The Norway massacre and the question nobody cares to ask

page: 22
96
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
But you CAN prove it. By proving or disproving the details that LINK him to the manifesto. Of which there are 1500 pages of. That required he interact with other actual living human beings and leave transactions around that support those purchases.

You don't WANT to. That's different. You've neither the skills nor the interest, and likely not the ability to parse out the details that you can trace. That's why I provided you with a few to start with.

So again,

Your reasoning is a fantastic example of of a circular argument. You believe that he's programmed by an agency to release a document because the document is a document you believe is an agency's document.

I'm not voraciously defending anything. I'm desperately trying to figure out if a couple of you actually have a real distinct considered thought that is capable of being tested.

You cannot be pinned down on ANYTHING. You just vaguely "feel" it isn't right. And you don't have ANY reason why. And you feel attacked that anyone would even dare to try and get a complete thought out of you.
edit on 2011/7/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

I think it is more than a little reasonable to ask whether or not his entire 'manifesto' was written by someone else, or if his entire MO was to be able to get these 'ideas' out in the public.

The question here seems to me to come down to wondering if he is really a genuine lunatic, or if he was programmed by someone very powerful. It seems not entirely implausible that he was 'programmed' and supplied with all the necessary bells and whistles, like a crazy-arsed 'manifesto'. Of course, I am also willing to admit he is just a genuine nut-job, if the evidence eventually proves that.

Only an idiot (or someone intentionally attempting to obfuscate the issue with inane banter, straw men, and circular logic) would pretend they KNOW one way or the other at this point.


This is *exactly* what I am trying to say.

Thank you for putting it so eloquently.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Again - By what criteria would you accept that this Manifesto was legitimate? And what does legitimate mean to you?

Seriously - one entire question. I've even given you "complete the sentence" work to help you clarify.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Again - By what criteria would you accept that this Manifesto was legitimate? And what does legitimate mean to you?

Seriously - one entire question. I've even given you "complete the sentence" work to help you clarify.

Egads, woman. It is difficult to discern if you are being intentionally obtuse, or if is innate.

The only claim was that it seems far to early to assume that his 'manifesto' was actually written by him, if so, what his true motivation for writing it was. Only time will tell, and anyone who claims to KNOW one way or the other at this point is likely jumping to a pre-conceived conclusion.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
What his true motivations are?

Okay. Now you have the base begins of a thought here.

He gave you his reasons. In Detail.

You don't believe the reasons he gave because.....



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
But you CAN prove it. By proving or disproving the details that LINK him to the manifesto. Of which there are 1500 pages of. That required he interact with other actual living human beings and leave transactions around that support those purchases.


Oh, please detail how 'purchases' of his prove he wrote this manifesto himself.

Because that seems to be quite the leap in logic.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons


You don't believe the reasons he gave because.....


How do you even come to these 'conclusions' of yours?

Is it REALLY that difficult to understand that some might not be so quick to believe that his so called 'manifesto' MIGHT not actually be written by him?

Or are you being intentionally dense when you constantly re-frame that VERY SIMPLE STATEMENT into all kinds of things no one claimed?

Sheesh.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
So you have no reason why you question it. You PASSIONATELY don't have even the slightest clue why you doubt that he wrote it for the reasons he detailed.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Aeons
But you CAN prove it. By proving or disproving the details that LINK him to the manifesto. Of which there are 1500 pages of. That required he interact with other actual living human beings and leave transactions around that support those purchases.


Oh, please detail how 'purchases' of his prove he wrote this manifesto himself.

Because that seems to be quite the leap in logic.



Proving out details lends credence to claims made.

You on the other hand have no idea why you disbelieve his claims, other than you do with great amounts of passion and a healthy helping of snotty.

I get it. I do. You don't even know YOUR OWN MIND, how could you possibly begin to fathom anything else?



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
So you have no reason why you question it. You PASSIONATELY don't have even the slightest clue why you doubt that he wrote it for the reasons he detailed.
Hardly. You are just choosing to avoid my reasoning in favor of off topic straw men.

Clearly, his 'manifesto' is being used to prop up certain political ideologies, and it seems worth CONSIDERING (what an intelligent person does) that perhaps those who may stand to gain from the interpretation of the contents of this 'manifesto' may have placed it in the public consciousness for their own reasons. IS that really beyond a reasonable consideration, and if so, why?

Now, despite what you have repeatedly claimed, I am not saying I BELIEVE this is what happened. I've merely mentioned I think it is worth CONSIDERING.

Are you saying that is an impossibility, and if so, please explain how. I tend to not immediately and blindly believe what I read in the papers. ou seem more predisposed to that MO.
edit on 27-7-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Yes, HE did exactly that. Specifically. In detail.

He does claimed to be with an organization. Specifically. In detail.

So you disbelieve what he told you, while proposing as an alternative EXACTLY what he did.

Your alternative, isn't.
edit on 2011/7/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

So you disbelieve what he told you, while proposing as an alternative EXACTLY what he did.


We *question* what he told us. We are not making any definitive statements. Only *you* are doing that.


Your alternative, isn't.


Why, Aeons? Why is it *not at all* a possibility that he's lying? Why? People never lie? It's impossible for this man to be lying about anything at all?



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
He must be an Expert Sniper!
76 kills an NO Wounded?
I can not believe there was no one wounded?
took me some time to see this.

or did I mis that bit?


He was an utterly inept shooter.

He had 90 minutes on a crowded island with unarmed victims. 76 casualties is something my 13 year old kid could accomplish.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenStarrz
 


Your alternative for his lie is to suggest instead...exactly what he said.

So you're saying he lied, and giving as a possible truth what he wrote.

I don't know how many ways I can lay this one out for you.

So he lied. You believe this because.... You're alternate authours/co-authours are....
edit on 2011/7/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Aeons, I give in. I really do. I actually think there may be a language barrier, because you genuinely make no sense at all. I just can't subject myself to your unintelligible posts anymore. This is not a discussion, it's a farce. I'm not trying to be unkind, just truthful. From here on out, I won't engage you in conversation anymore. There's no discourse with you, it's ... painful.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
It is painful to answer the simpliest questions one can possibly ask.

WHY do you think Breivik is lying?

I understand that actually having the THINK is painful, but give it a try anyways.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Aeons, this is why.


Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Clearly, his 'manifesto' is being used to prop up certain political ideologies, and it seems worth CONSIDERING (what an intelligent person does) that perhaps those who may stand to gain from the interpretation of the contents of this 'manifesto' may have placed it in the public consciousness for their own reasons. IS that really beyond a reasonable consideration, and if so, why?


Now, quit trying to insult me, I really don't care, and you are just making yourself look bad.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I'm actually trying to help you.

I've gamely even volunteered to find the details that might either help lend or take away credence to Breivik's Manifesto. I've given you ways to disprove the contents. I've suggested avenues of who or how to track down the guys organization and handlers.

I've pretty much offered up how to completely prove that Breivik's is lying for you. And you aren't capable of seeing it.

I've tried to get you to clarify what criteria would be acceptable to you as proof or disproof. And then I've given you the ways to disprove it. I've GIVEN YOU how to annihilate my contention that Breivik's Manifesto is his own.

The ONLY thing either of you need to do is define what something being "real" or "legitimate" or his own would look like to you.

You can't even do that.

You feel like I'm going around in circles, because in the absence of you thinking for yourself I've tried to bolster you up and do some thinking FOR you on your behalf. Even then, you neatly manage to avoid anything even remotely resembling thought.
edit on 2011/7/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
You are all SCUM for, in your paranoid worldview, over-analyzing every piece of information. I bet none of you came to the "false flag" conclusion for yourselves, you all guess it as soon as the attack happen - it's what you wanted it to be. You all sicken me. Vermin.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
I'm actually trying to help you.


Please don't. As I wrote, there is no discourse with you. You make no sense.


I've gamely even volunteered to find the details that might either help lend or take away credence to Breivik's Manifesto. I've given you ways to disprove the contents. I've suggested avenues of who or how to track down the guys organization and handlers.


No, you haven't. At all. Nor am I interested in "tracking down" any organizations, or handlers. I am merely asking questions. I am watching a story unfold. I am passively pondering. I realise that this may be an alien concept to you, but you should try it sometime. Maybe then you wouldn't come across as such a bulldog.


I've pretty much offered up how to completely prove that Breivik's is lying for you. And you aren't capable of seeing it.


Maybe you are not capable of seeing that you make no sense, and yet are convinced you do. What is this obsession you have with "proof", when you have none of your own? Every post of yours can be boiled down to "prove it or you are dumb." That's beyond facile.


I've tried to get you to clarify what criteria would be acceptable to you as proof or disproof. And then I've given you the ways to disprove it. I've GIVEN YOU how to annihilate my contention that Breivik's Manifesto is his own.


You have given me nothing but nonsense, and demands of "proof", where there can be none. You believe him, I question it. I'm not on an agenda, here, I'm wondering what yours is, though.


The ONLY thing either of you need to do is define what something being "real" or "legitimate" or his own would look like to you.


Not possible for either us to do, or *you* to do. Unless you know him personally, that is. Do you?


You feel like I'm going around in circles, because in the absence of you thinking for yourself I've tried to bolster you up and do some thinking FOR you on your behalf. Even then, you neatly manage to avoid anything even remotely resembling thought.


Again, you have done nothing but post rubbish, and vague demands for "proof." For the last time, there is no "proof" of anything, here. There is an official story, and then there is conjecture.

Now really, stop with the insults. I won't join you in this merry dance, anymore, no matter how many times you continue to try and bait me by taking ridiculous jibes at my intellect, when it is you who is not making sense. Please stop trolling me.





new topics
top topics
 
96
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join