Topic: Ongoing Civil War in U.S.A. corporation - page 74. (Read 410309 times)
America is anti-Israel because Israel was intentionally setup as a terrorist state by the British regime.
My main point is to prove my claim beyond any reasonable doubt;
For example, (news footage/video that shows) the use of a dummy would prove my claim that actors are involved in staged events (hoaxes). Is this evidence not sufficient to prove my claim? Why not?
I fail to see where your confusion is coming from.
For example, (news footage/video that shows) the use of a dummy would prove my claim that actors are involved in staged events (hoaxes). Is this evidence not sufficient to prove my claim? Why not?
I fail to see where your confusion is coming from.
Imagine you're back in school and you're on the debating team. What is the topic for which you are arguing? Is it just "actors are in staged events"?
My main point is to prove my claim beyond any reasonable doubt;
For example, (news footage/video that shows) the use of a dummy would prove my claim that actors are involved in staged events (hoaxes). Is this evidence not sufficient to prove my claim? Why not?
I fail to see where your confusion is coming from.
For example, (news footage/video that shows) the use of a dummy would prove my claim that actors are involved in staged events (hoaxes). Is this evidence not sufficient to prove my claim? Why not?
I fail to see where your confusion is coming from.
Can you post the step by step summary again?
Yes, I can;
Step 1:
Here is the proof again; most of it video:
https://www.facebook.com/ExposingTheBigThree
I think that if something is verifiable and you deny it, you should say why!
https://www.facebook.com/ExposingTheBigThree
I think that if something is verifiable and you deny it, you should say why!
Step 2:
I did post a video showing the dummies at Columbine (and there is also footage on FB showing a dummy at the LAX shooting); you never responded... So as far as education and discussion go, I have done more than my fair share, OK?
So your summary is:
1) I should go and watch a video; and
2) I should go and find a video, and then watch it.
But why should I go and watch these videos?
Perhaps you should start with your main point - what is the most important thing you're trying to prove with these videos?
I have made my case and proven my claim; you refuse to verify for yourself.
Sorry, what's your case again? You keep changing the topics you want to discuss.
Review:
Let's recap:
1) I was waiting for you to quote one of my claims so that we discuss it, because I am not going to defend something I did not say.
2) You found such claim:
Actors are involved in staged events (hoaxes)
3) Then, I showed you the proof in the very same post that made that claim. Remember?
1) I was waiting for you to quote one of my claims so that we discuss it, because I am not going to defend something I did not say.
2) You found such claim:
Actors are involved in staged events (hoaxes)
3) Then, I showed you the proof in the very same post that made that claim. Remember?
No, you just linked to someone's Facebook page.
I want *you* to prove your statement to me, not just link somewhere else. That's just plain lazy. Explain it to me here and now, step by step. Please.
Well OK, now I have explained it to you step-by-step, even summarizing the video that I linked to as proof. I guess the ball is in your corti?
Can you post the step by step summary again?
Yes, I can;
Step 1:
Here is the proof again; most of it video:
https://www.facebook.com/ExposingTheBigThree
I think that if something is verifiable and you deny it, you should say why!
https://www.facebook.com/ExposingTheBigThree
I think that if something is verifiable and you deny it, you should say why!
Step 2:
I did post a video showing the dummies at Columbine (and there is also footage on FB showing a dummy at the LAX shooting); you never responded... So as far as education and discussion go, I have done more than my fair share, OK?
Okay, if you are strapped for time then go check out this post below and get back to me with your revised "likelihood assessment":
Okay, if you are strapped for time then go check out this post below and get back to me with your revised "likelihood assessment":
Terrorism can involve simulated violence used for political ends;
the violence does not even have to be real;
these drills are being used for political ends;
most will fall for the hoax, so the effect is the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp1yIxCX7tw
Above is a clip of a proven hoax used for political ends.
Remember, if the event is real, there is no need to fake anything.
the violence does not even have to be real;
these drills are being used for political ends;
most will fall for the hoax, so the effect is the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp1yIxCX7tw
Above is a clip of a proven hoax used for political ends.
Remember, if the event is real, there is no need to fake anything.
These steps are independent of each other, and you can take them out of order.
American Patriots Militia Groups launched a nationwide campaign to burn down trees surrounding the multi-million dollar homes own by the 13 inbred terrorist European Bloodlines to suffocate them out of America.
http://www.local12.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/hundreds-flee-two-california-fires-17611.shtml
http://www.local12.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/hundreds-flee-two-california-fires-17611.shtml
I have made my case and proven my claim; you refuse to verify for yourself.
Sorry, what's your case again? You keep changing the topics you want to discuss.
Review:
Let's recap:
1) I was waiting for you to quote one of my claims so that we discuss it, because I am not going to defend something I did not say.
2) You found such claim:
Actors are involved in staged events (hoaxes)
3) Then, I showed you the proof in the very same post that made that claim. Remember?
1) I was waiting for you to quote one of my claims so that we discuss it, because I am not going to defend something I did not say.
2) You found such claim:
Actors are involved in staged events (hoaxes)
3) Then, I showed you the proof in the very same post that made that claim. Remember?
No, you just linked to someone's Facebook page.
I want *you* to prove your statement to me, not just link somewhere else. That's just plain lazy. Explain it to me here and now, step by step. Please.
Well OK, now I have explained it to you step-by-step, even summarizing the video that I linked to as proof. I guess the ball is in your corti?
Can you post the step by step summary again?
I have made my case and proven my claim; you refuse to verify for yourself.
Sorry, what's your case again? You keep changing the topics you want to discuss.
Review:
Let's recap:
1) I was waiting for you to quote one of my claims so that we discuss it, because I am not going to defend something I did not say.
2) You found such claim:
Actors are involved in staged events (hoaxes)
3) Then, I showed you the proof in the very same post that made that claim. Remember?
1) I was waiting for you to quote one of my claims so that we discuss it, because I am not going to defend something I did not say.
2) You found such claim:
Actors are involved in staged events (hoaxes)
3) Then, I showed you the proof in the very same post that made that claim. Remember?
No, you just linked to someone's Facebook page.
I want *you* to prove your statement to me, not just link somewhere else. That's just plain lazy. Explain it to me here and now, step by step. Please.
Well OK, now I have explained it to you step-by-step, even summarizing the video that I linked to as proof. I guess the ball is in your corti?
American police scammed Canadian visitors out of $2.5 billion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVGp_H2uCCk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVGp_H2uCCk
I have made my case and proven my claim; you refuse to verify for yourself.
Sorry, what's your case again? You keep changing the topics you want to discuss.
You said it's not worth the time engaging me because you prefer to read. \
No.Your preference is not relevant; all that is relevant is the weight and power of the evidence.
Or in other words: Videos are great learning material, whether you like it or not.
Kindly review the footage which is hard evidence for hoax actors:
Or in other words: Videos are great learning material, whether you like it or not.
Kindly review the footage which is hard evidence for hoax actors:
No. I'm happy to debate a topic, but I really don't like being told what to do.
Do you have a serious objection to watching the news footage that I linked to?
I have made my case and proven my claim; you refuse to verify for yourself.
That news footage shows a dummy being used in the Columbine shootings.
Do you have a response to the proof that I posted?
You said it's not worth the time engaging me because you prefer to read. \
No.Your preference is not relevant; all that is relevant is the weight and power of the evidence.
Or in other words: Videos are great learning material, whether you like it or not.
Kindly review the footage which is hard evidence for hoax actors:
Or in other words: Videos are great learning material, whether you like it or not.
Kindly review the footage which is hard evidence for hoax actors:
No. I'm happy to debate a topic, but I really don't like being told what to do.
Texas wants to secede from the terrorist country USA.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/if-scotland-can-secede--so-can-texas-185536102.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/if-scotland-can-secede--so-can-texas-185536102.html
Hey organofcorti, this is the extraordinary evidence you had asked for; do you have any more questions about my claims in this thread? 
No, I have no more questions about your claims in this thread. I have satisfied myself that it's not worth my time engaging you since all you do is post links to videos and photos.
I see, video is not sufficient evidence. That makes a lot of sense, actually! /sarc
As I said before, I don't consider videos very good learning material. I prefer to read, not have people read to me.
So what you are saying is that it is hard to believe what is in front of your eyes?
It is not worth the time to learn about hoax actors
-because-
you would prefer to read rather than watch a video???
No, that's not what I'm saying. Please read properly this time.
You said it's not worth the time engaging me because you prefer to read.
Your preference is not relevant; all that is relevant is the weight and power of the evidence.
Or in other words: Videos are great learning material, whether you like it or not.
Kindly review the footage which is hard evidence for hoax actors:
Terrorism can involve simulated violence used for political ends;
the violence does not even have to be real;
these drills are being used for political ends;
most will fall for the hoax, so the effect is the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp1yIxCX7tw
Above is a clip of a proven hoax used for political ends.
Remember, if the event is real, there is no need to fake anything.
the violence does not even have to be real;
these drills are being used for political ends;
most will fall for the hoax, so the effect is the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp1yIxCX7tw
Above is a clip of a proven hoax used for political ends.
Remember, if the event is real, there is no need to fake anything.
Hey organofcorti, this is the extraordinary evidence you had asked for; do you have any more questions about my claims in this thread?
No, I have no more questions about your claims in this thread. I have satisfied myself that it's not worth my time engaging you since all you do is post links to videos and photos.
I see, video is not sufficient evidence. That makes a lot of sense, actually! /sarc
As I said before, I don't consider videos very good learning material. I prefer to read, not have people read to me.
So what you are saying is that it is hard to believe what is in front of your eyes?
It is not worth the time to learn about hoax actors
-because-
you would prefer to read rather than watch a video???
No, that's not what I'm saying. Please read properly this time.
Hey organofcorti, this is the extraordinary evidence you had asked for; do you have any more questions about my claims in this thread?
No, I have no more questions about your claims in this thread. I have satisfied myself that it's not worth my time engaging you since all you do is post links to videos and photos.
I see, video is not sufficient evidence. That makes a lot of sense, actually! /sarc
As I said before, I don't consider videos very good learning material. I prefer to read, not have people read to me.
So what you are saying is that it is hard to believe what is in front of your eyes?
It is not worth the time to learn about hoax actors
-because-
you would prefer to read rather than watch a video???
Hey organofcorti, this is the extraordinary evidence you had asked for; do you have any more questions about my claims in this thread?
No, I have no more questions about your claims in this thread. I have satisfied myself that it's not worth my time engaging you since all you do is post links to videos and photos.
I see, video is not sufficient evidence. That makes a lot of sense, actually! /sarc
As I said before, I don't consider videos very good learning material. I prefer to read, not have people read to me.
Hey organofcorti, this is the extraordinary evidence you had asked for; do you have any more questions about my claims in this thread?
No, I have no more questions about your claims in this thread. I have satisfied myself that it's not worth my time engaging you since all you do is post links to videos and photos.
I see, video is not sufficient evidence. That makes a lot of sense, actually! /sarc
Hey organofcorti, this is the extraordinary evidence you had asked for; do you have any more questions about my claims in this thread?
No, I have no more questions about your claims in this thread. I have satisfied myself that it's not worth my time engaging you since all you do is post links to videos and photos.
Hey organofcorti, this is the extraordinary evidence you had asked for; do you have any more questions about my claims in this thread?
Okay, if you are strapped for time then go check out this post below and get back to me with your revised "likelihood assessment":
Terrorism can involve simulated violence used for political ends;
the violence does not even have to be real;
these drills are being used for political ends;
most will fall for the hoax, so the effect is the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp1yIxCX7tw
Above is a clip of a proven hoax used for political ends.
Remember, if the event is real, there is no need to fake anything.
the violence does not even have to be real;
these drills are being used for political ends;
most will fall for the hoax, so the effect is the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp1yIxCX7tw
Above is a clip of a proven hoax used for political ends.
Remember, if the event is real, there is no need to fake anything.
Jump to: