• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So where are the conspiracy theorists now on ISIS attack on Paris [W:71]

BmanMcfly said:
I already said, if you're not playing games, you would seek it out, I told you where it was, and it was linked numerous times by multiple people... You ignored every other source but that one... Which tells me that you read it, saw that it was indisputable and chose to ignore so that now, weeks later, you can pretend it does not exist.

But, you've already proven that you are not here to debate honestly either way, pretty much as expected.
Click to expand...

You keep CLAIMING documents but you do no PRODUCING of the documents.....

No link. No post number.

Must be GREAT documents if you avoid linking or giving post numbers.
 
Fledermaus said:
You keep CLAIMING documents but you do no PRODUCING of the documents.....

No link. No post number.

Must be GREAT documents if you avoid linking or giving post numbers.
Click to expand...

I already did... You keep CLAIMING you read it.

No response.

Must have been damning for you to ignore it so strongly when it was relevant... And now you are just continuing on these dishonest games.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Lmao... 1 accurate point blended in with your trademark revisionist understanding.
Click to expand...

No. You were dead wrong, my memory of the thread clear and the evidence of you not getting your own argument on a fundamental level still available for all to see.
 
Mark F said:
The thread about the U.S. funding ISIS in which every piece of evidence you provided got us further and further away from the claim until the last piece which did not even mention ISIS at all?

Yeah, I totally remember that waste-of-time thread.
Click to expand...

Funny I remember that thread this as well. Posts about the a journalist saying maybe we should start arming Isis, another about Hillary saying that some of the Afghanis that we helped beat the Russians later became AQ and one other one about how the US pulling out of Iraq allowed Isis to gain the strength they did. It's so sad really. And the fact that he refuses to link to any proof after repeatedly being asked is rather telling. If he had any proof what so ever it would be to easy to link to us and prove himself right. But no he would rather just play troother games and pretend he proved something once upon a time. It's simply amazing how the CT loon mind works or rather more accurately doesn't work.
 
braindrain said:
Funny I remember that thread this as well. Posts about the a journalist saying maybe we should start arming Isis, another about Hillary saying that some of the Afghanis that we helped beat the Russians later became AQ and one other one about how the US pulling out of Iraq allowed Isis to gain the strength they did. It's so sad really. And the fact that he refuses to link to any proof after repeatedly being asked is rather telling. If he had any proof what so ever it would be to easy to link to us and prove himself right. But no he would rather just play troother games and pretend he proved something once upon a time. It's simply amazing how the CT loon mind works or rather more accurately doesn't work.
Click to expand...

:yt

And if you ask Bman to point to one specific passage or sentence in any of his "evidence" which best makes his case he always replies with the generic "all of it". He refuses (actually is incapable) of parsing out specific points even in his own case. That particular thread far from the only example. There is a thread about the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which Bman famously does the same thing.

You got the causation half right. It isn't lunacy but an inability to think.
 
Ya, and then when the documents from the government got put up, multiple times by multiple people, suddenly the debunkers disappeared like vampires at dawn.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Ya, and then when the documents from the government got put up, multiple times by multiple people, suddenly the debunkers disappeared like vampires at dawn.
Click to expand...

Ummmmm,... :no:
 
BmanMcfly said:
Ya, and then when the documents from the government got put up, multiple times by multiple people, suddenly the debunkers disappeared like vampires at dawn.
Click to expand...

That's funny because I just went back and checked. The last 7 or 8 posts in that thread were not by you or any other troother. Caught in another lie I see Bman. Do you not honestly realize that it is all to easy to go back and prove to the world that you are lying. Here take a look for yourself.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/228148-isis-w-89-a-18.html
 
BmanMcfly said:
Umm yes.
Click to expand...
Nope your lying and I just proved it. Poor Bman. I don't think he can comprehend the fact that people can go back and look at old posts.
 
braindrain said:
That's funny because I just went back and checked. The last 7 or 8 posts in that thread were not by you or any other troother. Caught in another lie I see Bman. Do you not honestly realize that it is all to easy to go back and prove to the world that you are lying. Here take a look for yourself.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/228148-isis-w-89-a-18.html
Click to expand...

Ya, doesn't prove me a liar, and oh, look at that... The relevant posts were ignored... Actually, one TRIED to address, but stopped LITERALLY stopped the paragraph before the key paragraph.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Ya, doesn't prove me a liar, and oh, look at that... The relevant posts were ignored... Actually, one TRIED to address, but stopped LITERALLY stopped the paragraph before the key paragraph.
Click to expand...
You stating they disappeared when that is obviously not true is a lie. Strange a CTer struggles with understanding facts.

And no zero relevant posts were ignored. In fact I even asked you to quote the section you thought proved that the US supplied arms to ISIS and you refused.
 
braindrain said:
You stating they disappeared when that is obviously not true is a lie. Strange a CTer struggles with understanding facts.

And no zero relevant posts were ignored. In fact I even asked you to quote the section you thought proved that the US supplied arms to ISIS and you refused.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry, I figured you were capable of reading... It's only like 8 pages, and a good chunk of it is blacked out.

Sorry I asked so much of you,
 
BmanMcfly said:
Oh, I'm sorry, I figured you were capable of reading... It's only like 8 pages, and a good chunk of it is blacked out.

Sorry I asked so much of you,
Click to expand...

Since it is only 8 pages it should be simply to both provide a link and either C&P the portion and/or state which page or paragraph that supports your claim.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Oh, I'm sorry, I figured you were capable of reading... It's only like 8 pages, and a good chunk of it is blacked out.

Sorry I asked so much of you,
Click to expand...
I did read it and saw nothing what so ever backed up your claim. That's why I asked you to quote the section that supported it which you refused to do. And let's be honest here. If there was any proof in that document that backed up your claim you wouldn't have hesitated to quote it. We both know you didn't and it's perfectly obvious why. You have got nothing.
 
Moderator's Warning:
STOP talking about each other and focus on the topic.
 
Henry David said:
Well said sir, we agree that everybody tries to spin things, through their own prism.

And so it is up to the individual, to each and every one of us, to be able to filter through what is true, and what is fantasy, if we may call that prism effect a sort of fantasy. One must learn to separate the wheat from the chaff, in the reception and processing of information.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. If you have a collection of distorted information and you KNOW it is... you likely can[t filter it out to get the truth. That sort of thing is most like to return and equally distorted view... not the unvarnished truth.
 
SanderO said:
Good luck with that. If you have a collection of distorted information and you KNOW it is... you likely can[t filter it out to get the truth. That sort of thing is most like to return and equally distorted view... not the unvarnished truth.
Click to expand...

I think certain individuals CAN filter out the truth, to some degree or other, from the propaganda and untruthful statements.

You're right that the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the unvarnished truth, is difficult or impossible to find, but simple truth can be discovered by analytical processes, knowledge of human behavior and a bit of common sense.
 
SanderO said:
Good luck with that. If you have a collection of distorted information and you KNOW it is... you likely can[t filter it out to get the truth. That sort of thing is most like to return and equally distorted view... not the unvarnished truth.
Click to expand...

That's the problem of relying on "official" sources for anything beyond base facts, anything extra is likely to be spin...
 
BmanMcfly said:
That's the problem of relying on "official" sources for anything beyond base facts, anything extra is likely to be spin...
Click to expand...

I don't rely on official sources for the "verbatim" truth. All press is PR and spun to serve agendas. So you can pretty much see where the spin is going. But it's hard to extract facts because... what you read or see in the news is SPIN. ALWAYS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom