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.

 

Prince Andrew: I did not suspect Epstein's behaviour

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

Clearly, all accused are innocent until proven guilty and I am not one to convict with my opinion. But Prince Andrew has some questions to answer and he should not, in my opinion, rest easy while his name is spoken in connection with the abuse of young girls.




originally posted by: projectvxn



If we believe Trump is the only billionaire friend of epstein who didn't participate, even though documents and testimony show some recruitment of 'girl masseuses' took place at the Mar a Lago, then we don't have to scrutinize anyone else who claims not to be involved in any way.
a reply to: odzeandennz

Anything for a cheap political point?

There is no evidence at all that Donald Trump was involved in this.



Cant always talk in absolutes no matter how much you like someone, I think Andrew has questions to answer and we are basing it on photos and association with Epstein, I am sure you will dismiss this out of hand and claim i have TDS, yet there is as many accusations and photos of Andrew as there are Mr Trump







posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
I was trying to be polite but I do have a word for it. Naive, redundant, ignorant, worthless, all when it comes to this context. Okay more than one.
What's the difference? What's your point?

My point is that you said that my "type of thinking is fully anticipated like the sunrise" and I wanted to know what that type was. I like clear situations.



If you knew I did something and couldn't prove it legally the last thing on your mind would be how I feel about it.

That's not what I meant. What I wanted to say was: how do you feel if someone accused you of being a child molester without proof, just because they were sure you were? Wouldn't you like that person to present the proof or stop accusing you of something you didn't do?

My point of view is that we should use proof as a basis for our actions that affect other people and not base those actions on our feelings.


If prince Andy raped you a year ago and you just yesterday realized it was him. You wouldn't have any proof.

But I would know because I was there. What I mean is that people like you and me, that were not there and can only base their opinions on what they read or watch on media sources (created by people that may or may not have their own bias and influences, making it difficult to get clear and accurate reports), need proof to try to get to the truth.


So please for the love of God, help me understand what you're saying so I'm not struggling to be amicable with you because right now I'm about to go thru another computer.

I try, but not "for the love of god", as I'm an atheist.



I know i have pimples on my ass and the only proof I have is the pimples.

That's different, as you're talking about something that, supposedly, still exists, not about an event that, supposedly, happened years ago, it's possible to get someone to see if that's true or not or to get photos showing it (although I'm not interested in seeing them, for obvious reasons).

PS: sorry for my harsh post yesterday, I was slightly angrier than usual and didn't noticed.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   
If he is guilty, of course he will not answer for his crimes. None of the ones will



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP




I try, but not "for the love of god", as I'm an atheist.


Well I can help you that to if you like?

Look I understand perfectly where you are coming from. What I'm trying
to make you understand is that obviously law is easy to circumvent.

Do you disagree that proof is a fickle thing in presence of the power to
make it disappear?


edit on 30-8-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
Well I can help you that to if you like?

I'm not interested, but thanks.



Look I understand perfectly where you are coming from. What I'm trying to make you understand is that obviously law is easy to circumvent.

And what I am trying to make you understand is that I am not talking about law, I'm talking about basing our personal actions (like "lynching a dozen or so", like you said) in unproven things. I have little problems with people acting against a criminal based on concrete proof.


Do you disagree that proof is a fickle thing in presence of the power to make it disappear?

No, I do not disagree with that, I only think that we shouldn't do any thing against other person(s) based only in rumours or hearsay.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

I have nothing further your honor.




top topics
 
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join