Alex Jones on the Sunday politics.

[Saracen]

Now Now Saracen , you also said the references I made to those two WB's had nothing to do with Bilderberg ,while also claiming the above ,you cant have it both ways so you obviously just contradicted yourself by making that claim .

I have not contradicted myself at all, anywhere in this.

What two WB's? You post two links, one about Manning and one about Snowden. Were either present at any Wilderberg meeting? If so, what evidence is there?

You, however, continuously contradict yourself by claiming that the Bilderberg meetings are "secret", yet you know it's some kind of world-wide power conspiracy. If it's secret, you don't know what they're doing, do you? If you do, please enlighten the rest of the world. Tell us who said what, when. Tell us what decisions were made.

I have NEVER said they are or aren't up to something nefarious, merely that we do not know, and that not knowing is not proof of some conspiracy. I gave you other examples of meetings that are not public, from an IBM board meeting to HEXUS people getting together to chat over ideas. We're not planning to take over the world either, but nonetheless, our meetings aren't public, even when they're tasking place in public.

I keep saying the same thing, where is there ANY evidence, absolutely any at all, of what Bilderberg are doing, and all you come up with is things like Snowden and Manning. Well, what about the Kremlin meetings when they decided to invade Afghanistan? Was that Bilderberg? What about the revolutionary council meetings in Iran before they overthrew the Shah .... Bilderberg again? How about China and their alleged (and quite likely accurate) mass cyber-warfare attacks .... Bilderberg?

Referring to what the CIA, or KGB, or Mossad, or MI5, or the DGSE, or Bundesnachrichtendienst, etc, are allegedly up to, or have been in the past, tells us NOTHING about what is going on inside Bilderberg meetings unless you have evidence that they are involved. Otherwise, it's just a list of intelligence activities, past or present.

So I'll say it again, what evidence do you have of what is ACTUALLY said, done or agreed? Not random other events where you have no evidence at all of a link, but evidence of what is actually said.

Or, as I said, where do ANY of those protesters have evidence they know what is going on?

It's pretty clear what they believe, but believing it and having evidence of it are different. Lot's of people believe in God, but ... lots of other people believe in either an entirely different God, or the same God but believe in a different set of requirements, or no God at all.

Believing something does not make you right .... or wrong .... unless you can prove it.

All you've come up with by quoting links to Manning, etc, is the equivalent, logically, of this :-


a) Tigers kill people. We know this because one did it recently to a keeper.
b) A man was killed in Luton recently.

c) Therefore, a Tiger did it.

Mannning produced evidence of US military and diplomatic activities, some of it disgraceful. And the US government aren't happy about it. But, what would have happened, I wonder, to Manning had he been Chinese and releasing details of Chinese military activities, or Iranian, or .... well, the list is endless. In many of those countries, he'd have been given a 5 minute trial, no lawyer (or a state one), and shot.

But no matter how disgraceful some of the US activities revealed by Mannning were, there's NO evidence in that of Bilderberg, either them being involved or dictating what happened.

All you're coming up with is insinuation and assumption, that because someone (US government) did "this" wrong, they're guilty of "that", too ..... like the Tiger that killed the bloke in Luton.

....

Not only did you say you didnt know while claiming Bilderberg wasnt involved , you also claimed you knew none of the protesters knew either ( Basically the whole CT movement ) or those more in between Like Snowden who actually worked in the CIA.

No, I did not say they were not involved. I said, repeatedly, we don't know, because we don't know what is said or done. The difference is, because they don't allow public access, you assume it's malignant. All I assume is that they don't allow public access, and because of that, we don't know what they do.

But, and I'll say it again as you conveniently ignored it last time, just like like burglary example, lack of evidence is not evidence of guilt. It's merely lack of evidence.

The fact that you cannot prove that a given burglar didn't commit a given burglary doesn't mean he didn't do it, or that he did, just that you cannot prove it. And that fact that you know he committed loads before doesn't mean he did this one.

Do I trust the US government? No. Do I trust the UK government? Perhaps a little more than the US one, but still, no. Do I trust ANY government? No. Do they do things I abhor? Yes. Do they do things (like PRISM) that I find grossly offensive? Yes, though I'm sure they'd have their justifications. Particularly obnoxious to me is that they hide behind "we don't discuss intelligence matters" and use that to avoid justifying what I regard as gross invasion of privacy.


Let me try to make this very simple. My position is NOT that Bilderberg is not a conspiracy. Maybe it is. I find it rather implausible, but it could be. My position is that because we don't know, we simply do not know. Period.

Is it a cause for concern? Yes. But that does NOT equate to it being a conspiracy, because without evidence, we just don't know. It could be nothing more than they say it is, and frankly, I suspect that's the most likely.

What I am saying is basically Occam's Razor, or Ptolemy's ....

We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible.

or 1000 years later, and still nearly 1000 years ago, Thomas Aquinas ....

it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many

Or one more, another renowned Sage, Sherlock Holmes ....

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

What facts do we have about this Bilderberg meeting ....

1) Meetings are not secret, but have been occurring for many years, and
2) Discussions are not made public, and
3) Lots of powerful people attend,
4) We'd like to know more, and don't.

That equates to a cause for speculation, perhaps even concern, but it does not amount to proof or even evidence of a conspiracy. It amounts to evidence, even proof, of powerful people having a series of meetings in private. And if you, or any of the protesters outside, have ANY knowledge, evidence-based knowledge I mean and not mere speculation, of what goes on in those meetings, what actually happens, please provide it.

Otherwise, we know the tiger killed the keeper, but speculation that it killed the bloke in Luton is merely evidence-less speculation. And in that case at least, flat out wrong.

[melon]

I have not contradicted myself at all, anywhere in this.

What two WB's? You post two links, one about Manning and one about Snowden. Were either present at any Wilderberg meeting? If so, what evidence is there?

They dont have to be there , to be part of it , its still group who communicate between themselves regardless of whether their, there in the same building or not.

That much is true ,or else none of them would be there , not unless there is higher authority they answer too..

Never said Snowden or Manning were part of it ( The Bilderberg group ) or any of the other stuff you've claimed, maybe Ive " implied it " from your perception , but I never said it , or claimed outright there was global conspiracy ( unlike your comment about WB's / Bilderberg and yourself not making assumptions ) because I personally dont think its that straightforward or as simple black or white as your implying I do.

As for secrets , when was the last time you heard a good one ?

Anything thats hidden is never usually for a good reason as far as the other unsuspecting party is concerned , or at least honest or fair .

[Saracen]

They dont have to be there , to be part of it , its still group who communicate between themselves regardless of whether their, there in the same building or not.

That much is true ,or else none of them would be there , not unless there is higher authority they answer too..

And not every member attends every year either .

So, the evidence that either Manning or Snowden ever communicated in any way with Bilderberg? Emails? Letters? Phone calls?

Any link whatever that actually provides evidence, not just that as they leaked some sort of US intel data, they must have some involvement.

Or put that the other way round, any actual evidence of any decision coming out of Bilderberg meetings, or the group, linked to Manning or Snowden? Anything at all beyond unsubstantiated speculation?

EDIT ... Or is your evidence of a grand global conspiracy of the not-so-good and great that attend Bilderberg that they "communicate" by sending an invite to a meeting once in a while?

I get occasional invites to events at 10 Downing Street, one of them (years ago) from .... shock horror ..... A Bilderberger, Ken Clarke (though it was Number 11 in that case, as he was Chancellor at the time). Maybe I'm a secret member of a secret cabal. Maybe I'm a secret billionaire too .... though if so, I wish someone would tell my blasted bank manager.

I also had an invite to another event in Florida. It was a developer conference.

But wait, I had an invite to an event in Japan, and another to a conference in Canada. My dinner partner was the Spanish Ambassador to Canada. Proof positive of a conspiracy at the highest levels of .... well, not much, in my case..

[melon]

So, the evidence that either Manning or Snowden ever communicated in any way with Bilderberg? Emails? Letters? Phone calls?

You misunderstand me completely I meant they might be part of it in the sense they could be part of wider discussed topic that might influence the outcome of whatever they deciding , so in a sense connected to what happens there ( even if indirectly ) because they are a threat - not as actual members or affiliates - like your suggesting.

[melon]

Answer me this too , if Obama swore an oath when he was ushered in as President , why is he still in office , if theres black n white evidence ( as Ive shown ) that shows he outright lied .

Are you telling me having a blowjob is more of threat and act of terrorism compared to one of the most powerful men in the world , who just happens be a liar ?

When was the last time you had blow job that was a national or global threat ?

Are you suggesting some ex CIA insider with no access to an army , and all the boons a president like Obama has ( including a whole government of liars to play along ) is more of a threat than someone who could drop a nuclear bomb on your head ??

And what does that say about everyone else in government who did nothing to stop him , where were the whistleblowers ( the PC ones you like who have toa get approval ) to warn us ?

Not only that but we now hear from Hague that he approves ( YES APPROVES ) what this liar has done even though it threatens the freedoom of not only Americans , but us here in the UK as well. ( because its already happening here )

Thats not every country I admit to make it truly global , but why does it need to be if its enough to risk our way of life ?

[Saracen]

You misunderstand me completely I meant they might be part of it in the sense they could be part of wider discussed topic that might influence the outcome of whatever they deciding , so in a sense connected to what happens there ( even if indirectly ) because they are a threat - not as actual members or affiliates - like your suggesting.

Understood, but you posted links in response to a request for any "evidence" of an actual conspiracy, so look at the above quote, with some words highlighted ....

You misunderstand me completely I meant they might be part of it in the sense they could be part of wider discussed topic that might influence the outcome of whatever they deciding , so in a sense connected to what happens there ( even if indirectly ) because they are a threat - not as actual members or affiliates - like your suggesting.

Coulds and mights are the problem in deciding it's some grand conspiracy, because they aren't evidence.

Could all this be linked? Yes. I could be David Cameron posting incognito, but I wouldn't bet on it if I were you.

But "might" and "could" are a very long way from "is".

It could and might also be that Bilderberg is exactly what it says on the tin - an occasional talking shop.

If you asked me whether it's a bit disturbing that powerful people regularly get together for meetings and won't allow outsiders in, then I'd say yes. But unless you can come up with something that's so far been marked by it's utter absence, there is no actual evidence of a malign intent, let alone malign actions, none whatsoever. Just suspicion. And that's why it's called a conspiracy theory, though so far, I'd say even "theory" is pushing it a bit. Conspiracy wild supposition might be closer.

[Saracen]

Answer me this too , if Obama swore an oath when he was ushered in as President , why is he still in office , if theres black n white evidence ( as Ive shown ) that shows he outright lied .

....

Erm, because he was re-elected by the people (much to my personal disappointment, though I'll admit, the electorate did not exactly have an appetising alternative on the menu), and because he hasn't been indicted and removed.

And why should I answer you on that? I'm not an apologist for either Obama, or any US President, or the US system, and I haven't made any claims about him.

Answer me this too , if Obama swore an oath when he was ushered in as President , why is he still in office , if theres black n white evidence ( as Ive shown ) that shows he outright lied .

Are you telling me having a blowjob is more of threat and act of terrorism compared to one of the most powerful men in the world , who just happens be a liar ?

When was the last time you had blow job that was a national or global threat ?

Are you suggesting some ex CIA insider with no access to an army , and all the boons a president like Obama has ( including a whole government of liars to play along ) is more of a threat than someone who could drop a nuclear bomb on your head ??

And what does that say about everyone else in government who did nothing to stop him , where were the whistleblowers ( the PC ones you like who have toa get approval ) to warn us ?

Not only that but we now hear from Hague that he approves ( YES APPROVES ) what this liar has done even though it threatens the freedoom of not only Americans , but us here in the UK as well. ( because its already happening here )

Thats not every country I admit to make it truly global , but why does it need to be if its enough to risk our way of life ?

Please show me where you think I've suggested anything remotely resembling any of that?

Do you understand an Aunt Sally? A Straw Man?

You can put up all the miscellaneous stuff you like and ask me to justify it, but you not only misrepresent what I've said, you've invented it wholesale.

Now, back to Bilderberg.

You maintain it's some global cabal. I'll ask, yet again, what evidence is there? Not hype, not supposition, not all sorts of extraneous stuff that you want me to justify to you, but you're the one maintaining Bilderberg is something, so justify it. Provide some actual evidence of things, or even just one thing, that you can show they've caused. Come on, just one.

I'm not claiming what Bilderberg is, merely that we don't know. You, however, claim you do know, and that it's a conspiracy. Fine, show the evidence ..... if you can. But don't keep raising straw men and asking me to justify all sorts of other unrelated stuff, because I'm not going to keep going off on tangents all over the place.

If Bilderberg is a conspiracy, SHOW THE EVIDENCE. Or admit you don't have any. I mean, you're really interested in Bilderberg by the look of it. So presumably, if evidence existed, you'd know of it, right? So let the rest of us in on it. Tell us what the stunning evidence of this conspiracy is ... if you can.

[melon]