Germany "Convicts" Bishop Williamson
#41
It doesn't matter to $e if Bishop Williamson belives 911 was an inside job. He's wrong. The mohams did it with allot of help and loot and planning but it wasn't amarican. I belive the ones who benifited most certainly on top o the list were the paks mohams. But u don't get hunted down and wrrested or gaged for saying 911 was an inside job u do for chalanging the sacred six. That's why its important for catholics to chalange this blatent attempt at thought control and writing lies into history I forgot to $ention the bars of soap to
False
Reply
#42
(04-16-2010, 07:32 PM)stvincentferrer Wrote: Bonifacius, do you reject 9/11 being an "inside job" after studying the issue from both sides?

Yes.  I do.  Because I watched engineers explain how burning jet fuel causes steel to sag which leads to pancaking and collapse.  Because the accusations against Mr. Silverstein re: him saying "pull it" are bogus.  Because there is no credible evidence that Bush or anyone in the government was in on it.  I am willing to believe that the Israelis had some foreknowledge of the event.  But I accept that Mohammedans plotted this out.  I have studied the claims to the contrary and find them to be bogus. 
Reply
#43
(04-16-2010, 07:47 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: It doesn't matter to $e if Bishop Williamson belives 911 was an inside job. He's wrong. The mohams did it with allot of help and loot and planning but it wasn't amarican. I belive the ones who benifited most certainly on top o the list were the paks mohams. But u don't get hunted down and wrrested or gaged for saying 911 was an inside job u do for chalanging the sacred six. That's why its important for catholics to chalange this blatent attempt at thought control and writing lies into history I forgot to $ention the bars of soap to
False

And he's not being prosecuted on account of saying that the soap story is false, is he?
Reply
#44
But that's just it. They pick and choose which lies they will use. Frankly lad how can anypone trust the germans or jews who keep changing their story 60 years on? C"mon. Your a smart lad. It just doesn't add up. They know that. That's why they keep fiddling the numbers. Okaym but its gross and unjust to persecute people who call them on their bullshit. So they say sacred six. Turns out false. They admit as much yet still say sacred six. They lamp shades hammer assembly lines flesh soap all turn out false they quielty drop those yet expect us to belive aschwitze with its gas chambers with wondows killeds all those poople. I dunno maybe but maybe isn't fact.
Reply
#45
Rudolf Hoess, the Nazi commandant of Auschwitz, reverted to Catholicism while in prison in Poland.  He testified in court that Auschwitz, which he commanded, exterminated ca. 1,000,000 people, with gas chambers.  Adolf Eichmann, the SS officer in charge of extermination policies never denied what he was accused of having done or the numbers.  I take their word for it. 
Reply
#46
OK, let's move away from an actual numbers debate which isn't allowed here.  We can stick with the topic of Bp.W and such without doing that debate.

IMO, this is about repercussions for unpopular speech, regardless if +W's numbers are accurate or not.  I mean, people say clearly and objectively wrong things all the time, they don't get fined and go to jail for it.

So, let's veer back to the topic, please.
Reply
#47
(04-16-2010, 02:30 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(04-16-2010, 02:19 PM)PeterII Wrote: I wonder what Bishop Williamson thinks about using the Americanist endorsement of freedom of speech to defend his views?  It's terribly ironic that in order to oppose his censorship, one either has to believe in the conspiracy stuff, or use principles that he himself is against.

But I'm having so much fun thinking up slogans.  How about this one:

Germany - the thought crimes change, the thought police stay the same.

Or this:

Once a totalitarian state, always a totalitarian state.

good slogans!

and it's true that you should not even mention the holocaust in germany.  germans warn americans about it when they go there.  better not to say anything than to risk being misunderstood.

by contrast, you can talk about the mafia in italy and italians do.  it may not be entirely safe for americans to do so, especially in taxis, which are run by the mafia, at least in some cities.  the taxi service is excellent, by the way.  so the german govt. may be more dangerous than the mafia.  :o





Reply
#48
"Whatever you do, don't mention the war".
Reply
#49
(04-16-2010, 07:07 PM)Bonifacius Wrote:  Well, I know this much.  If his research into German atrocities during WWII is as shoddy and stupid as his research into September 11, then he is wrong.  Granted, there is an awful lot of historical distortion, such as surrounded the Crusades and the Inquisition.  But even there, the atrocities that accompanied the Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem and of Constantinople cannot be denied. 

You really have an insistent knack for trying to dogmatize things.  I wonder what the reason is for the inability to look at things objectively?  

From HISTORIAN Harry Crocker's "Triumph: the Power and Glory of the Catholic Church"

on the sacking of Byzantium by Crusaders in 1204

The sacking of Byzantium is often regarded as a scandal, but viewed objectively, it is hard to see why this should be so. One rarely hears of the "scandal" of the English Civil War, or the American War for Independence or the American War Between the Sates, though in each of these cases the combatants shared not only Christian belief of varying sorts, but the same language, the same culture, and before the fighting the same political allegiance.

In the Crusaders' attack on Byzantium, nearly none of this held true.

The Byzantines were notorious schismatics in religion.
They no longer spoke the universal Latin tongue of the West.
They were culturally and politically alien.
They demanded the benefits but would not pay the martial costs of the Crusades and had in fact been a long-standing irritant to the Crusaders.
Nor can it honestly - in terms of secular history and plain reality - be considered a "scandal" for there to be warfare between Christians, given that from the beginning of the faith Christians had been at either sword's point or sword's hilt.
Especially in the East, warfare between competing sects was common.
The scandal is not that the Crusades sacked Byzantium but that the pope did not make every effort to reinforce the Crusaders and make the Crusaders' kingdom of Constantinople the necessarily heavily armored firewall against the Turks and the Mongol.

Quote: Hopefully, Bishop Williamson has just followed his contrarian streak past the point of legitimacy.  But a lot of people will look at this and see it as invidious to the memory of the victims of Naziism. 

What a bunch of non-Catholic, liberal, psychobabble mumbo jumbo.  "invidious to the memory of the victims of Nazism."  It doesn't actually speak to anything in reality.  It doesn't even qualify as rhetoric, it's emotive fog, a stringing together of heart-string tugging buzzwords.  It's like the stuff that is spewed in a number of movies and tv shows, "You know, he's not really dead as long as we remember him."  It's subjectivism,  reality is what the person determines it to be.  

Reply
#50
(04-16-2010, 08:39 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: OK, let's move away from an actual numbers debate which isn't allowed here.  We can stick with the topic of Bp.W and such without doing that debate.

IMO, this is about repercussions for unpopular speech, regardless if +W's numbers are accurate or not.  I mean, people say clearly and objectively wrong things all the time, they don't get fined and go to jail for it.

So, let's veer back to the topic, please.

Of course, people say clearly and objectively wrong things all the time.  Of course, they shouldn't be fined for it.  I can't believe anyone defends political censorship in any form.  All of history is an account of events from someone's point of view.  But perceptions and interpretations of events vary.  Therefore, all of history is rightly subject to revisionism.  If it's not subect to revisionism, how do we know what is clearly and objectively wrong?  It is only  through the process of revisionism that we have any hope at arriving at what is clearly and objectively true.

The Resurrection is clearly and objectively true.  It offends me that people deny it.  But I wouldn't take away anyone's right to express clearly wrong, objectively false and deeply offensive views.  I have no interest in tossing the Resurrection deniers in the hoosegow.  In fact, I pray for the Resurrection deniers.  I hope they come to accept the Truth, the Way and the Life.  Barring that, I hope they come to enjoy their Christless eternity.

Now if the Resurrection deniers would only extend the same courtesy to me.  I smell something awfully fishy about the "official" Holocaust and 9/11 accounts emanating from portions of that camp.     
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)