudonym sue for libel, presuming of course Bushwacker is his/her real name and not a pseudonym. It seems Tony jumped to incorrect but understandable conclusions. End of story. Unless of course we receive a solicitors letter from a Mr Bushwacker.

I have just been corrected by a man whom uses the teenage term "Nuff Respect" about my spelling.

[Alulim]

One general comment I have on the subject of "Cops shilling" is this: Most law enforcement officers are not going to be part of the conspiracy. Most are going to believe with the rest of us that mass murder is a crime, and that the criminals should be brought to justice. Remember, cops are part of society as well. By suggesting that they are somehow more disposed to support the false flag terrorists we will likely alienate them from our cause.

Genuine law enforcement officials are our natural allies. Don't attack them, persuade them.

[William James]

One general comment I have on the subject of "Cops shilling" is this: Most law enforcement officers are not going to be part of the conspiracy. Most are going to believe with the rest of us that mass murder is a crime, and that the criminals should be brought to justice. Remember, cops are part of society as well. By suggesting that they are somehow more disposed to support the false flag terrorists we will likely alienate them from our cause.

Genuine law enforcement officials are our natural allies. Don't attack them, persuade them.

At last Sense prevails. This is the type of person who should mod a site. Well done.

[rodin]

I find it a little bit worrying, not the reading of the forum and monitoring of IP addresses which is taken as read. But the actual posting, I know you are all busy, but it would be worth looking through the posts made just for arguements made and points raised it's likely they are 'shill' points and might be commonly recurring posts/themes in the future.

I know it's quite a bit of work, but could be well worth doing. 1300+ posts that's quite a few.

That is the achilles heel of taking the schilling... leaving a fiat trail of counterfiet posts that leads us to the truth.

[rodin]

One general comment I have on the subject of "Cops shilling" is this: Most law enforcement officers are not going to be part of the conspiracy. Most are going to believe with the rest of us that mass murder is a crime, and that the criminals should be brought to justice. Remember, cops are part of society as well. By suggesting that they are somehow more disposed to support the false flag terrorists we will likely alienate them from our cause.

Genuine law enforcement officials are our natural allies. Don't attack them, persuade them.

At last Sense prevails. This is the type of person who should mod a site. Well done.

Welcome new poster.

[rodin]

One general comment I have on the subject of "Cops shilling" is this: Most law enforcement officers are not going to be part of the conspiracy. Most are going to believe with the rest of us that mass murder is a crime, and that the criminals should be brought to justice. Remember, cops are part of society as well. By suggesting that they are somehow more disposed to support the false flag terrorists we will likely alienate them from our cause.

Genuine law enforcement officials are our natural allies. Don't attack them, persuade them.

Good to see new blood on the site!

This is what Daryll Bradford Smith recommends

[Newspeak International]

One general comment I have on the subject of "Cops shilling" is this: Most law enforcement officers are not going to be part of the conspiracy. Most are going to believe with the rest of us that mass murder is a crime, and that the criminals should be brought to justice. Remember, cops are part of society as well. By suggesting that they are somehow more disposed to support the false flag terrorists we will likely alienate them from our cause.

Genuine law enforcement officials are our natural allies. Don't attack them, persuade them.

Agreed too,good post Alulim.

[William James]

One general comment I have on the subject of "Cops shilling" is this: Most law enforcement officers are not going to be part of the conspiracy. Most are going to believe with the rest of us that mass murder is a crime, and that the criminals should be brought to justice. Remember, cops are part of society as well. By suggesting that they are somehow more disposed to support the false flag terrorists we will likely alienate them from our cause.

Genuine law enforcement officials are our natural allies. Don't attack them, persuade them.

At last Sense prevails. This is the type of person who should mod a site. Well done.

Welcome new poster.

Thank you Rodin. Good to be here.

[Bushwacker]

If I were Bushwacker. I would take screenshots and present it to his legal people. Liable is liable. If however Tony is right, then he must have the evidence to support his accusatation. As an administrator. You have a responsibilty to be fair and impartial. Without evidence you have commited liable.

The word is libel and I would love to see an anonymous pseudonym sue for libel, presuming of course Bushwacker is his/her real name and not a pseudonym. It seems Tony jumped to incorrect but understandable conclusions. End of story. Unless of course we receive a solicitors letter from a Mr Bushwacker.

That actually raises an interesting legal question, is a pseudonym protected by defamation law? It is an open question, and the possibility is there, according to this article, which is something of a warning to us all. However, I have no intention of being at the legal cutting edge and attempting to sue. I am more amused than upset by the level of evidence and research which was regarded as constituting proof that I was posting from a police source and therefore must be a shill.

[William James]

It seems to me that this rule has been broken by T Gosling

c) Making allegations against other users without providing evidence to back up such allegations (such as calling them an agent or shill) including abusive signatures

[Bushwacker]

It seems to me that this rule has been broken by T Gosling

c) Making allegations against other users without providing evidence to back up such allegations (such as calling them an agent or shill) including abusive signatures

But to be fair to him, he thought he had got evidence. Unfortunately he leapt to a conclusion he liked on the basis of that evidence without doing sufficient, or possibly any, research or considering alternative explanations. Such behaviour is not unknown.

[mr nice]

It seems to me that this rule has been broken by T Gosling

c) Making allegations against other users without providing evidence to back up such allegations (such as calling them an agent or shill) including abusive signatures

But to be fair to him, he thought he had got evidence. Unfortunately he leapt to a conclusion he liked on the basis of that evidence without doing sufficient, or possibly any, research or considering alternative explanations. Such behaviour is not unknown.

talk about play it to the hilt.......
im sure the way you have conducted yourself here has more to do with tonys suspicions than anything else. we all read other peoples ideas and opinions then form an idea of them based on that. people who defend to the hilt the official conspiracy theory against all logic on a forum such as this are bound to attract some suspicion regarding their motivation from most people.seems obvious tony jumped the gun.
surely further researching your "explanation" of the collapse of wtc7 is a wiser use of that energy mr wacker?

[Bushwacker]

It seems to me that this rule has been broken by T Gosling

c) Making allegations against other users without providing evidence to back up such allegations (such as calling them an agent or shill) including abusive signatures

But to be fair to him, he thought he had got evidence. Unfortunately he leapt to a conclusion he liked on the basis of that evidence without doing sufficient, or possibly any, research or considering alternative explanations. Such behaviour is not unknown.

talk about play it to the hilt.......
im sure the way you have conducted yourself here has more to do with tonys suspicions than anything else. we all read other peoples ideas and opinions then form an idea of them based on that. people who defend to the hilt the official conspiracy theory against all logic on a forum such as this are bound to attract some suspicion regarding their motivation from most people.seems obvious tony jumped the gun.
surely further researching your "explanation" of the collapse of wtc7 is a wiser use of that energy mr wacker?

I have yet to see any logical arguments against the official theory, mr nice, if ever any are produced, then you would have a point. Meanwhile, the motives to question are those of the people who have produced so many conspiracy theories, of an increasingly bizarre nature, have done so much "research" over the last six years, but have yet to produce a single piece of solid unquestionable evidence to support any of these theories. NIST are researching the collapse of WTC7, and I am sure they do not need my help.

Meanwhile, I must get back to Critics' Corner before upsetting the powers that be here too much.

[Alulim]

Would it not be a bit strange to build another, comparable building in its stead if they didn't know what destroyed the first one?

[kbo234]

I have yet to see any logical arguments against the official theory, mr nice, if ever any are produced, then you would have a point. Meanwhile, the motives to question are those of the people who have produced so many conspiracy theories, of an increasingly bizarre nature, have done so much "research" over the last six years, but have yet to produce a single piece of solid unquestionable evidence to support any of these theories. NIST are researching the collapse of WTC7, and I am sure they do not need my help.

Meanwhile, I must get back to Critics' Corner before upsetting the powers that be here too much.

What some of us have been saying about this individual for a long time is that he is not here to genuinely engage with facts or evidence.

This person ignores inconvenient reality. He/she/it parrots and regurgitates govenment disinformation. He rubbishes every response we post to all the 9/11 lies. He attacks any interpretation that contradicts the laughable official narrative.

I think it is only reasonable and fair to conclude that Bushwacker is not interested in the truth about 9/11. He can only be a determined and, almost certainly, paid liar employed by agents of the criminals who carried out the crime of 9/11 to protect them against the very dangerous information that will, hopefully, in time, shatter their project and see them all in jail.

One should be careful, shouldn't one? This person can almost certainly use your IP address to find out where you live.

God Bless You, Bushwacker. May the spirit of His truth, love, peace and justice bring us all to the same place in the end......though the journey is likely to be very painful for us all.

Particularly you, you ****!

.......(Sorry........not quite there myself yet)

[Bushwacker]

Dear kbo234, congratulations on reaching a new level of idiocy!
No doubt 2008 will see you achieving even greater things in that, your chosen field.

[kbo234]

Dear kbo234, congratulations on reaching a new level of idiocy!
No doubt 2008 will see you achieving even greater things in that, your chosen field.

My hope is that in 2008 even more people will come to recognise that those individuals who determinedly defend the official stories of 9/11 and 7/7 are serving a dark and dishonest agenda.

I hope people realise that the aim of such individuals is to prevent any possible further investigation into these matters.

I hope the public realise that, therefore, such individuals have no interest in the truth about 9/11 (or 7/7) at all.

Actually already many millions do understand this........but real power in the UK is not yet seriously threatened by this reality.

The tide will inevitably continue to move in our favour on these issues...the only question is.....'will this happen quickly enough?'.......in time to prevent a nuclear attack on Iran, for instance.

It seems that the US military and intelligence community are starting to take a more serious interest in these issues and that they are refusing to take orders from a despised White House and its Neo-Con controllers.

Thank God.

Maybe the US military know very well what you continue to deny and have decided they really don't like it at all.

Hope is not yet lost.

The best chance we have of preventing a nuclear armageddon is to expose the truth about 9/11 to an ignorant (unknowing) and brainwashed world.

After the big questions about 9/11 come the even bigger questions about how (what is obviously) a hidden government can so easily control intelligence services, elected governments and the media.

The public will be ready to understand that the system of money creation and central banking is at the root of all our woes.

...and the criminals will be swept away.



But.......perhaps you are right. Only an idiot could imagine that such a thing would be possible.

We shall have to see what happens in the next 5 years.

My guess is that by that time we will know which way the big struggle is likely to end (in a NWO 1984-style world of tyranny, murder and hatred or in something much more spiritual....perhaps a 'communal' society founded on small self-governing units).....let's hope we are all still around to see these questions answered.

[wepmob2000]

I disagree with much of what Bushwhacker has to say, but he argues his corner well, isn't it about time to disregard this apartheid policy towards critics, and allow them to voice their opinions fully?

If you are truly confident in your arguments, a critic shouldn't pose any kind of problem, so what is the problem? As long as they respect basic forum decorum (I'm a poet and I don't know it) it does the forum a disservice to keep them segregated.

Isn't it a tad hypocritical to worry about civil liberties on one hand, then shunt dissenters into a naughty hole on the other?

[rodin]

I disagree with much of what Bushwhacker has to say, but he argues his corner well, isn't it about time to disregard this apartheid policy towards critics, and allow them to voice their opinions fully?

If you are truly confident in your arguments, a critic shouldn't pose any kind of problem, so what is the problem? As long as they respect basic forum decorum (I'm a poet and I don't know it) it does the forum a disservice to keep them segregated.

Isn't it a tad hypocritical to worry about civil liberties on one hand, then shunt dissenters into a naughty hole on the other?

Absolutely. Debate will reveal truth in the end.

[blackcat]

I disagree with much of what Bushwhacker has to say, but he argues his corner well, isn't it about time to disregard this apartheid policy towards critics, and allow them to voice their opinions fully?

So should we allow Nazis and Fascists to voice their vile opinions as well? People like Bushwhacker should not even be tolerated in a separate category where, incidentally, they are allowed to voice their evil propaganda fully.