Page 3 of 21
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:29 pm
by 82_28
It is of my opinion that no one should "ignore" anyone here. It points to "personal problems" and not the problem at hand or that which is being discussed.
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:31 pm
by JackRiddler
Any stupidity and lie can be perpetuated on this board as long as it's said nicely.
82, I just prefer talking with you. Is there an obligation to talk with every idiot here? Are they obligated to talk with me? Let there be mutual ignore for everyone who can't deal with what I tell them. I'm not here to be nice.
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:32 pm
by Sounder
So you are all sailing in frozen waters, and when you see an iceberg, you don't see it as the expression of how much is under the surface, but as a giant white plastic bag deployed by the Soros-Jews or whatever your imaginary construct impervious to detection is.
I could never put anyone on ignore, and surly not you Jack. You are a smart fellow whose views I respect and see a need for, even if I disagree at times and even in some ways fundamentally oppose. How is it that some folk have such thin skin, and what's it like to live with a red red rash all your life? Do folk not 'care' what their 'opponents' are thinking? (Wimps)
Yours is a good analogy except for what with global warming and plastics in the Ocean problems, it probably really is a plastic bag rather than an iceberg.
Also, Open Society, is not imaginary or impervious to detection. They are rather open in their objectives of destabilizing nations states.
They create dissatisfaction then they monetize that dissatisfaction. But it is not Soros-Jews as you repeatedly insist as if it's some necessary mnemonic marker, no it is more correctly labeled as being an expression of western exceptionalism.
(I tend to think that Monsanto and Big Pharma are more influential deep-state actors here with NED types assigned to do the PR.)
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:46 pm
by seemslikeadream
coming back around from the stupid personal attacks we all so accustom to from our dear friend Jack
I'm not here to be nice.
so says Captain Obvious
can't be top dog if you don't keep biting at someones tail
pulling my pigtails out from the inkwell
‘Goebbels had less-biased articles’: Public slams MSM for Putin focus after Panama papers leak
Published time: 4 Apr, 2016 11:50
Edited time: 4 Apr, 2016 17:27
The world’s media has been pointing at one person following a massive documents leak from a Panama law firm. But that person, President Vladimir Putin, wasn’t even mentioned in the data leak. Sections of the public are not happy at the media coverage.
Pictures of President Putin could be found on the front pages of highly-respected news publications around the globe. The Guardian and the Mail Online were both at it, despite the fact that in the 11.5 million documents that were published; Putin’s name was not mentioned once.
READ MORE: Putinophobia hits boiling point: Kremlin says ‘insinuations’ in Panama leak don’t need response
Newspapers around the globe had plenty of world leaders to choose from: President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko managed to find his way on to the list, as did King Salman of Saudi Arabia. The father of British Prime Minister David Cameron was also among those mentioned. Despite these high-profile figures, the majority of the international media decided to accuse Putin of corruption. And even if the article itself was not about Putin, the cover picture suggested otherwise.
Putinophobia hits boiling point: Kremlin says ‘insinuations’ in Panama leak don’t need response
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:57 pm
by 82_28
Jack, I would never call anyone an idiot here. Whether they are trolls or not, they said something. Not that it should be "respected" but it is the overall milieu. I am of the "school of thought" that you never call someone a name. While I may swear like a sailor occasionally, it's just that and that only. Never pointed. Always help and elucidate at all times. Best to keep things the most civil as possible, IMO.
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:06 pm
by JackRiddler
I certainly don't. I respect everyone who shows smarter thinking than my own. You could try the same.
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:09 pm
by Sounder
Let there be mutual ignore for everyone who can't deal with what I tell them.
Again you think a bit too highly of yourself. Say whatever you want, you are only exposing yourself.
Sometimes it seems useful, sometimes it strikes me as conformity inducing bullshit.
But we can't 'no platform' conformity now, can we?
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:13 pm
by JackRiddler
"The Panama Papers are the exact kind of weaponized psyops posing as an 'activist leak' I wanted to see from hybrid warfare."
This is a form of fundamentalist thinking. I've seen it applied to the "28 pages," anything about 9/11 that wasn't demolitions, Sibel Edmonds (who eventually threw the same at Greenwald), Assange, Kyriakou, etc. etc., now this. Panama Papers in fact is repeating the State Department cables pattern. (The gatekeepers also dug out Putin stuff first, no matter how minor, and then the rapid-response from the grand conspiracists is immediately a-ha! All psyops! No iceberg! Avert your eyes and listen to Wrong Way Wizard!)
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:21 pm
by Wombaticus Rex
And yet you're still here.
JackRiddler » Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:13 pm wrote:"The Panama Papers are the exact kind of weaponized psyops posing as an 'activist leak' I wanted to see from hybrid warfare."
This is a form of fundamentalist thinking. I've seen it applied to the "28 pages," anything about 9/11 that wasn't demolitions, Sibel Edmonds (who eventually threw the same at Greenwald), Assange, Kyriakou, etc. etc., now this. Panama Papers in fact is repeating the State Department cables pattern. (The gatekeepers also dug out Putin stuff first, no matter how minor, and then the rapid-response from the grand conspiracists is immediately a-ha! All psyops! No iceberg! Avert your eyes and listen to Wrong Way Wizard!)
Did the 28 Pages get leaked with a trailer video? Was Sibel Edmonds working with foundation grant money?
I will definitely concede that basic pattern recognition is a form of fundamentalist thinking, though.
What happened to Mossack Fonseca is exactly what happened to Lucky Luciano's network: they thought they were providing services to intelligence agencies in exchange for protection -- when in fact, they were training their own replacements.
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:26 pm
by 82_28
JackRiddler » Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:13 pm wrote:"The Panama Papers are the exact kind of weaponized psyops posing as an 'activist leak' I wanted to see from hybrid warfare."
This is a form of fundamentalist thinking. I've seen it applied to the "28 pages," anything about 9/11 that wasn't demolitions, Sibel Edmonds (who eventually threw the same at Greenwald), Assange, Kyriakou, etc. etc., now this. Panama Papers in fact is repeating the State Department cables pattern. (The gatekeepers also dug out Putin stuff first, no matter how minor, and then the rapid-response from the grand conspiracists is immediately a-ha! All psyops! No iceberg! Avert your eyes and listen to Wrong Way Wizard!)
Don't you ever defame the surname of 28 again! I worked hard for it!
I hear where you are coming from, but it's just that. It is what it is. All can be studied in time. Not as though reams and reams are not being documented/databased as we speak. How are we ever going to catch up?!?!
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:26 pm
by Sounder
Oh there is an iceberg all right, but seeing the tip is not good enough.
One good thing here though is that more people will get a sense of the magnitude of the corrupt billions that float around in, and are enabled by this system.
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:27 pm
by Wombaticus Rex
Speaking of
Twitter Cuts
Editor of Süddeutsche Zeitung responded to the lack of U.S. individuals in the documents, saying "Just wait for what is coming next"
Looking forward to Greenwald's 347-part hot take! Hopefully John Oliver can explain this to me on Facebook.
(I'd also say something about my Wrestlemania commentary being taken as new forum rules, or even political speech, but that would be hoping for too much, perhaps.)
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:28 pm
by JackRiddler
The following. Teeniest fraction of what's doubtless in there. Anyone concerned with the gatekeeping should be demanding the whole thing as a searcheable database (which is what eventually happened with the State Department cables).
Fund run by David Cameron’s father avoided paying tax in Britain
Panama Papers reveal Ian Cameron hired Bahamas residents, including a part-time bishop, to keep offshore company exempt
• Global reaction to Panama Papers leak - live
• The $2bn offshore trail that leads to Vladimir Putin
• The hidden millions from Brink’s-Mat gold robbery
• Explained: what are the Panama Papers?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/ap ... ax-bahamas
They do manage to insert a photo of Putin here, of course. That's the false flag on top of the iceberg, and that's all that the one-world-conspiracy types need to see to deny that the iceberg is there and mostly submerged. They don't want the iceberg.
Gatekept or no, every such slippage in the secrecy regimes is good.
Oh, even this:
One good thing here though is that more people will get a sense of the magnitude of the corrupt billions that float around in, and are enabled by this system.
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:29 pm
by JackRiddler
Where's your Wrestlemania commentary?
Re: Panama Papers
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:33 pm
by Sounder
Wombat wrote...
What happened to Mossack Fonseca is exactly what happened to Lucky Luciano's network: they thought they were providing services to intelligence agencies in exchange for protection -- when in fact, they were training their own replacements.
Oh,oh,oh,oh
SNAP
That's what is going on. Damn these players are harsh.
I don't dislike sounder, whom I do not know, for any reason other than his activity on the board.
Note to Jack; this sentence is a queer bit of rhetoric, where you essentially say 'I do dislike sounder, because of his activity on the board'.
Your version amounts to word salad under a faded mask of erudition. Go back to school.