Political Crossfire Forums

[Timmytour]

NAB wrote: Timmytour wrote: NAB wrote: Timmytour wrote: The Comrade wrote: Timmytour wrote:

Do I have to repeat myself?

i just posted it.


try READING it.

You have quoted nothing that leads one to think that your claim...

Quote: you said there would be false flag operation to nuke an american city in that time period.

was justified.

Instead you´ve assigned your understanding of what he has said, an understanding that appears to betray a lack of ability to really comprehend what you are reading.

psholtz wrote: More than likely, such a "drill" will be little more than a cover to give the USG an opportunity to carry out a false-flag nuclear strike against America, or some American interest, and blame it on the "Iranians"..

I suppose the "more than likely" portion could be misconstrued as "saying it would happen". Depends who's doing the reading. The content is still just pure speculation though.

That would be stretching it. Add to the fact that the words "SUCH A DRILL" are used (Note to the educationally struggling - that is NOT a way of denoting this particular drill) and you really are working overtime to turn it into a claim made about "that time period".

The problem with the world today is that too many politicians use spin. And while some do it skillfully, it encourages the really dumb to imagine they are equally capable when they don´t really know what they are reading, let alone doing.

If we're going to discuss the semantics of the post, why don't you include the word after your quote "such a drill will". Sounds "almost" a declaration of fact. :think:

You´ll have to explain how the word "will" makes it any different? How does it signify that THIS was the particular drill it was going to happen on?

Interesting that I mentioned no names on my previous post but someone appears to have associated themselves with a description of mine :roll:

[Timmytour]

The Comrade wrote: i'm dumb for trying to "spin" something that big P spelled out perfectly clear?

Was the question mark a typo? Your use of the term "perfectly clear" would not be recognised by many.....

[The Comrade]

Timmytour wrote: The Comrade wrote: i'm dumb for trying to "spin" something that big P spelled out perfectly clear?

Was the question mark a typo?

oh such quick wit.






if you apply some of that to english 101 you might be able to read what big P was getting at.

[NAB]

Timmytour wrote: NAB wrote: Timmytour wrote: NAB wrote: Timmytour wrote: The Comrade wrote: Timmytour wrote:

Do I have to repeat myself?

i just posted it.


try READING it.

You have quoted nothing that leads one to think that your claim...

Quote: you said there would be false flag operation to nuke an american city in that time period.

was justified.

Instead you´ve assigned your understanding of what he has said, an understanding that appears to betray a lack of ability to really comprehend what you are reading.

psholtz wrote: More than likely, such a "drill" will be little more than a cover to give the USG an opportunity to carry out a false-flag nuclear strike against America, or some American interest, and blame it on the "Iranians"..

I suppose the "more than likely" portion could be misconstrued as "saying it would happen". Depends who's doing the reading. The content is still just pure speculation though.

That would be stretching it. Add to the fact that the words "SUCH A DRILL" are used (Note to the educationally struggling - that is NOT a way of denoting this particular drill) and you really are working overtime to turn it into a claim made about "that time period".

The problem with the world today is that too many politicians use spin. And while some do it skillfully, it encourages the really dumb to imagine they are equally capable when they don´t really know what they are reading, let alone doing.

If we're going to discuss the semantics of the post, why don't you include the word after your quote "such a drill will". Sounds "almost" a declaration of fact. :think:

You´ll have to explain how the word "will" makes it any different? How does it signify that THIS was the particular drill it was going to happen on?

Interesting that I mentioned no names on my previous post but someone appears to have associated themselves with a description of mine :roll:

I wasn't the one making claims on the timeframe, but was merely commenting on the content of the original post as a whole, which was pure speculation.

[Timmytour]

The Comrade wrote: Timmytour wrote: The Comrade wrote: i'm dumb for trying to "spin" something that big P spelled out perfectly clear?

Was the question mark a typo?

oh such quick wit.






if you apply some of that to english 101 you might be able to read what big P was getting at.

I know you replied post my edit. What big P was getting at was that it would be like the government to use such an exercise as cover for something along the lines he was talking about. He never claimed it was going to happen on this occasion, just didnßt rule out the possibility.

You have turned that into a definitive "perfectly clear" claim., whereas the only thing that´s perfectly clear is that you are talking balderdash when you make that claim.

I´m not an ardent follower of Paul. I believe that a lot of imagination is behind is thinking (or at leat I hope there is), but I will confess to maintaining an open mind on it.

I have no problem at all in people using imagination to form opinions. What I cannot abide is people using their imagination to make up what someone else as said. I don´t care what side of the political spectrum those people are on, if I see it I will pick up on it.

[psholtz]

The Comrade wrote: psholtz wrote:
The Hawaiian exercises were for 3 days in August..

That window has long since closed.

My point was that there's a very heightened risk of nuclear shenanigans in Aug-Oct 2006, something that you're seeing right now.


but you said there would be false flag operation to nuke an american city in that time period.


looks like big P swings andddddd he misses.
I didn't say there *would* be nuke attacks on American cities..

I was *warning* that there was a greatly heightened risk of the USG carrying out such attacks under false flag to justify an attack on Iran.

Perhaps we've successfully scared off the globalists from committing such an atrocity (for now), although I wouldn't lower my guard just yet.

At any rate, it seems that the globalist powers for now have moved on and decided to pick on someone a little weaker than the Americans (the globalists do this: for they are cowards, and they are only capable of attacking the weakest and most sickly members of any group), and they now seem to be picking on the people of NK rather than the people of America.

To my way of thinking, this is (perhaps) a small victory for our side.

But I wouldn't hold my breath yet.. Oct is only 1/3 over.

The glass is still 2/3 full..

[Timmytour]

NAB wrote:

I wasn't the one making claims on the timeframe, but was merely commenting on the content of the original post as a whole, which was pure speculation.

NAB

I should therefore make clear that I think your comments have been at the more rational end of things and in no way was I accusing you of anything, just discussing what had been claimed in the thread alongside the facts of what had been said :-D

[psholtz]

NAB wrote: The Comrade wrote: Psholtz wrote: Incredibly important news.

We know that the USG (i.e., the foreign, belligerent corporation - hostile to American interests - currently occupying Washington DC under military rule) loves to stage its terror attacks under the color of running "drills" and "exercises". The terror attacks of OKC, 9/11 and the British 7/11 were all carried out this way, where the local authorities were practicing "drills" of precisely the same variety as the genuine terror attacks that occurred simultaneosly.

The USG has furthermore stated that it desires to launch a NUCLEAR first-strke against Iran in the coming months. For this reason, we must watch all "nuclear drills" that the USG conducts until the closest of scrutiny. More than likely, such a "drill" will be little more than a cover to give the USG an opportunity to carry out a false-flag nuclear strike against America, or some American interest, and blame it on the "Iranians"..

second paragraph.

First post in the thread no less.
Except that I can't find where I said what it is alleged that I said.. :lol:

"likely" != "certainty" .. or at least not the last time I took a logic class..

[NAB]

Timmytour wrote: NAB wrote:

I wasn't the one making claims on the timeframe, but was merely commenting on the content of the original post as a whole, which was pure speculation.

NAB

I should therefore make clear that I think your comments have been at the more rational end of things and in no way was I accusing you of anything, just discussing what had been claimed in the thread alongside the facts of what had been said :-D

No problems from my end. :wink:

[NAB]

psholtz wrote: NAB wrote: The Comrade wrote: Psholtz wrote: Incredibly important news.

We know that the USG (i.e., the foreign, belligerent corporation - hostile to American interests - currently occupying Washington DC under military rule) loves to stage its terror attacks under the color of running "drills" and "exercises". The terror attacks of OKC, 9/11 and the British 7/11 were all carried out this way, where the local authorities were practicing "drills" of precisely the same variety as the genuine terror attacks that occurred simultaneosly.

The USG has furthermore stated that it desires to launch a NUCLEAR first-strke against Iran in the coming months. For this reason, we must watch all "nuclear drills" that the USG conducts until the closest of scrutiny. More than likely, such a "drill" will be little more than a cover to give the USG an opportunity to carry out a false-flag nuclear strike against America, or some American interest, and blame it on the "Iranians"..

second paragraph.

First post in the thread no less.
Except that I can't find where I said what it is alleged that I said.. :lol:


My only allegation is of pure speculation on your part. I suppose you call that a "warning".

[Timmytour]

NAB wrote:


My only allegation is of pure speculation on your part. I suppose you call that a "warning".

Either way I think most of us would agree that it does not merit the term "prediction".....

...I did say most of us :-D

[The Comrade]

Timmytour wrote: NAB wrote:


My only allegation is of pure speculation on your part. I suppose you call that a "warning".

Either way I think most of us would agree that it does not merit the term "prediction".....

...I did say most of us :-D


Face it. big P got caught with egg on his chin.

[Timmytour]

The Comrade wrote: Timmytour wrote: NAB wrote:


My only allegation is of pure speculation on your part. I suppose you call that a "warning".

Either way I think most of us would agree that it does not merit the term "prediction".....

...I did say most of us :-D


Face it. big P got caught with egg on his chin.

I use the same kind of logic to determine that I am ruggedly handsome with an enormous appendage who is irresistible to women...

...no matter what the mirror tells me :-D

[NAB]

Timmytour wrote: NAB wrote:


My only allegation is of pure speculation on your part. I suppose you call that a "warning".

Either way I think most of us would agree that it does not merit the term "prediction".....

...I did say most of us :-D

While I'll agree with you, I think the thing that's not mentioned is the "spirit" in which it was posted. There is a subtle implication of a prediction in the original post without the actual wording to completely lift any doubt on what it was.

Now, here's some pure speculation on my part (Disclaimer :lol: ), IF there HAD been an actual Nuke test in the time frame as implied in the topic, then psholtz would have been beating his chest over his powers of prescience. :lol:

[The Comrade]

Timmytour wrote:
I use the same kind of logic to determine that I am ruggedly handsome with an enormous appendage who is irresistible to women...

...no matter what the mirror tells me :-D

i agree with you.


you are very rugged and your penis is HUGE

[krims]

What the frick is wrong with you Comrade...

[Timmytour]

The Comrade wrote: Timmytour wrote:
I use the same kind of logic to determine that I am ruggedly handsome with an enormous appendage who is irresistible to women...

...no matter what the mirror tells me :-D

i agree with you.


you are very rugged and your penis is HUGE


...and also to some gullible men it appears :gmo:

[The Comrade]

krims wrote: What the frick is wrong with you Comrade...

it's called a sense of humor.


try getting one.

[krims]

I still don't get it...

[Timmytour]

krims wrote: I still don't get it...

I'm hoping I don't get it :shock:


:lol: