“I saw Joseph Ratzinger murder a little girl”: Eyewitness to a 1987 ritual sacrifice confirms ac

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   


The criminal prosecution of yet another Pope came closer to reality this month as Italian politicians agreed to work with the ITCCS in a common law court action against the papacy for its haboring of a wanted fugitive from justice: deposed Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger.

The agreement came after a new eyewitness confirmed the involvement of Ratzinger in a ritual child sacrifice in Holland in August of 1987.

“I saw Joseph Ratzinger murder a little girl at a French chateau in the fall of 1987″ stated the witness, who was a regular participant in the cult ritual torture and killing of children.

“It was ugly and horrible, and it didn’t happen just once. Ratzinger often took part. He and (Dutch Catholic Cardinal) Alfrink

“I saw Joseph Ratzinger murder a little girl”: Eyewitness to a 1987 ritual sacrifice confirms account of Toos Nijenhuis of Holland

I'm not at all sure what to make of this.

On the one hand, I can't find much of anything about it anywhere except for this site which seems a bit over the top (to say the least), but on the other hand if this were actually true, I wouldn't expect to see it in mainstream media anyway.

I also know very little about the ITCCS, but looking at some of their other work, there is a very definite agenda, which of course begs the question of whether that agenda is to really uncover crimes or if it is something more sinister and simply a hatred of all things religious.

We know that the resignation of Ratzinger was pretty much unprecedented, and that speculation has been rife as to the "real" reasons for it.
We also know that Ratzinger was heavily involved with Crimen sollicitationis when he was a cardinal, and this must surely carry some weight when deliberating about this somewhat sensationalist accusation.

What gives the story a little credibility is the naming of witnesses - however at the same time it should also be considered that (so far) we know nothing about the witnesses themselves, their personal histories or their credibility.

I have no conclusion to post about this, except to say that it requires a LOT more research, and that jumping to ANY conclusion (on either side) would be a mistake.
This is something that needs thorough and careful research before condemning a man simply because of his history (see above re: Crimen sollicitationis, and also multiple ATS threads of his Hitler Youth membership etc etc) and his choice of vocation.

As an ex-catholic, I probably have a bit of an axe to grind here, but when I look further into this, all I can say is that I will try to be as honest as I possibly can, and look at the factcs rather than what some might perceive as prejudice on my part given my record of criticism of the RCC as an institution.

(side note: my issues are with the church and it's upper hieracrhy, not with the many church members or decent clergy)




posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   
info on the website

I would venture to say its safe to ignore except as a unfunny Onion satire.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Already posted and discussed HERE

Additionally, from the previous thread:

AliceBleachWhite
FYI:

The ITCCS is not a real organization. It's pretty much one guy: Kevin D. Annett in Canada.

Here's an ATS thread about it: Some Things to Know About ITCCS

The ITCCS has been agitating for the arrest of world leaders for charges of War Crimes, and many other such for awhile.
It's an opinion driven organization that essentially makes up sensationalist stories and claims regarding near any and every personality in a political position from The Queen of England, The Pope, Presidents Bush and Obama, as well as anyone and everyone else this little operation thinks or imagines should be visited with charges.

ITCCS is not a legally recognized organization and pretty much adds up to some guy in a basement foaming at the mouth in front of his computer.

ITCCS isn't shy about making things up, and blowing its horn for everyday people to serve out citizen arrest warrants over imaginary crimes.

One of these days some nutter that actually believes and takes stock in the ITCCS claims is going to get hurt.



edit on 10/31/2013 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   
OK, not to have a pop at anyone here, but a counter-blog (which mentions Annets "spirituality" ) and a heavily edited wiki page are not really my idea of evidence, especially the so-called "rational" wiki, which is full of pompous types with overblown opinions of their own intelligence. I say that having read their stuff on 9/11 which is pretty funny, because they only address points they can easily refute and refuse to discuss anything they can't, usually with snide remarks about "tinfoil hats" etc etc

It seems as though the guy is running a campaign, but that in and of itself is not necessarily evidence is it?

I haven't found anything (or read anything here) that refutes his accusations, or the accusations of his "witnesses" apart from counter allegations which seem more of a personal nature than anything else.
What I mean is that an expose, is not one without real counter evidence showing that either he or his "witnesses" have lied or made things up.

It's the old ATS story of people attacking the source, rather than looking and searching for credible material to expose him if indeed he is some kind of nutjob.

For my part, I'll carry on looking with an open mind, because as yet no poster has produced anything apart from opinion, or indeed addressed the other points about Ratzinger regarding Crimen sollicitationis and other issues.
edit on 31/10/2013 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   


Here's an ATS thread about it: Some Things to Know About ITCCS

The ITCCS has been agitating for the arrest of world leaders for charges of War Crimes, and many others such for awhile.




If true, all it proves is that even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

Most of the world's leaders are corrupt. Everyone of these leaders rubber-stamping "brand America" terrorism deserves to be charged with complicity for US war crimes.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   

juspassinthru


Here's an ATS thread about it: Some Things to Know About ITCCS

The ITCCS has been agitating for the arrest of world leaders for charges of War Crimes, and many others such for awhile.




If true, all it proves is that even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

Most of the world's leaders are corrupt. Everyone of these leaders rubber-stamping "brand America" terrorism deserves to be charged with complicity for US war crimes.


That's one of the points I was trying to make.
It's a kind of "don't shoot the messenger" scenario.

If people are indeed seeking truth, we as members should be looking to get to the bottom of this, rather than dismissing it as crackpot.
The fact he has "witnesses" is what first brought this to my attention, and I'm trying to find information about them now.
It may be the case that they turn out to be actors, but what if they're not and there is even a kernel of truth in this?
Shouldn't we be looking to explore the veracity of his claims, rather than dismissing them out of hand?
After all, chemtrails were dismissed out of hand for a long time, but we know the truth of that now.

Equally though, some things cannot be proven, but that doesn't mean they have been disproved.
edit on 31/10/2013 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Thank you Moderators for re-instating this thread.
I appreciate your help.

I think it's important to get to the bottom of this once and for all.
As others have said, some members set great store by the ITCCS website, and I think that it needs looking into properly.

Of course if his allegations prove to be true, that opens up a whole new can of worms which could have massive implications.

For my own part, I am doubtful about this (to put it mildly) but I also believe it needs proper discussion and research.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
edit on 10/31/2013 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Aside from an allegation being propagated by a one-man blog... exactly what is it that merits it sitting in the Breaking News Forum?

Since there is no fact at play here other than an attribution made by a Canadian activist who produces these accusations seasonally; I have to ask just how en vogue it is to take a sensational accusation of extraordinary weight not apparently being reflected anywhere else?

I am a bit put off by the explicitness of the title the source author concocted.... without making it clear who was accusing and in what venue?

Personally, I would not have felt the need to make this into a BAN thread... as if it were verifiable news.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

budski
I think it's important to get to the bottom of this once and for all.


Annett is a moron with an inflated view of his own competence – the “ITCC” consists of him (how do you get a “tribunal” when there’s only 1 person??), he routinely makes stuff up just for the headlines such as his “trial” of the Pope, the “arrest warrants”. I notice there’s no names of these Italian politicians – a knob of goat dung gets you a Euro if anything actually does get “announced” this November as claimed!


As others have said, some members set great store by the ITCCS website, and I think that it needs looking into properly.


It has been, lots of times, the ITCC is one guy - how can it be a "tribunal"?? it has no actual standing of any sort at all, it's "arrest warrants" are meaningless, nothing it has ever claimed would happened ever has AFAIK.


Of course if his allegations prove to be true, that opens up a whole new can of worms which could have massive implications.


you could say that about my allegations that you are, in fact, joseph Ratziger!


Baseless allegations should not have time wasted on them - it is up to the person stating the case to provide het evidence - until then it can be dismissed with as much evidence as has been provided - it none at all.


For my own part, I am doubtful about this (to put it mildly) but I also believe it needs proper discussion and research.


OK - what do you consider to be "proper discussion and research" in regard to an organisation that claims powers it dose not have, never follows through on anything, makes up stories, and generally is a source of bunk?
edit on 31-10-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote tags



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   
So, instead of serious attempts to research and debunk once and for all Arnett, what we see again are strawmen, and attacks that add absolutely nothing.

I have a fairly big list of informative things to post, including some information about the "witnesses", but I can't be arsed now, and I'll post them elsewhere, where people are actually interested in getting to the truth of the matter, rather than just writing personal opinion and thinly veiled ad hominem .

Deny ignorance indeed.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Since there is no fact at play here other than an attribution made by a Canadian activist who produces these accusations seasonally;reply to post by Maxmars
 


What about the woman in the video! She makes the allegations and very convincing she is too. Also the web site mentions another person has come forward with the same accusations. With the Vatican's disgusting history no wonder some people don't just immediately scoff at these allegations. The truth will out im sure!

A star and flag for the OP.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


In my opinion, you're hooking your cart to the wrong horse, and getting entirely too invested in it while at it.

Even if Kevin Annett were spot on dead accurate, there's no real evidence, plus he has absolutely ZERO legal authority, and equates to the likes of a very small, but annoyingly loud and obnoxious little dog that can't do anything regardless the noise it makes.

Beyond that, he's a known nutter, conman, and fraud that's taken advantage of too many already for his own profit, gain, and purposes.
Any "witnesses" this fellow digs up regarding any purported crime are suspect via association, and likely followers of Annett attempting to (falsely) validate his claims, if, that is, the "witnesses" aren't entirely fictional creations of Annett via online foolery.

Find some sources entirely independent of ITCCS that can make independent claim of the former Pope murdering children, eating babies, whatever, and there might be something valid to discuss.




posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Thank you for posting this, OP!

The idea that the Papacy, and the Vatican itself is linked to Satanism and other forms of occultism is nothing new at all. Much of this cavorts under the "guise" of organized religion.

And with regards to the source, and the Wikipedia page about it, well I take this a huge dose of skepticism. Wikipedia is a publicly moderated and information funded source. It could very well be someone who has a beef against the author of the site who authored this piece.

IMHO, Wikipedia is to be lightly chewed, not digested.

And on the other hand, the author and intent of the original article is slightly suspect as well. However, I simply observe the information and retain it. Reading this article that the OP posted doesn't surprise me one bit. It is yet another log on the fire. But I'm not quite ready to throw a lit match just yet.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by budski
 


In my opinion, you're hooking your cart to the wrong horse, and getting entirely too invested in it while at it.

Even if Kevin Annett were spot on dead accurate, there's no real evidence, plus he has absolutely ZERO legal authority, and equates to the likes of a very small, but annoyingly loud and obnoxious little dog that can't do anything regardless the noise it makes.

Beyond that, he's a known nutter, conman, and fraud that's taken advantage of too many already for his own profit, gain, and purposes.
Any "witnesses" this fellow digs up regarding any purported crime are suspect via association, and likely followers of Annett attempting to (falsely) validate his claims, if, that is, the "witnesses" aren't entirely fictional creations of Annett via online foolery.

Find some sources entirely independent of ITCCS that can make independent claim of the former Pope murdering children, eating babies, whatever, and there might be something valid to discuss.





You're placing far too much importance on the man himself, and not enough on the issue.
In fact so much so that it seems personal.


It's not about the man, it's about finding the truth about what he quite clearly believes, and that requires an open mind and an ability to look at evidence dispassionately, which is something I have seen little evidence of here.

Suffice to say that his "witnesses" are a lot more credible than they appear on first glance, and information about them is actually not that hard to find.
It requires a bit of work, but so does everything worthwhile.

What really piqued my interest in this was that I recognised Annetts name from when he was refused entry into the UK in 2011, at a time when allegations into sexual abuse by high profile people was starting to become known in the UK. There have been rumours for many, many years of a peadophile ring involving well known personalities, politicians and the aristocracy, and it turns out that those rumours were actually true.
If I were to guess, I'd say that Annett was refused entry because of the books that he had previously written, and this adds up because the reasons given for the refusal of entry was that "giving public lectures was not an appropriate activity for visitors to the UK".
Now I don't know about you, but that immediately rings alarm bells for me, especially as he was due to speak about child abuse by the church and state. It's also deemed appropriate for many other people, but not someone who was going to address the issue of child abuse by the church and state.

These things are tied together, and the involvement of some clergy in child abuse is well known, as is Ratzingers involvement in the enforcement of Crimen sollicitationis, which points to a certain mindset when it comes to abuse. This mindset is one of contempt for the abused, and silencing them for "the greater good".
The silencing of victims of abuse can take many forms; from Crimen sollicitationis itself, to willfully ignoring persistent rumours ( as happened at the BBC), to invoking friendship with authority figures (Saville, Smith etc) and so forth.
Abuse, sexual or otherwise, is rarely about sex, rather it is about power and control which is why we see a disproportionate rate of abusers amongst people who actively seek out positions of power.
This is important to understand not only for victims of abuse, but also democracy itself, because we should, as societies, be looking much more closely at people who actively seek power over others, no matter what form that power takes, and there are many forms of power; from the person who climbs the ladder of promotion in social care right through to the clergy and politicians.
People born to power are different, but some choose to exercise the power they have been born into in different ways.

In order to stop these hideous people, we should be making every effort to scrutinise them, from their motives to the actual execution of twisted desires, and in order to do that we need to examine carefully, and in as much detail as possible, every allegation we come across.
I've read on here posters who were totally dismissive of the UK peadophile ring, but this dismissive behaviour actually does nothing more than enable abuse.
It is far better to look into allegations properly, rather than dismiss them out of hand simply because of a belief that it can't happen, or "seems" implausible.

The ITCCS as a vehicle for bringing these allegations to light is a good idea if it raises awareness, regardless of whether it is a one man show, or whether it engages in publicity stunts such as tribunals.
It is the message that counts, not how it is presented.
edit on 1/11/2013 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   
I'll say the same thing on this thread that I did on the other .... I"m not buying the story.
Side Note - Budski .. I still dig your avatar.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   

FlyersFan
I'll say the same thing on this thread that I did on the other .... I"m not buying the story.
Side Note - Budski .. I still dig your avatar.


Hiya FF


What I will say is that I've put in quite a few hours researching this, along with a few other people, and whilst I'm not buying it either (yet, if at all) we have uncovered some pretty interesting stuff.

So far, I can safely say that there may be more to this than the sensationalised version in the ITCCS article.
The flipside of that is that as we uncover more information, what we think so far may turn out to be rubbish, which is why we've drawn no conclusions yet.

Looking past the sensationalism about "satanic rituals" is what we are doing at the moment, and this in turn may lead us down different paths.
Research is a pain in the arse that way - you think it's going one way, and then it goes in another direction.

The 3 people I'm working with (1 Dutch, 1 Belgian, 1 Canadian) are much better researchers than me, but lack the ability to take an overview.

Any conclusions we draw are subject to a consensus before they can be published anywhere, apart from on a private, invitation only forum which we belong to where the research is being stored.

I think it's going to take some time, and I was hoping that some of the excellent researchers at ATS could also look into this and possibly verify independently some of the things we have found.
edit on 1/11/2013 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


At least you are looking into actual facts here. I see a lot of "debunking" going on lately, that amounts to little more than insults and character assassination, it's pretty sad. It's too bad this person is not a member here, or it would be against T+C and people would actually have to dispute the facts instead of trying to drag a name though the mud. Just my opinion of course.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

TKDRL
reply to post by budski
 


At least you are looking into actual facts here. I see a lot of "debunking" going on lately, that amounts to little more than insults and character assassination, it's pretty sad. It's too bad this person is not a member here, or it would be against T+C and people would actually have to dispute the facts instead of trying to drag a name though the mud. Just my opinion of course.


I think you're spot on mate.
Surely if we want to "deny ignorance" factual evidence is paramount.

It's a lot of work though, and perhaps strawmen and ad hominem are the easy option, rather than digging properly into things as used to be the case here.
Actually, that's a bit disingenuous - there's always been very good posters and researchers here, it's just they sometimes get lost amongst some of the more overly vociferous shouty type posts.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

TKDRL
reply to post by budski
 


At least you are looking into actual facts here. I see a lot of "debunking" going on lately, that amounts to little more than insults and character assassination, it's pretty sad. It's too bad this person is not a member here, or it would be against T+C and people would actually have to dispute the facts instead of trying to drag a name though the mud. Just my opinion of course.


Too bad which person isn't a member - the Idiot Annet who clearly - clearly is a self publicising person (I use the term loosley) who makes outrageous claims against whoever he likes with ridiculously laughable 'evidence', or the person who is accused of carrying the alleged crime without a shred of any substantive evidence or proof to stand by it? An actor in a YT video is not worth anything.

If you mean the former, then I think you need to have a long hard think about the logic of that.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join