Forum menu
because the Queen said they shouldn't because she was divorced from the future king and therefore not part of the 'official' royal family.
Does that mean King Abdullah was part of the 'official' royal family?
[i]Does that mean King Abdullah was part of the 'official' royal family? [/i]
*an* official one, certainly.
Whereas Diana wasn't part of *any* Royal Family.
If you're going to do the whole 'THE MAN's RULING THE WORLD AND IT's ALL A CONSPIRACY HERE's 5 LINKS NO ONE WILL EVER FOLLOW TO PROVE IT' thing you really ought to get the basic premise so that there's at least some doubt as to what happened and why.
I'm all over the basic premise:
the strange alliance between the West and Saudi Arabia, who have been active in exporting wahhabism that forms the root of ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
[i]the strange alliance between the West and Saudi Arabia[/i]
what's strange about the West courting one of the world's largest oil producers?
It is very rare for an advanced mammal to kill a member of their own species.
Name me a point in human history when people weren't being killed by other people.
the strange alliance between the West and Saudi Arabia, who have been active in exporting wahhabism that forms the root of ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
what's strange about the West courting one of the world's largest oil producers?
Why aren't the same pleasantries extended to Iran then?
[i]Why aren't the same pleasantries extended to Iran then? [/i]
they were when it had a Royal Family.
There was a religious revolution though and the government there was very anti-western. You may have read about it?
Yes, a "royal family" was the link to the proposition.
JHJ in "unable to follow a simple argument" shocka...
Why aren't the same pleasantries extended to Iran then?they were when it had a Royal Family.
Are you quite sure of that?
I wouldn't consider [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat ]a coup by MI6 and the CIA as particularly friendly[/url]
Strangely, the MI6 documents still remain secret and the [url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup ]CIA only admitted involvement in 2013[/url], 60 years after they destabilized Iran...
[i]Strangely, the MI6 documents still remain secret [/i]
is it really strange? Like really?
Our secret services release as little information as they can about anything they do. It's hardly 'strange' that even if they were involved they'd not release details of it, more 'par for the course'.
So what were relationships like between 1953 and 1970whateveritwas when the Shah was forced out?
Yeah. Whatever.
Anyway - mash it.
Is there some level of membership where I can agree to look at ads for Tudor watches in exchange for not seeing bizarre conspiracy theories?
Our secret services release as little information as they can about anything they do
So what are they up to these days?
[i]So what are they up to these days? [/i]
No idea due to;
[i]
Our secret services release as little information as they can about anything they do[/i]
and it's no good you pretending to know either. because you don't - you're just prepared to give credibility to other people's guesses and assume that if it's on a web page somewhere it must be 'the truth'.
I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn into these conversations any more. Can I blame some shadowy figure 'in authority' for not sticking to it?
Saw on the news last night, an interview with an ex-ISIS knerbhead who is now in Turkey. Apparently, he's living in fear of getting offed (bless) because although he agrees with everything being done to "unbelievers", he says the "foreign" "fighters" are hurting Muslims and he realises this after watching a FOURTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL being beheaded.
Apart from the fact that Muslims have been killing each other for not being the right sort of muslim for hundreds of years and he doesn't seem to know this, he actually seemed to think that someone should feel sorry for him.
Perhaps the internal ISIS cracks are beginning to emerge. Hopefully, we'll be able to just sit back and watch them eat each other. 😀
wwaswas - Member
Jihadi John has been named as Mohammed Emwazi, a computer programmer from West London.What sort of internal journey does someone go on to get where he is today?
A gift for maths and a love of logical puzzles?
assume that if it's on a web page somewhere it must be 'the truth'
I'd always thought the Guardian was pretty good at getting to the truth... after all, they were deeply involved in the Snowden revelations.
Of course, you are right to question the media, after all, [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles ]Allen Dulles[/url], one of the key players in the coup of Iran was behind [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird ]Operation MockingBird[/url], where the CIA infiltrated the media, not only domestically, but internationally:
Among other dodgy dealings, Dulles [url= http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/books/review/the-brothers-by-stephen-kinzer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 ]also helped the Nazi's rise to power with his Brother John Foster Dulles [/url]and Prescott Bush, George W and Jeb Bush's Grandad.
[url= http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/54/54_14-18.pdf?q=the-dutch-connection ]They then laundered Nazi money after WW2 through dutch banks. [/url]
I wonder why these parts of history aren't taught in schools?
@JHJ - I watched Bitter Lake and whilst it was interminably dull in parts it did show some great ironing. But could have done so in ½the time.
However, in conclusion and at odd with the main thrust of the film, I don't believe there was any great conspiracy just a case of Western and Arab attitudes being very different but occasionally they worked together, whether progress was made or not is unproven. There exists a degree of trust but it is not, never has been and is unlikely to ever be complete trust in each other motives.
Hopefully, we'll be able to just sit back and watch them eat each other
That would be cool, but you just know that some idiot would come up with a smart scheme that involves supporting one gang of nutjobs against the other gangs of nutjobs, and the cycle recommences.
I think there is a lot of truth in the assertion, people can become extremely violent especially if they feel their life/livelihood is threatened or they wish to extract revenge for something they feel has been done to them directly or indirectly.
Not when it comes to killing other human beings :
[i]"Only 15 to 20 percent of the American riflemen in combat during World War II would fire at the enemy. Those who would not fire did not run or hide—in many cases they were willing to risk greater danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages. They simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges".[/i]
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield
There is a reason why they put a mask on someone who is about to be executed by firing squad, and it isn't for the condemned person's benefit - most humans find it very difficult to look into someone's eyes and kill them, even if they feel that they "deserve" it, it just isn't natural.
"advanced mammals" (I take it you're talking about apes?)
Not at all. I'm talking about most mammals including carnivores such as felidae and canidae species. It's rare for them to kill members of their own species, it does happen but usually unintentionally, it very rarely happens intentionally. That rule can generally be applied to birds and most cold blooded animals too.
Hey, jhj.
Have you noticed that, over many different threads, you keep getting the same sort of replies to your posts, pointing out the logical fallacies and highlighting the fact that your sources are nothing more than conjecture-driven suppositions from others such as yourself, rather than anything objectively credible?
I was wondering if you know that to keep doing the same thing yet expect a different result, is a definition of insanity.
Just a thought you might want to consider...
I imagine it started with him being annoyed by pop-up ads on internet forums.
Well played, I reckon one of the mods might join due to excessive thread closing on the topic.
Anyway, here's something to cheer us up.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/isis-suffers-heaviest-defeat-iraq-101500786.html
Hey Woppit,
I guess you don't know much about the intelligence services influence on world history...
[url= http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/books/review/the-brothers-by-stephen-kinzer.html?pagewanted=all ]The Dulles Brothers are a good starting point[/url]
I'm a bit confused how you came to the conclusion that my sources are based on conjecture~ it all traces back to well documented history.
[i]well documented history.[/i]
=
"look here's a web page it must be true"
Yes. I'm interested to know why jhj doesn't seem to understand the difference between conjecture and supportive evidence.
Could you show me which of the links it is you're suggesting is mere conjecture?
As an example:
Look, here's [url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar ]an article from a newspaper[/url] which presumably goes through all the same procedures as the rest of the news to verify it's truth.
I apologize if it's straying off topic slightly, but it verifies [url=
link already provided[/url] which appears a touch more obscure.
Back on topic, have ISIS made any threats on Israel?
If not, why not?
Quite an in depth chat about him now on BBC news by the director of "Cage". Talks about what a lovely guy and a beautiful young man he was before he joined ISIS.
Mentions repeated harassment by MI5 as the reason he joined IS but he really doesn't come across as convincing at all and more of an apologist excusing the inexcusable . If the kind of harassment he describes was enough to turn him into a killer it's a strange kind of miracle that every catholic male in Northern Ireland didn't join the IRA.
[i]If not, why not? [/i]
I'll be honest; I really don't care enough to try and find out.
I care about whet ISIS are doing but primarily it's the motivations of the individuals concerned that concerns me - not any theory about the overarching political aims of their organisations.
Why do people do these things? Because they think they're right. Really is that simple. Some people carpetbag companies, some people carpetbomb countries, some people become terrorists, some become politicians, some just rant on forums but it's all basically teh same thing, "rightness" above reason.
I rather favour binner's "It's all about power and control" hypothesis.
Remember, when Jihadi John went to fight in Syria in 2012, he was on the same side in the conflict as the UK + U.S. Establishments
They never can seem to make their minds up:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Wonder if the instability caused by the rapid rise of ISIS from nowhere will help conquer Assad?
Yeah, he probably sang "God Save the Queen" before every execution, huh?
Like the Saudi's you mean?
Why do people do these things? Because they think they're right. Really is that simple. Some people carpetbag companies, some people carpetbomb countries, some people become terrorists, some become politicians, some just rant on forums but it's all basically teh same thing, "rightness" above reason.
Youre wrong there.............
Like the Saudi's you mean?
No, I mean your suggestion that this nutjob was |"on the same side" as Assad and the Queen, is risible, to say the least. Also, another indication of your inability to reason constructively.
You need to give your sarcasm receptor a clean.
He was against Assad, which in 2012 meant he was on the same side as the Queen... remember, allies have been supplying rebels with weapons since before ISIS were ever mentioned
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
:large[/img]
Yes yes, the "West" likes meddling in the Middle East. We know all this. You know we know all this, yet you repeat it. What's your point?
I'm disappointed that jhj hasn't posted a pic of Mohammed shaking hands with the Queen - he's slipping.
Anyone else the CAGE interviews? Pretty disgraceful attempt to link being on an MI5 watchlist to turning into a Jihadist. Obviously CAGE don't understand that Mohammed was trying to join Somali jihad for years and MI5 kept stopping him.
Aside from the BBC interview on SKY the presenter tells the spokesperson to "Get over yourself" 😀
Yet flags weren't flown half mast for the Death of Princess Diana~ why is that?
It's Royal protocol not to fly flags at half mast as that is seen as a sign of weakness.
I listened to the interview on the cycle home fae work, I thought the "[i]Cage directer[/i] was almost an apologist for his actions - fair enough he mentioned [i]Mohammad[/i] almost being strangled by the police and being harassed but that is in no way an excuse for his subsequent actions against innocents caught up in the situation - I've been harassed and punched by the police but to turn such an encounter into a so called [i]Jihad[/i] against the western world and it's people is just unfathomable as to where his justification comes from.
And jivehoneyjive ? - you may have a point but for gawds sake will you,…..just for once actually converse and contribute to threads such as these with an opinion instead of carpet bombing us with pics and links to [i]conspiracy theories 101 for dummies[/i] as whenever i see one of your posts i automatically skip it/ignore it and move on.
I'm disappointed that jhj hasn't posted a pic of Mohammed shaking hands with the Queen
It was in jersey but jimmy Savilles photo bombing means you cannot see him clearly.
Still think its best to give them no publicity and that applies equally to JHJ as it does to Jihadi john
Pretty disgraceful attempt to link being on an MI5 watchlist to turning into a Jihadist.
I can understand that he was upset that in the "prison" of London he was prevented from going about his life, free to follow his beliefs without harassment. And naturally the only logical way for hin to react was to join a group who behead people who follow different beliefs. Quite understandable.
You want my opinion?
My opinion is that it's very strange how one minute the West is supporting rebels in Syria then seemingly out of nowhere a vast network of well armed boogeymen appear.
It's also very strange how it always seems to be the same people who profit from wars after starting those wars in the 1st place on the basis of lies told to the people paying for those wars (taxpayers)
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Though that 2nd image says America, given the 'special relationship' with the UK, it applies equally to our (sorry, Her Majesty's) Government
Don't be fooled again...