Cyprus Eastern Forum Archive


This is a text archive version of our main content. To view the full site with more information, features, formatting and images please click here.

>> Eastern Cyprus Forum Archive Index

View The Full Original Topic: The Conspiracy Theory Flowchart "THEY" Don't Want


>> Have YOUR say - Post A Reply To This Topic

Posted By: Kwacka

I know I'm risking my neck here, but found 'The Conspiracy Theory Flowchart "THEY" Don't Want You To See' .
Explains how the jigsaw fits together.
(There are a couple of rude words in there, but not as many as in the 'Multi-Faith Blasphemy Generator').



Posted By: fettler

Excellent, thank you. It's not very often one sees "definitely" spelled correctly on here. Cheers Alex

Posted By: ProVox

One of the most misused descriptions of anything that does not comply with the official explanation. This gives an explanation as to how the concept of ‘ conspiracy theories ’ is used …………. Cognitive Infiltration for the Masses.

    Quote:
  • The “Conspiracy Theory” Label: Powerful Tool of Media Disinformation and Political Discourse.
    “Conspiracy theory” is not merely a flippant or off-handed water cooler term, but rather a powerful tool of political discourse. “Deployed as a pejorative putdown,” political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith observes
    ,
    “ ….. the label is a verbal defense mechanism used by political elites to suppress mass suspicions that inevitably arise when shocking political crimes benefit top leaders or play into their agendas, especially when those same officials are in control of agencies responsible for preventing events in question or for investigating them after they have occurred ."
    Along these lines, “conspiracy theory” and its common variants, “assassination buff,” “crackpot,” “wacko,” and so on, were essentially interpolated into news reports and commentary in the late 1960s by CIA media assets as the agency maneuvered to bolster the Warren Commission’s “lone assassin” explanation of John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-conspiracy-theory-label-powerful-tool-of-media-disinformation-and-political-discourse/5375968?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-conspiracy-theory-label-powerful-tool-of-media-disinformation-and-political-discourse

Posted By: spanner

  • ProVox wrote:
    One of the most misused descriptions of anything that does not comply with the official explanation. This gives an explanation as to how the concept of ‘ conspiracy theories ’ is used …………. Cognitive Infiltration for the Masses.

      Quote:
    • The “Conspiracy Theory” Label: Powerful Tool of Media Disinformation and Political Discourse.
      “Conspiracy theory” is not merely a flippant or off-handed water cooler term, but rather a powerful tool of political discourse. “Deployed as a pejorative putdown,” political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith observes
      ,
      “ ….. the label is a verbal defense mechanism used by political elites to suppress mass suspicions that inevitably arise when shocking political crimes benefit top leaders or play into their agendas, especially when those same officials are in control of agencies responsible for preventing events in question or for investigating them after they have occurred ."
      Along these lines, “conspiracy theory” and its common variants, “assassination buff,” “crackpot,” “wacko,” and so on, were essentially interpolated into news reports and commentary in the late 1960s by CIA media assets as the agency maneuvered to bolster the Warren Commission’s “lone assassin” explanation of John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

    h ttp://www.globalresearch.ca/the-conspiracy-theory-label-powerful-tool-of-media-disinformation-and-political-discourse/5375968?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-conspiracy-theory-label-powerful-tool-of-media-disinformation-and-political-discourse

So conspiracy theories are part of another conspiracy?

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

Good post Kwacka but you won't of course shake inclined people's enduring faith in this stuff. Next time perhaps you should try "There is no God. Discuss to a conclusion".
  • spanner wrote:
    So conspiracy theories are part of another conspiracy?

That's posted as a joke (and an excellent one) but actually hits the nail on the head.
Ohh - BTW: Globalresearch (again - times X):
."......................The website describes itself as an "independent research and media organization." Globalresearch.ca takes pride in being a reliable "alternative news" source serving as a major repository of a broad range of "news articles, in-depth reports and analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media" (such as the New World Order ). Its politico-economic stance is strongly anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-militarist, "internationalist but anti-globalization." Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist.
While many of Globalresearch.ca's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping and bull***t throughout its pages ,........................."

To sum up - daily manna for the faithful.
Now, where did I put that drain cleaner?

Posted By: ProVox

Tibbs:
What you are saying is bulls**t because you comment without even reading the link ...... and don't deny it. You rubbish the site but many of the authors that post on Global Research also have articles published in the very newspapers you take your information from! So the Daily Mail, The Telegraph. The Guardian etc. must also be included in your assessment if they are prepared to publish articles written by people who could be described '........ along the lines of, “ conspiracy theory ” and its common variants, “ assassination buff ,” “ crackpot ,” “ wacko ,” and so on.'
You really don't do yourself any favours by just swallowing what you read in the Main Stream Media. You need an ability to sort out the wheat from the chaff, that takes time and a need to know mentality neither of which you appear to have!
BTW: The 'flow chart' format is basically the representation of logic and I have produced hundreds of these charts in my time for process plant (Chemical/oil/gas/fractionation etc.) shut down and safety systems. The one you posted Kwacka is a basically a joke. Far, far to simplistic. One of the 'conspiracy theories ' listed would take pages of logic to come anywhere near a logical conclusion.

Posted By: DAC

This is obviously a diversion tactic that THEY have put out whilst they dispose of Julian Assange and think of a way to keep Bin Laden, Saddam and that other nutter, Gadaffi, all entertained and out of sight.. "Never look up, that way they can't see your face" 8)

Posted By: thefifthday

    Quote:
  • Could they be conducting secret trials to see which soft cream cheese goes best with salmon and bagels?
    Very unlikely>Mauntauk Project
    Quite Possibly>Philadelphia Experiment

:lol: :lol: :lol:





Posted By: Kwacka

The big problem that I have with sites like global research & blacklisted news is that, whilst there may be some accurate reporting there's also a lot of crap (often in the same article).
They have an unfortunate lack of ability to look dispassionately at evidence, thrusting aside any that either doesnt' fit in with their fixed views or attaching their own interpretations to that evidence.
E.g., the rich are getting richer, because they are in a position to award themselves huge pay rises and bonuses, or because there is a small group of individuals taking over the world?
Almost inevitably the simplest explanation for an event is the most accurate.
Likewise chemtrails - the world's governments are working together to subdue us plebs by distributing chemicals in aircraft exhausts, or water vapour is produced by jet engines as part of the exhaust which freezes upon exhaust and can take different forms due to amount of moisture present in the air, air currents, etc.
Take the role of the US in destabilizing various countries. Because it is trying to destabilize Venezuala it MUST be also trying to destabilize the Ukraine. It appears that nobody at global research can be bothered to question as to why the truth of one automatically verifies the truth of another hypothesis. The evidence for this appears to be single opinion source by one Paul Craig Roberts, another his opinions was that Osama Bin laden was not responsible for the Twin Towers attacks as he was terminally ill from kidney failure in hospital the day before, therefore his death in Pakistan 10 years later must a hoax.
If one in one thousand conspiracy theories is true all that demonstrates is that one theory is true - not that the other 999 MUST also be true.

Posted By: ProVox

Kwacka: Your post #9
I have always thought of you as both intelligent and informed but are you really arrogant enough to believe that you have either the academic background or the knowledge of the subjects covered by Global Research ( or any of the independent news sites ) to declare articles by people who have been covering them for decades, as c**p? People whose opinions I would rate way above anything you can possibly contribute! Do you not think that the observations you have made regarding independent news outlets and your examples of inaccuracies by journalists, could equally apply to any news media outlet, MSM or independent, in any country on the Planet? As your sources seem to be almost exclusively MSM I feel you are a bit short of detailed background information to express such an opinion.
The other evening I watched Clegg and Farage on BBC. Clegg was dumfounded that Farage believed that Assad was not the likely culprit in the Aug 20th chemical weapons use in Syria. Clegg obviously felt that as he had not read anything to the contrary in the Daily Mail and the fact that Farage admired Putin for his swift and decisive action in Ukraine, then Farage was obviously a nutcase conspiracy theorist?
So where did Clegg get his ‘ reliable ’ information? From this outfit run as a part time business from a semi in Coventry by a guy that runs a dress shop ............ the operator is extremely anti-Assad ( for good re ason) but virtually ALL the western media use him as their source regarding events in Syria.

    Quote:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights
    SOHR has been accused of selective reporting, covering only violent acts of the government forces against the opposition for the first two years of its existence. Although critics concede that its reports have become less partisan than during its time under Abdulrahman, critics interviewed by AsiaNews charge that as of 2013 SOHR "continues to defend Islamic extremists to avoid losing support among rebel forces".

Do you remember Kerry saying he had irrefutable proof It was Assad? Did we ever see that irrefutable proof? What they did release was second hand intelligence from Mossad which did not check out so the US’s irrefutable proof held as much credence as Saddam’s WMD’s. The only place you will find follow ups on these things is in the independent news sites. MSM will only print retractions and corrections if they have a lawyer at their door holding a writ for damages.
Badly informed politicians like Clegg/Cameron/Hague/Obama/Kerry etc. will send your grandchildren to war on a pretext/lie ............ they have done it before and will do it again given the opportunity!
Maybe Farage uses Global Research and other free press information sources to get a better spread of evidence on events in Syria and Ukraine?
This is the source Tibbs uses as a ‘ reliable ’ comment to condemn Global Research....... repeated for the umpteenth time. Check them out ........... if ever there was a bunch of fruitcakes this lot really takes some beating!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca
Of course he could have referenced this one instead, but then they don’t rubbish the site!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018397347
A comment from Media Research re. Wikipedia attacks on Global Research and Chossuduvsky, many of which have originated from RationalWiki:
    Quote:
  • The work of Professor Michel Chossudovsky is immensely important and the website www.globalresearch.ca that he established is one of the most important and significant free speech websites in the world. It is very well done and useful for news agencies to consult and represents the work of vast numbers of journalists with academic credentials. The way that the work of an important living academic of significance and note is being consistently targeted by one or two individuals wanting to discredit the important work, is something that ought to be brought further to the attention of Wikipedia mediation on the basis that is violates the principles of Wikipedia. It is not acceptable to have these on-going attacks on a living academic. Prof Michel Chossudovsky is clearly as significant and important as Noam Chomsky. That is why the attempts to discredit the work cannot be left without comment. I have contacted Wikipedia about the issue and will do so further. This web entry is one that requires attention. [contributor: MEDIA RESEARCH]

Instead of attacking independent news resources, maybe people should take the trouble to actually read some of them as it would then enable them to comment from an informed position or at least with a greater understanding of a much bigger picture of the subjects than you ever get in the MSM? Used sensibly, the independent journalist will provide vastly more information then Staff Reporters and journalists employed by the MSM. You just have to work at it to sort out the reliability of what you read.

Posted By: Kwacka

  • ProVox wrote:

    So where did Clegg get his ‘ reliable ’ information? From this outfit run as a part time business from a semi in Coventry by a guy that runs a dress shop ............ the operator is extremely anti-Assad ( for good re ason) but virtually ALL the western media use him as their source regarding events in Syria.

      Quote:
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights
      SOHR has been accused of selective reporting, covering only violent acts of the government forces against the opposition for the first two years of its existence. Although critics concede that its reports have become less partisan than during its time under Abdulrahman, critics interviewed by AsiaNews charge that as of 2013 SOHR "continues to defend Islamic extremists to avoid losing support among rebel forces".

I have a couple of problems with this statement.
Firstly, why do you believe that this is the main source of information coming out of Syria that is available to Clegg and Kerry? And secondly, why do you believe that anything coming from the source you link is accurate and information from other sources are necessarily untrue?
IIRC, the UN examination of the gas attacks identified without doubt the distance and direction the shells came from but did not disclose this as it was believed that it would disrupt all possibility of any positive diplomatic outcome.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

Apologies for mixing my posts a bit here. However, I see that ex-Ukrainian President Yanukovych (you know, the one living in Russia on a $X billion, misappropriated pension) is now claiming that the 100+ unarmed Ukrainian protesters killed in the struggle to get rid of him were not in fact shot by snipers of a special police unit on his orders, after having his arm twisted by the Russians, but were killed by his opponents (let's call them "the rebels") from buildings occupied by the protesters.
So, they weren't murdered by the State, fighting for its very life, but by their own side, in order to make Yanukovych look bad in the eyes of the World.
I sense a pattern - originating from the same source - but where, oh where have I heard that one before? Well, it worked OK that time.

Posted By: ProVox

Kwacka:
    Quote:
  • I have a couple of problems with this statement.

I have problems with yours comments too!
    Quote:
  • Firstly, why do you believe that this is the main source of information coming out of Syria that is available to Clegg and Kerry? And secondly, why do you believe that anything coming from the source you link is inaccurate and information from other sources are necessarily untrue?

Because every time I have read an MSM article on Syria, it is this guys organisation that is named as the source, no matter what the publication is. To say he could be somewhat biased would be a very reasonable comment. He never actually discloses his sources .... he says for security reasons. ( or maybe because he has no idea who they are or their allegiances ) I have yet to see any evidence from Kerry or Hague that is even proof let alone irrefutable proof.
Surely it is up to the ‘ prosecution ’ to prove their case, not the ' accused ' to disprove it? Nothing has ever been proved and yet the assumption is always that the original story and the back-up information supplied by SOHR, was true. In truth is it likely to be any more accurate than you would find published by accredited authors, journalists and academics on an independent news web site?
    Quote:
  • IIRC, the UN examination of the gas attacks identified without doubt the distance and direction the shells came from but did not disclose this as it was believed that it would disrupt all possibility of any positive diplomatic outcome.

No! The UN Inspectors were not weapons experts, their brief specifically excluded apportioning blame they were only to determine that chemical weapons had been used, which was already apparent anyway. So they knew nothing about the weapons only the contents and that we all know was irrefutably Sarin.
To list all the evidence that came to light in the weeks and months after the event would be a mammoth task but:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045-possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.html
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/15/214656/new-analysis-of-rocket-used-in.html
All these claim to show that it was unlikely that Assad’s forces were involved. Not one of them claims their finding as irrefutable proof but at least they give some supporting evidence which is a lot more than Kelly or Hague ever have.
Tibbs: Post #12 ......
The ‘ investigation ’ you refer to was by Svoboda and Right Sector members who, if you remember came to power through a coup d-etat, so they are an unelected body who have carried out an investigation into something there are reasons to believe they could be implicated in. Hardly an impartial inquiry is it?
The following links should be reasonably reliable? I would post some from independent sources but you have difficulties with those as being reliable ............
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ukraine-bugged-call-catherine-ashton-urmas-paet (The recording from about 8.20 is the valid part of their conversation)
or
More detailed information and a transcript of the conversation and details of later conversations with ‘Dr.Olga’.
http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/calltoinvestigatekievnipersdropedateuparliament.html

Posted By: Kwacka

  • ProVox wrote:

    • kwacka wrote:
      IIRC, the UN examination of the gas attacks identified without doubt the distance and direction the shells came from but did not disclose this as it was believed that it would disrupt all possibility of any positive diplomatic outcome.

    No! The UN Inspectors were not weapons experts, their brief specifically excluded apportioning blame they were only to determine that chemical weapons had been used, which was already apparent anyway. So they knew nothing about the weapons only the contents and that we all know was irrefutably Sarin.

If only your accuracy equalled your verbosity, PV.
I know in the past that I have warned about viewing wikipedia as a verifiable source, but feel quite safe on suggest you take a look at the entry for Ake Sellstrom.
No, don't bother it describes him as "expert in arms, especially in chemical weapons" and states "In March 2013 he was appointed head of the UN team to investigate the possible use of chemical warfare weapons during the Syrian civil war".
And no, don't bother with the following discussions on vectors, I've read them.
I'm still trying to work out why the innocent Assad didn't welcome UN arms inspectors with open arms to show what the dastardly rebels had done, instead of refusing them entry until much of the evidence had dissipated.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    The ‘ investigation ’ you refer to was by Svoboda and Right Sector members who, if you remember came to power through a coup d-etat, so they are an unelected body who have carried out an investigation into something there are reasons to believe they could be implicated in. Hardly an impartial inquiry is it?

Sorry - which investigation did I refer to?
Perhaps you could throw some (impartial) light on who might just - possibly - have ordered the shooting of the protesters?
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/yanukovych-denies-ordering-fire-on-protesters-341848.html
"Viktor Yanukovych has denied giving orders to fire at pro-European protesters in Kyiv and claimed that "the shooting came from buildings that were controlled by the opposition at that time."

Here are a few articles on the subject. They are taken from the MSM so are obviously completely biased, unlike globalresearch/informationclearinghouse/blacklisted news - et al. Noted organs of "The impartial truth" Apologies for including The Daily Mail - which we all try to avoid, for obvious reasons.
http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-snipers-sbu-photos-video/25318776.html
http://www.mohavedailynews.com/news/national/yanukovych-reportedly-ordered-snipers-to-shoot-protesters/article_1021c9b8-bbc9-11e3-9f20-0019bb2963f4.html
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/04/04/world/ukraine-yanukovych-ordered-snipers-to-shoot/#.Uz8Cu_mSxuI
http://www.saukvalley.com/2014/04/03/officials-yanukovych-ordered-snipers-to-shoot/ag3v2bk/
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/04/ukraine_ousted_president_yanuk.html
http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/yanukovych-ordered-snipers-to-shoot-ukraine_922159.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579479032583488114?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303532704579479032583488114.html
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/usworld/news-briefs-yanukovych-ordered-snipers-officials-allege-ny-warden-reassigned/article_6ce13c5a-796a-53ff-ae66-284fc45d1368.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2596015/Former-Ukrainian-president-Yanukovych-used-hired-killers-kidnappers-thugs-terrorise-opposition-anti-government-protests.html
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/politics/53500.html
http://www.euronews.com/2014/04/03/ukraine-protesters-killed-under-yanukovych-s-direct-leadership/
If I have missed a few dozen out I apologise. It's late and I need to get myself some drain cleaner.



Posted By: ProVox

Kwacka:
    Quote:
  • If only your accuracy equalled your verbosity, PV.

Yes I explain my points or do you consider only you have that right ......... when it suits your arrogance to expound your personal opinion?
Maybe you should contact the Editor of the Financial Times and point out his errors as you obviously have information that is unavailable to them? Is the FT is also misrepresenting the fact that the UN inspectors brief did NOT include apportioning blame?
Paragraph 3
    Quote:
  • The mandate of the UN team did not include apportioning blame and in the absence of clear evidence of delivery systems in the four probable incidents, the report did not even give indications of the likely perpetrators.

It was the US/UK/France and others that made the accusation! ( Irrefutable evidence? I think not .)
Para 4
    Quote:
  • But based on its findings from the Ghouta attack, the US, UK, France and others have said it was clear that President Bashar al-Assad’s forces were responsible for the attack.

It was the Syrian Government that requested the inspectors!
Para 7:
    Quote:
  • The team, which was established in March after the Syrian government requested an investigation, said it could not be more conclusive about the other sites where chemical weapons were allegedly used, because of insufficient independently verifiable evidence of data such as delivery systems and environmental and biomedical samples.

Source Financial Times:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef2ad306-63cd-11e3-98e2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2xwfmp1TQ
Tibbs:
    Quote:
  • Apologies for mixing my posts a bit here. However, I see that ex-Ukrainian President Yanukovych (you know, the one living in Russia on a $X billion, misappropriated pension) is now claiming that the 100+ unarmed Ukrainian protesters killed in the struggle to get rid of him were not in fact shot by snipers of a special police unit on his orders, after having his arm twisted by the Russians, but were killed by his opponents (let's call them "the rebels") from buildings occupied by the protesters.

This is your usual inverted logic/sarcastic reference to the investigations into the sniper killings in Kiev ..... or is it that you have only just found out about the incidents?

    Quote:
  • Perhaps you could throw some (impartial) light on who might just - possibly - have ordered the shooting of the protesters?


I cannot believe that someone with the credentials of Professor John Ryan would put his name to this article unless it was fundamentally true and Chossudovski would not publish it on Global Research if he thought it was a load of c**p. So that is as impartial as I can get because it is not covered in the MSM at all.
This is a very clear example of where the MSM does not give the full story, in fact much of this irrefutable information will only be found on various independent news sites. I would suggest that what is happening in Ukraine is almost a mirror image of events in Syria where the ’good guys’ in that conflict are various factions of extreme Islamic terrorist groups (Al Qaida, Al- Nusra) that were again funded and supported by the US to overthrow an elected leader.

Read it .................. and then tell me where it lacks credibility! You will find almost nothing covered in this article reported in the Daily Mail, Telegraph or Guardian or other UK publications. ...... I don’t know about the EU or US.

    Quote:
  • The Media’s Disinformation Campaign on Ukraine: “There are No neo-Nazis in the Interim Government”
    By Professor John Ryan
    Global Research, April 03, 2014
      Quote:
    • It is because of these incontestable facts (Regarding Svoboda and Right Sector) that the European Parliament took the unusual step to pass a resolution of concern about the alarming nature of Svoboda. Recently, an American mainstream publication, Foreign Policy, stated:
      “The uncomfortable truth is that a sizeable portion of Kiev’s current government –and the protesters who brought it to power – are, indeed, fascists. . . . Party leader OlehTyahnybok is on record complaining that his country is controlled by a ‘Muscovite-Jewish mafia,’ while his deputy derided the Ukrainian-born film star Mila Kunis as a ‘dirty Jewess.’ In Svoboda’s eyes, gays are perverts and black people unfit to represent the nation at Eurovision, lest viewers come away thinking Ukraine is somewhere besides Uganda.” Yuri Syrotyuk, speaking on behalf of Svoboda, made a further racist comment: “Millions of people who will be watching will see that Ukraine is represented by a person who does not belong to our race.”
      Not only does the mainstream media fail to deal with the underlying fascist beliefs of Svoboda, most extend the cover-up by glibly pointing out that right-wing parties exist in several European countries, so this is no big deal. In saying this, they studiously avoid disclosing that in all these countries the right-wing parties are totally excluded from any role in government, but this is not the case now in Ukraine. For the first time since the Nazi era, a basically fascist movement has entered a European government and holds key positions of power. Interestingly, so far there hasn’t been a peep about this from the European Parliament who very recently (as cited above) urged the Ukrainian Rada“not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with this party.”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-medias-disinformation-campaign-on-ukraine-there-are-no-neo-nazis-in-the-interim-government/5376530


Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    This is your usual inverted logic/sarcastic reference to the investigations into the sniper killings in Kiev ..... or is it that you have only just found out about the incidents?

Ahh - you didn't "get it".
Assad - sorry Yanukovych - is now saying that he wasn't responsible for the murder of the Sunni Muslims in Damascus - sorry protesters in Kiev. It was apparently "the rebels" murdering people on there own side, firing from buildings occupied by anti-government protesters.
Funny that on both occasions the Russians are in the background and the same cover story appears. Perhaps it's me though - just being ridiculously sensible.

Posted By: DAC

In the murky world that doesn't exist, you would be right to assume that no source is totally trustworthy, possibly not even 75%. Why? Because every source has a different reason, motive or starting point for being a source in the first place; funnily enough, not all sources actually wanted to be one to begin with. 8) So, believe what you want and argue about what you want because at the end of the day it all boils down to one simple thing, that being the chance of probability.

Posted By: Kwacka

  • ProVox wrote:
    No! The UN Inspectors were not weapons experts, their brief specifically excluded apportioning blame they were only to determine that chemical weapons had been used , which was already apparent anyway.

I suggested a motive for their brief not apportioning blame. Your exaggerated response says nothing about your error in saying that they were not weapons experts.
Yes it was the Syrians (according to the FT) that requested the inspections, but who held them up for a couple of months, during which time evidence was dissipated?
Yes, I agree, you are absolutely 100% right. It was the rebels that gassed the rebels to make Assad look bad. There's no need to try and convince me any further. :-$ (Fingers crossed behind back).

Posted By: ProVox

Tibbs:
You really do make yourself look a pr*tt sometimes!
In your eagerness to rubbish Global Research as a reliable information source you posted 12 links to YOUR recommended sites, but you didn’t even look at them did you? If you had you would have noted that of the twelve links, seven were identical, three were similar but modified and only two appeared to be original articles, although clearly based on the same information.
This was the lead paragraph in the seven identical ones:

    Quote:
  • Kiev: Ukraine's interim authorities accused the country's ousted president of ordering snipers to open fire on protesters and getting help from Russian security agents to battle his own people but their report on Thursday provided no evidence directly linking him (Yanukovych) to the bloodbath in Kiev.

I believe the original source for this article was from Associated Press who WikiPedia describes as:
    Quote:
  • The Associated Press (AP) is an American multinational nonprofit news agency headquartered in New York City. The, AP is owned by its contributing newspapers, radio and television stations in the United States, all of which contribute stories to the AP and use material written by its staff journalists. (They wouldn’t survive as real independent journalists)
    As of 2005, the news collected by the AP is published and republished by more than 1,700 newspapers, in addition to more than 5,000 television and radio broadcasters. The photograph library of the AP consists of over 10 million images. The Associated Press operates 243 news bureaus and it serves at least 120 countries, with an international staff located worldwide. Associated Press also operates The Associated Press Radio Network, which provides newscasts twice hourly for broadcast and satellite radio and television stations. The AP Radio also offers news and public affairs features, feeds of news sound bites and long form coverage of major events. Many newspapers and broadcasters outside the United States are AP subscribers, paying a fee to use AP material without being contributing members of the cooperative. That places the unionized AP staff in a position to strongly influence public opinion. (It’s called propaganda.)

    The AP employs the "inverted pyramid formula" for writing that enables the news outlets to edit a story to fit its available publication area without losing the story's essential meaning and news information. (It’s called Editorial bias .)

That’s why Global Research and other independent articles are often lengthy. Unlike AP they print the full article .......... it is not edited out. I challenge anybody with at least half a brain to read the Ukraine report on any of the sources you posted and then read the version I posted from Global Research covering the same subject and then tell me which is the more credible source?
It is no wonder the MSM all sing with one voice and the sheep swallow it all hook-line-and-sinker!
You will also note also from your authoritative source the phrase ‘……. but their report on Thursday provided no evidence directly linking him (Yanukovych) to the bloodbath in Kiev.’ Even the kangaroo enquiry panel admit they have no evidence .......... but of course you don’t need evidence, if the Fascist/Nazi coup leaders say he did it, then he obviously did! I’m glad you never became a Magistrate or a Judge!
Your opinion of two similar events in two different countries both started and supported by the US/UK/EU and opposed in both cases by Russia who twice intervened to prevent a war, is formed from the sources you link to and of course the dozens more you could also have provided. And that is how you build your ‘informed’ opinion is it?

This is not journalism it is ‘ cut-n-paste’ a kid could do it and this is what you claim as reliable and authoritative sources of news?
At least with Global Research and other independent news outlets they do post original, well researched articles, with multiple links to their sources by reputable, named, well qualified and informed academics, authors and journalists, with a vast amount of knowledge between them. Not some unnamed syndicated Staff hack in AP New York offices.
Thank you for all your valued advise but I will stick to my primary in depth news sources such as Global Research, Black Listed News, Information Clearing house, Stat Risks etc. for accurate information and informed opinion and rely on your sources like the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Guardian etc. simply for entertainment value only.

Kwacka:
    Quote:
  • .......(my) error in saying that they were not weapons experts.

They were CHEMICAL weapons experts …. the reference to chemical should give you a clue as to why they were chosen? If they want expertise on the performance of ground-to-ground weapons I would suggest a better source would be a ballistics expert. No matter what they were expert in, their brief was to determine that it was a chemical attack and to determine the type of chemical used. So they were ideal for that task. Have you ever thought why their scope was so limited and under whose orders the investigation was not permitted to determine who fired the rockets and from where? You don’t have to lift many stones to find out. Try it.
You are clutching at straws!
    Quote:
  • ....... but who held them up for a couple of months, during which time evidence was dissipated?

It was a war zone and Assad had a duty of care to ensure their safety. The early attempts turned back because they got shot at.
Even the investigating team were amazed at the number of people who had obviously moved, removed and replaced objects on the site, and said so in their report. As this happened in a rebel held area I would suggest that the ‘ evidence ’ had been tampered with by the rebels, not Assad’s people. But then you obviously don’t think that far beyond what you read in Tibbs’ impeachable sources of irrefutable information!
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit so,'..... keep your fingers crossed behind your back ' because I ain’t goin’ nowhere and will continue to be a source of annoyance to you for a long time to come .......... unless you want to ban me that is.
I'll bet you wished you hadn't started this thread now? :wink: (I would add a few emoticons but so far no one has told me how to stop the CEF software only allowing me to place them at the end of a post)

Posted By: ProVox

Kwacka quotes Asimov:
    Quote:
  • Or Isaac Asimov " People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do ".

I know just how he felt! :roll: :lol: :lol:

thefifthday:
He had to keep quiet ..... there was no gay/lesbian lobby in his day! I may be a verbose pain in the a**s but at least in that context I am normal. :wink:

Posted By: Kwacka

  • ProVox wrote:

    Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit so,'..... keep your fingers crossed behind your back ' because I ain’t goin’ nowhere and will continue to be a source of annoyance to you for a long time to come .......... unless you want to ban me that is.

I'm sorry. I use my rapier wit to hide my inner pain.
However, to quote Jane Austen, "You have delighted us long enough.” Or Isaac Asimov "People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do".
I can't ban you, only Admin. can ban you.



Posted By: thefifthday



Posted By: thefifthday

I'm sorely disappointed with this thread. I thought we'd be discussing the real conspiracy theories. Where is the Roswell UFO? Why haven't we been shown Kennedy's brain? There has yet to be a single mention of the Moon Landing Hoax or Hitler's escape to the centre of the Earth. Instead, we're stuck on, "Your sources are no good." "Well, my sources clearly show that your sources are inferior." "No, your sources all say mine are great and you just never read them!" "I still don't like you." "Fine. I could never befriend one who cites such appalling sources anyway." "At least I don't drink drain cleaner!" Actually, now that I think about it, this is somewhat entertaining. Carry on.

Posted By: ProVox

  • thefifthday wrote:
    I'm sorely disappointed with this thread. I thought we'd be discussing the real conspiracy theories.
    Where is the Roswell UFO?
    Why haven't we been shown Kennedy's brain?
    There has yet to be a single mention of the Moon Landing Hoax or Hitler's escape to the centre of the Earth.
    Instead, we're stuck on, "Your sources are no good."
    "Well, my sources clearly show that your sources are inferior."
    "No, your sources all say mine are great and you just never read them!"
    "I still don't like you."
    "Fine. I could never befriend one who cites such appalling sources anyway."
    "At least I don't drink drain cleaner!"
    Actually, now that I think about it, this is somewhat entertaining. Carry on.

Name your conspiracy! You've tried Banking and the Financial World and there is lots of mileage in that .... we didn't even get to the NWO and the Ultra Rich .......... the 0.01%.
How about 9/11? .......... that noise you hear is Kwacka groaning! :roll:

Posted By: DAC

And the greatest one of all, Diana and Dodi..!


[ ADVERTS: UK Stores Delivering To Cyprus | Find eBay Misspellings - Grab A Bargain! ]



Viewing Cyprus Eastern Forum Archive - Lo-Fi Version | Visit Cyprus Eastern Forum - Full Version | Questions?

TOP TIP: BUYING PROPERTY IN CYPRUS? PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU SEEK INDEPENDANT LEGAL ADVICE FIRST.
Cyprus forum covering Kapparis, Protaras, Pernera, Agia Napa, Agia Thekla, Paralimni, Larnaca, Oroklini, Pervolia & surrounding areas
Please note that the views expressed on this forum are those of the author and may not reflect the views of the management.