It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was the French Attack a False Flag???

page: 20
59
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

I never reached any conclusion yet neither.

I'm just saying this again because you have reading comprehension issues:

Bring your proofs to the table so we can discuss. Until then the hypothesis with the less assumptions prevails. I'm sorry you don't like it it's how it works.



Call me slow or stupid if you want, but then try at least to show you can comprehend what I post





For example, could you prove that this message claiming responsibility for the attack is a fabrication? I'm not saying could give your opinion about it. But could you show how it is fabricated?

Thanx

edit on 22-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: spy66

I never reached any conclusion yet neither.

I'm just saying this again because you have reading comprehension issues:

Bring your proofs to the table so we can discuss. Until then the hypothesis with the less assumptions prevails. I'm sorry you don't like it it's how it works.



Call me slow or stupid if you want, but then try at least to show you can comprehend what I post





For example, could you prove that this message claiming responsibility for the attack is a fabrication? I'm not saying could give your opinion about it. But could you show how it is fabricated?

Thanx



Why do you ask me this?

Why dont you ask Your self, where are the evidence that AQAP had any stake in the paris terror attack.

This is not evidence this is a claim.


In analyzing AQAP’s potential role in the Paris attack, it’s worth remembering the four-month delay between the group praising the 2009 underwear plot and the group releasing evidence it actually orchestrated the act. Short of such video or photographic documentation, and even with an official statement from AQAP’s leadership, it would be difficult to prove that AQAP indeed sponsored the raid on Charlie Hebdo.
www.liquidvisual.ca...


This is AQAP’s argument for the delayed Message.


The Organization delayed to claim responsibility due to the executors’ security reasons. Nevertheless, the operation carries a number of important messages to all the Western countries.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

This is how it works. I show you the fact (in this case an Al Qaeda claim) and I ask you to tell me how it fits in your false flag scenario.

You keep reversing the burden of proof and that's what disinfo agents are usually doing. But it doesn't change a thing.

Facts are on my side, up to you to prove these facts are faked. It's not up to me to prove you they are true. It doesn't work like that. Also to answer your question, it was reminded in the thread the killers yelled they were al qaeda from yemen, this is my proof they are linked.


Now what you are doing is like if I was asking you to prove you are not a shill, and that if you can't, none of what you say can be trusted. This is silly





You know what? Now it's my turn to have fun with logical fallacies :p I'm the one who is going to use your classical disinfo tactics this time for a change. Let's see how you can deal with it.

Prove you are not a shill, otherwise it means you are one and you cannot be trusted. I'm very serious, if you cannot prove you are not a shill, we cannot possibly trust what you post.

You cannot evade this question, you do just the same when asking us to prove this is not a false flag. So prove you are not a shill.
edit on 22-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: spy66

This is how it works. I show you the fact (in this case an Al Qaeda claim) and I ask you to tell me how it fits in your false flag scenario.

You keep reversing the burden of proof and that's what disinfo agents are usually doing. But it doesn't change a thing.

Facts are on my side, up to you to prove these facts are faked. It's not up to me to prove you they are true. It doesn't work like that. Also to answer your question, it was reminded in the thread the killers yelled they were al qaeda from yemen, this is my proof they are linked.


Now what you are doing is like if I was asking you to prove you are not a shill, and that if you can't, none of what you say can be trusted. This is silly





You know what? Now it's my turn to have fun with logical fallacies :p I'm the one who is going to use your classical disinfo tactics this time for a change. Let's see how you can deal with it.

Prove you are not a shill, otherwise it means you are one and you cannot be trusted. I'm very serious, if you cannot prove you are not a shill, we cannot possibly trust what you post.

You cannot evade this question, you do just the same when asking us to prove this is not a false flag. So prove you are not a shill.


The vidoe is not a fake. But there is no prof that they are involved. You havent presented any prof that they are. So i dont know how in hell you have any leverage here???

This video proves nothing. They have made false claimes before which i gave you a quot on and a link.

Do you know how long the original video is? It is way longer than 40 Seconds.

You havent done a damn thing to check up on this have you. IF you had you would never have posted this so called evidence you claim to have.

Have you check if Fetullah Gulen have any Connections to AQ in Yemen?

And do you know who Fetullah Gulen is?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

So be it, you willingly ignored my question and reoriented the discussion in the direction you wanted.

You did not bring proof you are not a shill, hence you must be one.

Sorry nothing you say can be trusted, it is impossible for me to trust you. It has been proved shills roam the net to hide the truth and make people changr opinion. You are trying to change the general opinion about these attacks hence you are probably a shill


Until you can prove you are not a shill, no one can believe you arw honest.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: spy66

So be it, you willingly ignored my question and reoriented the discussion in the direction you wanted.

You did not bring proof you are not a shill, hence you must be one.

Sorry nothing you say can be trusted, it is impossible for me to trust you. It has been proved shills roam the net to hide the truth and make people changr opinion. You are trying to change the general opinion about these attacks hence you are probably a shill


Until you can prove you are not a shill, no one can believe you arw honest.


I Guess you are going to get nowhere With this then.

I know you havent checked up on this video. Because if you did you would probably know who Fetullah Gulen is.

You are sutch an amature. You really dont belong here. You belong on the coment section on YouTube. They are more Your kind.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

I Guess you are going to get nowhere With this then.




Incredible! He's starting to understand! (maybe)


Like I'm not going anywhere with this, you aren't going anywhere asking us to prove it's not a false flag.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: spy66

I Guess you are going to get nowhere With this then.




Incredible! He's starting to understand! (maybe)


Like I'm not going anywhere with this, you aren't going anywhere asking us to prove it's not a false flag.


Yeah what ever.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Let's see... al Qaeda has taken credit for it and the murderers are being celebrated as heroes in the Muslim world. Why would some other organization give al Qaeda such a powerful recruiting tool?



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: spy66

Let's see... al Qaeda has taken credit for it and the murderers are being celebrated as heroes in the Muslim world. Why would some other organization give al Qaeda such a powerful recruiting tool?


I think you are going to have to do this on Your own.

Only you can pleace Your self.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: spy66

Let's see... al Qaeda has taken credit for it and the murderers are being celebrated as heroes in the Muslim world. Why would some other organization give al Qaeda such a powerful recruiting tool?


I think you are going to have to do this on Your own.

Only you can pleace Your self.



And yet you complain that I'm not challenging this thread! There's your challenge. If this was a false flag, what was it intended to accomplish and why are the "patsies" taking credit for it? What difference, then, would it make whether it was the Sûrté, the CIA or even FSB versus al Qaeda itself?



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: spy66

Let's see... al Qaeda has taken credit for it and the murderers are being celebrated as heroes in the Muslim world. Why would some other organization give al Qaeda such a powerful recruiting tool?


I think you are going to have to do this on Your own.

Only you can pleace Your self.



If this was a false flag, what was it intended to accomplish and why are the "patsies" taking credit for it? What difference, then, would it make whether it was the Sûrté, the CIA or even FSB versus al Qaeda itself?


Widen you Scope a bit and you will see what this is all about. AQ are just religious volunteers fighting someone elses Battle.
Who's Battle are they really fighting? These three from Paris were volunteers.

If you figure that out we can move on.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: spy66

Let's see... al Qaeda has taken credit for it and the murderers are being celebrated as heroes in the Muslim world. Why would some other organization give al Qaeda such a powerful recruiting tool?


I think you are going to have to do this on Your own.

Only you can pleace Your self.



If this was a false flag, what was it intended to accomplish and why are the "patsies" taking credit for it? What difference, then, would it make whether it was the Sûrté, the CIA or even FSB versus al Qaeda itself?


Widen you Scope a bit and you will see what this is all about. AQ are just religious volunteers fighting someone elses Battle.
Who's Battle are they really fighting? These three from Paris were volunteers.

If you figure that out we can move on.


That's not my responsibility; I am not the one who thinks it is a false flag. If you can't figure it out, why are you clinging to the theory?



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: spy66

Let's see... al Qaeda has taken credit for it and the murderers are being celebrated as heroes in the Muslim world. Why would some other organization give al Qaeda such a powerful recruiting tool?


I think you are going to have to do this on Your own.

Only you can pleace Your self.



If this was a false flag, what was it intended to accomplish and why are the "patsies" taking credit for it? What difference, then, would it make whether it was the Sûrté, the CIA or even FSB versus al Qaeda itself?


Widen you Scope a bit and you will see what this is all about. AQ are just religious volunteers fighting someone elses Battle.
Who's Battle are they really fighting? These three from Paris were volunteers.

If you figure that out we can move on.


That's not my responsibility; I am not the one who thinks it is a false flag. If you can't figure it out, why are you clinging to the theory?



This is going nowhere. This thread is dead. Have fun doing what ever you are doing.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
So people, how is it going with the 15 points of information we need to evaluate this incident? All I see here is a lot of derailing from your part. Why? Because you can’t prove anything, just like us. Like I have stated before there are a lot of things surrounding this incident that doesn't make sense, and if these factors wasn’t present me and probably many other discussing this topic wouldn’t debate the things we debate. Quite simple!

A impartial investigator who finds a incident, crime or statement incongruous will look further into the case, and in this case such a investigator would ask for the information I addressed in the 15 points. So again, for us to make a complete evaluation of this incident we need this information.

Its pretty convenient for you to just fall back on mainstream media without being able to prove the theory you so badly believe in. But I guess its to hard to think for yourself (its not for everyone) How can we as citizens, the ones who vote for change in our democratic society establish our views based on information we can’t have? Based on information that comes from privately owned businesses and sometimes corrupt people.

Your statement regarding the unicorn is almost to laughable to address, but I’m going to give it a shot anyway. So you and your brilliant mind suggest that me asking you for hard evidence regarding the official story is the same thing as me asking you to prove that unicorns doesn’t exist, otherwise the must exist? I’m very confused here, did you seriously state that or did your cat walk over the keyboard accidentally adding that to your post?

I have never said that the media is lying all the time, that is ludicrous. But I know people like you want to imply this so other people think conspiracy theorists are delusional. The media is telling the truth 90% of the time, but when it comes to these topics (incidents that change the fabric of our world) and especially the "war on terror” the media is given false claims as well as deliberately writing false information on behalf of external forces.

You telling spy66 to prove that the al-Qaida video is fabricated is also ludicrous, because spy66 can ask you the same thing. Can you prove to us that this video is in fact ordered, recorded and edited by people who solely fight for their freedom and Islam? Because I can give you numerous sources saying our western intelligence complex was the one who founded, trained and financially backed this network among others.

You have told other people in this thread they suffer from paranoia over ten times, yes we get it, you are projecting and that is sad but please stop embarrassing yourself. You have also multiple times stated that I have said ”false flags happened before, hence this must be a false flag too” And like I have told you and your short-term memory before, No, thats not the case. Please write that down on a post-it note and stick it on your screen so you don’t have to embarrass yourself again with this ignorant assumption.

I love the ”Alan Moore” quote you use to "prove” that conspiracies make people feel like they are in control. Lovely contribution from a anarchist, ceremonial magician and a user of L,SD. Now I know how you came up with the comical parallel with the unicorn.

I also like the ”Occam’s razor” quote you have used multiple times in this thread to imply that the official story is correct based on that it has fewest assumptions. First of all, the contradictory theory can also be considered the one with fewest assumptions, it all boil down to which factors you use in both theories. Bottom line is, this problem-solving principle can not be used before both theories are equally well-supported by evidence. So yet again, please post the information in the 15 points.

You like twisting both our words and words from sources to your liking, but if you are going to play this childish game please do it right.

Please say hello to HFA for me.

Cheers!
edit on 22-1-2015 by Crowdpsychology because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   
You are right. I will never dig up these dead bodies just to be sure they are dead so I have no way of trusting the media nor the investigators already on the case.

I have no choice but to assume this was a false flag operation.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Crowdpsychology

Well found a video that proves that the reporter was telling the truth that the blood was put there.

This means that the reporter didnt make a mistak as he later claimed he did. What he ment to have said in the video was that sand was put there to soak up the blood.

www.youtube.com...

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


There is one video i no longer can find and that is the video shoot from behind the garden where you can see the other cop hiding from someone. The thing about that video is that when that is filmed the other cop is already pressumed dead. And the gunn men have leaft the seen. So, my question is who is the cop hiding from in the park?





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
You are right. I will never dig up these dead bodies just to be sure they are dead so I have no way of trusting the media nor the investigators already on the case.

I have no choice but to assume this was a false flag operation.

Cheers


Your sarcasm is wasted on crowdpsychology. As his name indicates, he is more interested in exploiting spy66 by creating wordy rationalizations for what he knows is aberrant cognition to engage in actual discussion. He knows that his pseudo-skeptical argument: " If an individual does not have direct access to a phenomenon, then all sources of information about that phenomenon are equally suspect, making all theories about that phenomenon equally valid" is a self-evident fallacy.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

How do you know they are the same policemen? How do you know the footage was taken on the same day? How do you know the footage wasn't faked by someone else? How do you know the footage really exists if you " remember" seeing it, but can't find it?



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: spy66

How do you know they are the same policemen? How do you know the footage was taken on the same day? How do you know the footage wasn't faked by someone else? How do you know the footage really exists if you " remember" seeing it, but can't find it?


The fottage is from the same day, same event same Place, just fillmed from a different Place.

It is the video you can see in this still image.




top topics



 
59
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join