Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

GUILTY - Pope, Jesuit General, Queen of England, Tarcisio Bertone and more...Crimes Against Humanity

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Hmmm, it's hard to know how to comment on that. You look how you look, it's not a reflection on your character. All I would say is when you are 85, take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if the face that looks back at you is the one you would like people to see.

BTW, how does someone look pope-ish?


when I'm 85? I'd rather people see my face from when I was 25 when I'm 85.

pope-ish - caring, kind, pious, gentle, loving, understanding.

the soon to be former pope always looks like he's scheming.

you can't tell me this is the guy you want as your intermediary between you and god:

www.sikharchives.com...




posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by smurfy
 


the soon to be former pope does not look pope-ish.

I'm sorry if that bothers you but, in my opinion, he's got a slightly evil smirk-like look. Doesn't mean he's a bad dude or evil incarnate, it just means he looks that way to me and, more important, my opinion doesn't matter regarding the way he looks, or anyone looks. but he does have a little palpatine thing going on, I believe someone, somewhere, pointed out.





Totally agree, he looks like evil incarnate.
He has a wry, evil, disturbing grin/face and it goes deeper than just a physical thing, it resonates out from within.

I think most admit that he has been pretty unsuccessful and that Pope John Paul II was so much more friendly, human and yes, Pope-ish.

This Pope is pretty bad.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
Totally agree, he looks like evil incarnate.
He has a wry, evil, disturbing grin/face and it goes deeper than just a physical thing, it resonates out from within.

Nice to know that the world is still full of people who judge others on appearances. Here, I thought that we'd moved beyond that.

The Pope is an old man, who has not aged well, and is taking the responsible position of putting the church before himself in acknowledging his weakness in running the church and submitting his resignation. Why not applaud something like that, rather than saying, because he has sunken eye sockets and an unpleasant smile, he just has to be evil?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by smurfy
 


the soon to be former pope does not look pope-ish.

I'm sorry if that bothers you but, in my opinion, he's got a slightly evil smirk-like look. Doesn't mean he's a bad dude or evil incarnate, it just means he looks that way to me and, more important, my opinion doesn't matter regarding the way he looks, or anyone looks. but he does have a little palpatine thing going on, I believe someone, somewhere, pointed out.





Totally agree, he looks like evil incarnate.
He has a wry, evil, disturbing grin/face and it goes deeper than just a physical thing, it resonates out from within.

I think most admit that he has been pretty unsuccessful and that Pope John Paul II was so much more friendly, human and yes, Pope-ish.

This Pope is pretty bad.


Well.... sorry, but both those posts are as shallow as a sink 5 minutes after you remove the plug. I do feel sorry for both of you for having such an outlook on people based on how you perceive them to look (however I've a funny feeling I may see you and your partners as absolute mingers
).

You do know Pope Benedict was extremely frustrated that Pope John Paul II refused to tackle issues of child abuse within the church head on and that he wrote about this many times before becoming Pope? That doesn't make John Paul II implicit by the way, just that he seemed immune to change which is why I have a lot of good things to say about Pope Benedict - he tried and realised the challenge was for a younger man.
edit on 27-2-2013 by something wicked because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


No... as I said "It is deeper than physical" This is NOT about just appearance.
I do not go around judging people on their appearance in my life, no more than anyone else does...we all make subconscious decisions and assumptions based on appearance, that's just a fact of life.

Regarding the Pope, as I said, this is MORE than a physical thing.

The guy is evil.

Protecting and covering up for Paedophiles is pure evil, there is nothing more evil that someone can do than hurt children in this way, to cover up and ask for "silence" and basically tell people to keep quiet IS evil.

Even if the Pope says Paedophilia is not an "Absolute Evil".... in this case, he is NOT infallible.


Even before he was Pope, he was in charge of dealing with Crimes against children... and did very little, but protect Padophile priests, just moved them around so they were free to abuse again.


I'm sorry that people like you and the other clueless poster can overlook something as serious as Paedophilia and turn a blind eye to it... but then, if your leader does, then I guess like good sheep you follow, huh?
edit on 27/2/13 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

You do know Pope Benedict was extremely frustrated that Pope John Paul II refused to tackle issues of child abuse within the church head on and that he wrote about this many times before becoming Pope? That doesn't make John Paul II implicit by the way, just that he seemed immune to change which is why I have a lot of good things to say about Pope Benedict - he tried and realised the challenge was for a younger man.
edit on 27-2-2013 by something wicked because: (no reason given)




Absolutely Nonsense.... Cardinal Ratzinger was IN CHARGE of dealing with these scandals, and called for silence in the ranks.... moved priests around to abuse freely.

Do not delude yourself that these people care... they are COMPLICIT and are fully aware of the crimes carried out on children.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by something wicked

You do know Pope Benedict was extremely frustrated that Pope John Paul II refused to tackle issues of child abuse within the church head on and that he wrote about this many times before becoming Pope? That doesn't make John Paul II implicit by the way, just that he seemed immune to change which is why I have a lot of good things to say about Pope Benedict - he tried and realised the challenge was for a younger man.
edit on 27-2-2013 by something wicked because: (no reason given)




Absolutely Nonsense.... Cardinal Ratzinger was IN CHARGE of dealing with these scandals, and called for silence in the ranks.... moved priests around to abuse freely.

Do not delude yourself that these people care... they are COMPLICIT and are fully aware of the crimes carried out on children.


I'm reminded of a word that is close to a group of male cows - close to bullocks. Opinion, opnion, opinion, You read the blogs, you make it real in your mind, end of.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 





What? How is it bollocks?]

This is just a short search.

If you don't follow these things or haven't heard about this, then I can't help you.

It happened....

The Pope Covers Up Paedophilia.... he protects child rapists and that's probably why he's quitting.

But whatever, keep your head buried, keep defending him.



www.guardian.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...



Also

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 27/2/13 by blupblup because: (no reason given)
edit on 27/2/13 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
More of whats going on concerning crimes of the Catholic church.



LOS ANGELES -- The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles must release the names of church leaders and pedophile priests identified in thousands of pages of internal documents recounting sexual abuse allegations dating back decades, a judge ruled Monday. The decision by Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias overturned much of a 2011 order by another judge that would have allowed the archdiocese to black out the names of church higher-ups. Victims, as well as The Associated Press and Los Angeles Times, argued for the names to be public. Elias said she weighed the privacy rights of priests and others – including those who are mentioned in the documents but were not accused of any wrongdoing – versus the public's interest in learning details of the child abuse that prompted the archdiocese to agree to a record $660 million settlement with victims in 2007.




The documents include letters and memos between top church officials and their attorneys, medical and psychological records, complaints from parents and, in some cases, correspondence with the Vatican about abusive priests. There are approximately 30,000 pages and it wasn't immediately clear how soon they would be released.


Why keep defending these monsters from prosecution and justice? Isn't the fact that they are an integral part of the system, a poor excuse that they should be processed through that very system? A good part of the evidentiary documentation consists of the system's(or "real court's", if you prefer)refusal to allow these cases into the system's court due to the simple fact that the system itself is implicated in a cover up. This is how the WHOLE system operates. They continually commit crime but never have to worry because they ARE the system and never allow charges against THEM to make it to THEIR court.

So how does one hold those who own the system responsible for their misdeeds? Exactly as we have been seeing on many fronts. When the system has too much power for the common people to deal with on the systems own terms, what avenue can be taken to bring the same "justice" that we all face? The solution can be found on the US Declaration of Independence. We The People! We, as in one mind set. Ask yourself this, does a body of people who share MORAL obligation, constitute a "lynch mob"? Can people who know the difference between right and wrong, gathered together, be considered "mob rule" when they protect children from harm?

I guess they could be, if one doesn't consider harming children to be wrong! Should a majority of a population, whom all believe harming children to be wrong, redressing grievances with their governing body be construed as "mob rule" or "anarchy" or a "lynch mob"? If the governing body refuses to hear the grievances of the majority, could that not be viewed as unrepresentative of the MAJORITY? What then? Should the majority then accept their fate and go home as has been advised by some(in whatever form of wording)? This IS where we are at now. WE, are at a crossroads! Which path to choose? LINK for above quotes.

All one has to do is search Catholic Church accused and see how many hits you get. The proof is in the pudding!



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ajay59
 




Exactly... even if Paedophilia isn't rampant in the Catholic Church and Vatican, the Covering up of Paedophile Priests and the silencing of Children is... so why??

This scandal, much like the recent one involving TV & Radio stars and so on in the UK, is much, much bigger and deeper than people realise.... from the Pope down, these people knew, covered up and participated.


Ignorant religious Zealots wont change the FACTS.

edit on 27/2/13 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by something wicked
 





What? How is it bollocks?]

This is just a short search.

If you don't follow these things or haven't heard about this, then I can't help you.

It happened....

The Pope Covers Up Paedophilia.... he protects child rapists and that's probably why he's quitting.

But whatever, keep your head buried, keep defending him.



www.guardian.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...



Also

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 27/2/13 by blupblup because: (no reason given)
edit on 27/2/13 by blupblup because: (no reason given)


No, accusations with at this moment in time no actual proof shown. To be quite honest I'm not going to lie, I don't understand the way what is effectively a government works (well actually it is a government) but I call it bollocks at you as you hint he condones child abuse.

Thank you.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 




This scandal, much like the recent one involving TV & Radio stars and so on in the UK, is much, much bigger and deeper than people realise.... from the Pope down, these people knew, covered up and participated.


It would appear that everything is connected, as for the evidence pointing that direction IMPO. There is plenty of evidence supporting the idea of a hierarchy which can be divided down to three distinct branches. Three does seem to be a very prominent number in the scheme of things,the most visible being the three nation states.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by ajay59
 




Ignorant religious Zealots wont change the FACTS.

edit on 27/2/13 by blupblup because: (no reason given)


Nor will a Mob Mentality....... And a One person tribunal that thinks he's God on Earth..



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 

You have presented time and time again where you stand on whether or not crimes against children should be the issue or how they can be dealt with!



Can people who know the difference between right and wrong, gathered together, be considered "mob rule" when they protect children from harm?


A little more in depth...




Ask yourself this, does a body of people who share MORAL obligation, constitute a "lynch mob"? Can people who know the difference between right and wrong, gathered together, be considered "mob rule" when they protect children from harm? I guess they could be, if one doesn't consider harming children to be wrong! Should a majority of a population, whom all believe harming children to be wrong, redressing grievances with their governing body be construed as "mob rule" or "anarchy" or a "lynch mob"? If the governing body refuses to hear the grievances of the majority, could that not be viewed as unrepresentative of the MAJORITY? What then? Should the majority then accept their fate and go home as has been advised by some(in whatever form of wording)?


Perhaps you can answer some of these questions for your audience?




posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ajay59
 


Depends on who's moral code is being invoked, what if any ulterior motives they have (I wouldn't want a mob of Muslims enforcing it on the Catholic Church) what societal norms they have in their regions. So as you can see it's not as easy to just say "It's moral, therefore the mob rule applies"

We have and live under the rule of law, we do for a reason. The leaders of countries are for the most part not able to be tried unless it's by the United Nations, and if I remember the last thing I read on the subject, a lot of priests and "others" that engage in crimes against children are already very harshly dealt with, there are always several operations going on to catch these people, and they net results, just because they don't plaster your news with it 24/7 doesn't mean it's not going on.

Again it comes down to rule by law or rule by mob, nothing more nothing less. For any of you that are trying to make the argument that Mob rule, when morally right, is OK, just remember the whole world doesn't share your morals or your convictions (and some places even have motives that are not honorable) and the next time it could be YOU on the other end of that mob because you did something the "group" found offensive.

The one problem is, if you went after the Catholic Church, that would mean you would have to in a MOB fashion go after Islamic countries that allow weddings between 50 year old men and 6 year old girls (and allow consummation) as well as some Asian cultures that don't have a lower age of consent, oh and the entire state of Tennessee as the age of consent is 13.. So tread carefully on trying to make that argument, it always ends very badly... the main question you should ask yourself and seriously ask yourself, without all the internet bravado and invincibility... Are you prepared to give your life for that cause? If you won't die trying to enforce this "court"'s decision, then it's all a moot and academic point.. I DO risk my life to enforce the laws as they exist in our society, so I can answer, if it is done in a legal and lawful manner through the mechanism that is available, YES I will die to enforce that decision. If it is done by one person thinking they are some sort of international prosecutor with an axe to grind? NO I will not support that, and I damn well won't give my life for him..



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 




Again it comes down to rule by law or rule by mob,



Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.[2] Laws are made by governments, specifically by their legislatures.



Mob; commonly refers to a crowd of people


In bullying and intimidation


In law, law enforcement, and politics


I could go on and on but believe what is shown is sufficient in showing that those who make and pass laws, as well as those who enforce laws, all fall under the same definition of mob.
Now about answering the questions posed to you in my previous post, rather than deflecting, can you answer them? Yes or no?

Anyone here can see that what I've posted on this forum destroys your arguments thus far, completely!
edit on 27-2-2013 by ajay59 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-2-2013 by ajay59 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


One other thing in your post bothered me as well but I forgot to mention it. Since when did the American people sign off on rights to the United Nations as to having any regulatory authority of OUR country and or government?

edit on 27-2-2013 by ajay59 because: to correct



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ajay59
 


With all due respect, what is wrong with you?

You keep accusing everyone of everything from not caring about child sex abuse, to actively supporting the same just because some nutter thinks they can be the rule of law for the entirety of the planet.

You keep waving your little flag around, claiming we don't care, or even actively support all these crimes.

Well, tell us, what's keeping YOU?
You make lots of noise.
No one sees you on a plane to Rome with your citizen's arrest warrant though.

Perhaps someone should look in the mirror when it comes to their accusations, and mouth foamy ranting?

By YOUR reasoning, if you're not on a plane to Rome, then, you're just as guilty of the perpetuation of child sex abuse as if you'd done it yourself.

See how that works?

Now, if you want to be sensible, then start writing letters, signed petitions, and evidence files to authorities that actually matter; people that have the authority, power, or the connections to precipitate of gathering of such to bring a real legal accountability to fore.

In reality, even if you do this, chances are you'll still be seen as just a nutter, but, at the very least you'll be doing something, something that actually requires real effort and commitment beyond throwing accusations around at some anonymous online fringe topic website members.

Get off your keyboard that go DO something.
If you don't, then, just like all your spittle flecked ranty accusations aimed at all of everyone that tells you this so called court ruling is a joke, according your own accusations, you're just a guilty.

It'd be interesting to hear what you're actually doing beyond throwing a conniption fit all over your keyboard at people online that aren't jumping up and immediately doing something because you say so.
Are you doing anything?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   
The ITCCS has just been found guilty of light treason in the court of Superhans, they have been sentenced to 400 life sentences!
Source
edit on 28-2-2013 by Superhans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Here are two recent interviews about the case. The first was 2 weeks ago (30 mins long), the second (1hr long) was made yesterday.





Both videos are worthwhile and cover many points about the case, evidence, legal basis of the court ect.

2 Packets of evidence have been previously posted for people to follow up on. These are:
- November 6th packet
- January 30th 2013 packet

From the latest update today on the matter -

Over the past few days, hundreds of people in fifteen countries have pledged their support to our Tribunal to occupy churches and help perform Citizens' Arrests of criminal heads of church and state in Rome, London and across Canada. (more to read) Source
edit on 28-2-2013 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join