South Korea seizes drugs made from dead babies

reply to post by Yazman


i am very curious to understand what you actually believe?

what else do you deny happened in our world?

what else do you think the media has made up?

please explain what qualifies as something that is true in your eyes? is it something that you have only witnessed yourself?

Wouldnt that be a limited and therefore somewhat costly supply? Has the powder been analyized or is it what it sez on the label. It would be more cost effective to put whatever in those capsules.

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
reply to post by Yazman

 

i am very curious to understand what you actually believe?

what else do you deny happened in our world?

what else do you think the media has made up?

please explain what qualifies as something that is true in your eyes? is it something that you have only witnessed yourself?

Character assassination eh? Nice try, but you'll need to do better than that. I'm not denying this happened - I'm not saying I believe OR disbelieve it.

I am extremely skeptical that powdered baby ended up in pills and that it has only ever happened in China, especially considering the incredible amount of red tape and bureaucracy that is omnipresent in the world of Chinese business, even with the market reforms since the 80s.

Furthermore, there is already a precedent for this sort of story being a hoax (with the hoaxes shown conclusively even here on ATS), with the stories about the supposed "baby restaurants".

In fact, the Daily Mail article which I've seen people link cites a newspaper that doesn't even exist (the San Francisco Times). As I stated earlier too - this wouldn't be the first time the consumption of infants was used to demonise an "other" in a nationalist or racist effort. Anti-semites have been doing it for centuries, and there are countless people who believe Jews eat babies, drink their blood and sacrifice them ritually. I am even reminded of the Satanic ritual abuse panic in the 80s and esrly 90s.

Furthermore your position strikes me as awfully naive. DO you actually believe the media never lies? Can you honestly, really say that disinfo doesn't exist? If you actually believe that, or are just so gullible as to believe the media or the state never lies, then I really do pity you. Do you also believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in 2003, the US government had no ties to the contras, and Nixon's administration had nothing to do with Watergate? Oh of course, the government NEVER lies! All those reports about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction? Oh yeah, I forgot, it just slipped my mind that the US military found nuclear missiles pointed at Washington DC, mounted right there ,ready to launch in the middle of Baghdad!

You heard it here first, folks, right out of lacrimaererum's mouth - all media outlets are trustworthy! They never lie, ESPECIALLY not Fox News, which is the MOST trustworthy, and there's no need to ask for evidence when somebody makes a claim, especially not an outrageous one! I guess those white supremacists must be right about the Jews after all - they do have published materials after all, and if somebody publishes it, IT MUST BE TRUE!

right?

What I'm saying comes down to this - where's the damn evidence? Why should we believe something JUST because The Guardian wrote it? Where's the evidence? Let's see something more substantial than a guy in a British office writing blood libel stories about the evil Chinese bogeyman. It's not an unreasonable question, especially given the extreme and extraordinary nature of the claims.

This story reads to me like something out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, except with "Chinese" replacing "Jewish".

It's unlikely that the injustice committed here is the production of pills made from powdered baby. What's more likely is that the injustice being perpetrated is the publication of sensationalist claims designed to play on the fear and ignorance of China prevalent among many in the anglosphere.

reply to post by Yazman


you really seem to have major issues with the daily mail.

you keep bringing it up. now you are even bringing up other stories in the dailymail.

i can imagine you must get so angry everyday when you log onto to the dailymail website to read the stories that just make you so upset.

as i said already , the guardian is the source in the OP.

your last post should really be removed. its seems to be more of a troll rant.like this piece for instance;

You heard it here first, folks, right out of lacrimaererum's mouth - all media outlets are trustworthy! They never lie, ESPECIALLY not Fox News, which is the MOST trustworthy, and there's no need to ask for evidence when somebody makes a claim, especially not an outrageous one! I guess those white supremacists must be right about the Jews after all - they do have published materials after all, and if somebody publishes it, IT MUST BE TRUE!

i have never sated anything of the sort that you claim above. i did not say all media is trustworthy. you are clearly attributing comments to me which i never made. you are a liar. i merely asked how you judge something is true or not true. in return you have come out with this manical rant that makes no sense. you bring in fox news? why. i never mentioned fox news. you even start bringing the jews into this.

you really do seem to be a little unbalanced or simply a troll looking for a fight. i am not interested sir. good day.

Typical. For the second time in this thread, you have completely ignored the substance of my post and instead have chosen to try character assassination - I am not the troll here when I am making legitimate points and you are merely disregarding my entire posts and simply calling me insane. Instead of responding to the actual points and claims I made you would rather focus on irrelevant stuff about "omg you said the daily mail it's the guardian the guardian!" etc when I am not targeting and have never been targeting one particular outlet - I've made that abundantly clear.

I do not accept something as truth merely because I read it in a newspaper/website article, especially not when they are outrageous/extreme accusations presented without any evidence at all to accompany them, and ESPECIALLY not when they are the sort of claims that have a history of being hoaxes.

I am extremely skeptical that powdered baby ended up in pills and that it has only ever happened in China, especially considering the incredible amount of red tape and bureaucracy that is omnipresent in the world of Chinese business, even with the market reforms since the 80s.

Furthermore, there is already a precedent for this sort of story being a hoax (with the hoaxes shown conclusively even here on ATS), with the stories about the supposed "babies for food trade" and the "man eating baby soup".

In fact, one article which I've seen people link cites a newspaper that doesn't even exist (the San Francisco Times). As I stated earlier too - this wouldn't be the first time the consumption of infants was used to demonise an "other" in a nationalist or racist effort. Anti-semites have been doing it for centuries, and there are countless people who believe Jews eat babies, drink their blood and sacrifice them ritually. I am even reminded of the Satanic ritual abuse panic in the 80s and esrly 90s.

What I'm saying comes down to this - where's the damn evidence? Why should we believe something JUST because The Guardian wrote it? Where's the evidence? Let's see something more substantial than a guy in a British office writing blood libel stories about the evil Chinese bogeyman. It's not an unreasonable question, especially given the extreme and extraordinary nature of the claims.

This story reads to me like something out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, except with "Chinese" replacing "Jewish".

It's unlikely that the injustice committed here is the production of pills made from powdered baby. What's more likely is that the injustice being perpetrated is the publication of sensationalist claims designed to play on the fear and ignorance of China prevalent among many in the anglosphere.