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.

 

Breaking: Trump forced to apologize for UK wiretap comments.

page: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Right. I get it. You love to read things into words that aren't there. However, until you actually start putting up some evidence to back up your claims that Britain has been spying on Trump, I don't care anymore. Your words mean nothing by themselves. Just typical Trump supporter nonsense. You don't want to admit that Trump made a mistake so you look for any reason to deny this story is what it is at face value. I'm not buying it and your words aren't going to change my mind. You need hard evidence to do that, yet you know that doesn't exist because Trump's claims of being wiretapped are bogus and you know this. Or you should if you care about intellectual integrity in any way.




posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
The international Deep State is pissed off because they're getting outed all over the place.




posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thing is though mate, Theresa May and GCHQ are not reliable sources at all.

They'd be expected to deny this...
& they know there is no way to prove it either way.


Personally, I'm on the fence.


I don't believe GCHQ or Theresa May, but then again I don't believe Fox or Napolitano either.


They're all full of sh*t most of the time.


Given on all counts.

However, the argument being made here is that because the PM and/or GCHQ didn't phrase their responses in a certain way .. that lapse PROVES that they actually were complicit with Obama is ridiculous (absurd, laughable, etc.)

That's really my point. Heck no, politicians and spooks lie like they breathe.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grainofsand

Right. I get it. You love to read things into words that aren't there. However, until you actually start putting up some evidence to back up your claims that Britain has been spying on Trump, I don't care anymore. Your words mean nothing by themselves. Just typical Trump supporter nonsense. You don't want to admit that Trump made a mistake so you look for any reason to deny this story is what it is at face value. I'm not buying it and your words aren't going to change my mind. You need hard evidence to do that, yet you know that doesn't exist because Trump's claims of being wiretapped are bogus and you know this. Or you should if you care about intellectual integrity in any way.


Why does he need hard evidence when you can make conclusive claims based on unnamed sources quoting secret apologies?
Or are you exempt from having to justify your positions?



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The international Deep State is pissed off because they're getting outed all over the place.



The Super-Secret Fraternal Order of the Bovine Fecal Matter Mound is pissed off because they're getting outed all over the place.

Same sentence.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol again!
An anonymous "spokesperson" spinning the official GCHQ statement that they were not "asked" to spy.
LMAO you are the perfect target audience for media spin doctors and headlines.
I almost grieve for the loss of critical thinking and consideration of the actual words in a source....namely GCHQ and their lame statement saying they weren't asked to spy.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thing is though mate, Theresa May and GCHQ are not reliable sources at all.

They'd be expected to deny this...
& they know there is no way to prove it either way.


Personally, I'm on the fence.


I don't believe GCHQ or Theresa May, but then again I don't believe Fox or Napolitano either.


They're all full of sh*t most of the time.


Given on all counts.

However, the argument being made here is that because the PM and/or GCHQ didn't phrase their responses in a certain way .. that lapse PROVES that they actually were complicit with Obama is ridiculous (absurd, laughable, etc.)

That's really my point. Heck no, politicians and spooks lie like they breathe.


If GCHQ were involved, we'll never know. They are good at what they do.
..and no. of course the omission or inclusion of certain words proves nothing.

This thread is more about the phantom apology though.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh, absolutely...

The wording is mere piss, in my opinion...

I'm sure if pressed they'd deny what is being argued here as well...
& no doubt people would read something from that hypothetical statement too.


They've denied it, I don't see anything subliminal in their choice of phrasing.
Whether that denial is credible should be the debate.

But here we are. LOL.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grainofsand

Right. I get it. You love to read things into words that aren't there. However, until you actually start putting up some evidence to back up your claims that Britain has been spying on Trump, I don't care anymore. Your words mean nothing by themselves. Just typical Trump supporter nonsense. You don't want to admit that Trump made a mistake so you look for any reason to deny this story is what it is at face value. I'm not buying it and your words aren't going to change my mind. You need hard evidence to do that, yet you know that doesn't exist because Trump's claims of being wiretapped are bogus and you know this. Or you should if you care about intellectual integrity in any way.


Why does he need hard evidence when you can make conclusive claims based on unnamed sources quoting secret apologies?
Or are you exempt from having to justify your positions?

Which position exactly would you like me to justify with proof? Keep in mind that one doesn't prove negatives so if you are asking me to prove the opposite of what grainofsand is claiming then that won't happen.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

No just trying to twist words so the statement isn't true. It's totally asinine and nobody is falling for it.
They're not playing word games. But you sure are.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grainofsand

Right. I get it. You love to read things into words that aren't there. However, until you actually start putting up some evidence to back up your claims that Britain has been spying on Trump, I don't care anymore. Your words mean nothing by themselves. Just typical Trump supporter nonsense. You don't want to admit that Trump made a mistake so you look for any reason to deny this story is what it is at face value. I'm not buying it and your words aren't going to change my mind. You need hard evidence to do that, yet you know that doesn't exist because Trump's claims of being wiretapped are bogus and you know this. Or you should if you care about intellectual integrity in any way.


Why does he need hard evidence when you can make conclusive claims based on unnamed sources quoting secret apologies?
Or are you exempt from having to justify your positions?

Which position exactly would you like me to justify with proof? Keep in mind that one doesn't prove negatives so if you are asking me to prove the opposite of what grainofsand is claiming then that won't happen.


I am still sticking with the phantom apology discussion. (it's obvious GCHQ have issued a full denial)
Where is your hard evidence for the apology?
edit on 17/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grainofsand

Right. I get it. You love to read things into words that aren't there. However, until you actually start putting up some evidence to back up your claims that Britain has been spying on Trump, I don't care anymore. Your words mean nothing by themselves. Just typical Trump supporter nonsense. You don't want to admit that Trump made a mistake so you look for any reason to deny this story is what it is at face value. I'm not buying it and your words aren't going to change my mind. You need hard evidence to do that, yet you know that doesn't exist because Trump's claims of being wiretapped are bogus and you know this. Or you should if you care about intellectual integrity in any way.


Why does he need hard evidence when you can make conclusive claims based on unnamed sources quoting secret apologies?
Or are you exempt from having to justify your positions?

Which position exactly would you like me to justify with proof? Keep in mind that one doesn't prove negatives so if you are asking me to prove the opposite of what grainofsand is claiming then that won't happen.


I am still sticking with the phantom apology claim.
Where is your hard evidence the apology?

I already gave evidence of the apology. It has also been posted by other members as well. The apology exists, whether you want to believe it does or not is irrelevant.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol again!
An anonymous "spokesperson" spinning the official GCHQ statement that they were not "asked" to spy.
LMAO you are the perfect target audience for media spin doctors and headlines.
I almost grieve for the loss of critical thinking and consideration of the actual words in a source....namely GCHQ and their lame statement saying they weren't asked to spy.


Wow, you're really trying hard aren't you?

On the contrary, I don't trust any of them.

You seem to swallow whole any absurdity that you're presented defends Trump and reject anything that doesn't.

Of the two of us, you're the one that's misled, friend; that's quite obvious.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grainofsand

Right. I get it. You love to read things into words that aren't there. However, until you actually start putting up some evidence to back up your claims that Britain has been spying on Trump, I don't care anymore. Your words mean nothing by themselves. Just typical Trump supporter nonsense. You don't want to admit that Trump made a mistake so you look for any reason to deny this story is what it is at face value. I'm not buying it and your words aren't going to change my mind. You need hard evidence to do that, yet you know that doesn't exist because Trump's claims of being wiretapped are bogus and you know this. Or you should if you care about intellectual integrity in any way.


Why does he need hard evidence when you can make conclusive claims based on unnamed sources quoting secret apologies?
Or are you exempt from having to justify your positions?

Which position exactly would you like me to justify with proof? Keep in mind that one doesn't prove negatives so if you are asking me to prove the opposite of what grainofsand is claiming then that won't happen.


I am still sticking with the phantom apology claim.
Where is your hard evidence the apology?

I already gave evidence of the apology. It has also been posted by other members as well. The apology exists, whether you want to believe it does or not is irrelevant.


So, you are sticking with unnamed sources quoting a secret apology that will not be made public. That is your hard evidence. Thanks for clearing that up. So the secret apology exists whether I like it or not


So, on that basis, Nepolitano has claimed via secret sources that GCHQ spied on Trump at the behest of Obama. So you believe it, right?
edit on 17/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

True.

I'm not sure what actual evidence would be the basis of that "debate" however ...

We're talking about spooks here.

They could tell the exact precise truth and by the time they finished it would be a lie.

However, what is intellectually insulting here are the folks whose cheeks are packed full of the nuts given to them by the pro-Trump media spitting and sputtering that anyone else here is squirrelly.

edit on 17-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

...and still the UK has NOT said Trump's claims were false, just that the UK has not been asked to spy on him.
Any deviation from that is equally pure invention.
I'm not asserting that Trump is correct, but you cannot assert the UK has stated he isn't.

Oh and quit with the Trump supporter lameness, I'm impartially here for amusement purposes alone.

The UK has NOT denied his claims. The UK has merely said it has not been asked to spy on him.
How is that massively important difference in statements so difficult for you to recognise?
I think you are trolling or have reading comprehension issues.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grainofsand

Right. I get it. You love to read things into words that aren't there. However, until you actually start putting up some evidence to back up your claims that Britain has been spying on Trump, I don't care anymore. Your words mean nothing by themselves. Just typical Trump supporter nonsense. You don't want to admit that Trump made a mistake so you look for any reason to deny this story is what it is at face value. I'm not buying it and your words aren't going to change my mind. You need hard evidence to do that, yet you know that doesn't exist because Trump's claims of being wiretapped are bogus and you know this. Or you should if you care about intellectual integrity in any way.


Why does he need hard evidence when you can make conclusive claims based on unnamed sources quoting secret apologies?
Or are you exempt from having to justify your positions?

Which position exactly would you like me to justify with proof? Keep in mind that one doesn't prove negatives so if you are asking me to prove the opposite of what grainofsand is claiming then that won't happen.


I am still sticking with the phantom apology claim.
Where is your hard evidence the apology?

I already gave evidence of the apology. It has also been posted by other members as well. The apology exists, whether you want to believe it does or not is irrelevant.


So, you are sticking with unnamed sources quoting a secret apology that will not be made public. That is your hard evidence. Thanks for clearing that up. So the secret apology exists whether I like it or not


So, on that basis, Nepolitano has claimed via secret sources that GCHQ spied on Trump at the behest of Obama. So you believe it, right?

I believe he made that claim. Yes. However his claim lacks any supporting evidence so it is likely untrue, and with the refutation of Britain it is even more likely not to be true.

When are you going to post any evidence?



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

trump doesn't apologize. If he stepped on your foot he'd blame you for getting in his way.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Argument from Ignorance



Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa).

This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.

Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grainofsand

Right. I get it. You love to read things into words that aren't there. However, until you actually start putting up some evidence to back up your claims that Britain has been spying on Trump, I don't care anymore. Your words mean nothing by themselves. Just typical Trump supporter nonsense. You don't want to admit that Trump made a mistake so you look for any reason to deny this story is what it is at face value. I'm not buying it and your words aren't going to change my mind. You need hard evidence to do that, yet you know that doesn't exist because Trump's claims of being wiretapped are bogus and you know this. Or you should if you care about intellectual integrity in any way.


Why does he need hard evidence when you can make conclusive claims based on unnamed sources quoting secret apologies?
Or are you exempt from having to justify your positions?

Which position exactly would you like me to justify with proof? Keep in mind that one doesn't prove negatives so if you are asking me to prove the opposite of what grainofsand is claiming then that won't happen.


I am still sticking with the phantom apology claim.
Where is your hard evidence the apology?

I already gave evidence of the apology. It has also been posted by other members as well. The apology exists, whether you want to believe it does or not is irrelevant.


So, you are sticking with unnamed sources quoting a secret apology that will not be made public. That is your hard evidence. Thanks for clearing that up. So the secret apology exists whether I like it or not


So, on that basis, Nepolitano has claimed via secret sources that GCHQ spied on Trump at the behest of Obama. So you believe it, right?

I believe he made that claim. Yes. However his claim lacks any supporting evidence so it is likely untrue, and with the refutation of Britain it is even more likely not to be true.

When are you going to post any evidence?


Evidence of what? The secret apology?
The evidence I have posted is exactly what has been quoted by those involved in the discussions, but you tell me there is a secret apology, because CNN told you their secret source told them, and the Telegraph told you that their other secret source told them. Some actual evidence from you would be nice.
edit on 17/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join