I've seen this posted in lots of places, I don't know it it's verified but David Icke has it on his web pages.

Quite the prophet himself.

amaralsright wrote:
I think that even with all the money, they couldnt control the globe the way they wanted, until they had the levels of technology they have now. Sure they can own the technology by having the money...and the money helped them create the technology...but before the technology, all the money in the world didnt help them at times.

Look at afghanistan for example, right now is the closest anyone has ever come to taking control, despite previous attempts by various powers. And the people fighting back, are, to use Imran Khans words, "primitive people" . And thats coming from the father of goldsmiths, who was openly admitting that the powers that be wouldnt ever have an easy time there. So these "primitive people" have little money but gave them a run for their money, until technology came along.

I guess you could say, control the technology and you control everything. Ironically it is all the scientists, physicists, engineers, down to the workers and so on who gave them this technology, people who arent of elite stock...us basically.

amaralsright wrote:
Well i dare say, and others can and will disagree, that if these people do indeed take control of everything the way they want, there could indeed be less wars, or no wars.

But that would just be because most economic activity generated on earth would be directed back and mostly beneficial to a core group of organisations and hence elite persons.

The meme of a one world union goes back far, perhaps back to Alexander the great...they all failed though, the difference now is technology.

I expect others to come in and mention the military industrial complex being a money machine etc...and never ending...but perhaps if the current power structure gains global control, they wouldnt want or need it engaged all the time.

War would not end.

It would change to war on ideas and individuals.

Well i was referring to physical war, invasions, Lockheed jets etc, I think the statement in that quote was also. It was just a thought I had, and it is echoed in that quote...and they always tend to tell us what their plans are one way or another.

amaralsright wrote:
Yes, because after months on the DIF where we hadn't spoken to each other, I was suddenly desperate to follow you here for no reason.

You've turned up and started banghing on about Muslims. Understandable as that's what you were suspended for. Then you've started going on about Jews. Then you've started going on about the Holocaust. Though from what I've seen at least you haven't been posting Holocaust denial stuff on the DIF for ages, suddenly you decide you want to start going on about it here. One could get the impression you're trying to stir things up.

I won't be playing epic Holocaust denial thread with you here. Though it's obviously far from my perception of our previous interactions, your 'you lost' comment tells me it's not about reasoned debate of a subject for you. It says to me you want to start an argument that for you is simply about winning. I have said the same things over and over again on the DIF and I am tired of it. For example I have pointed out on there more times than I can remember that it is false to say the Holocaust is the only genocide you can be prosecuted for denying. And you've just repeated the same falsehood here. So already there's the prompts to start repeating the same old stuff. Even conducted civily it will be an endless repetition of the DIF. I am not here for that. I also know I'll eventually get frustrated with you, start taking the piss and both shaft myself here and insult the good people who started this forum by doing so.

My additional concern is that as soon as big Holocaust denial threads get going here, sooner or later tinyint or the like will start turning up and next thing this forum will turn into a Nazi magnet.

I appreciate you can't post on the DIF right now, but why don't you take that stuff to CODOH?

dogsmilk wrote: Like I said, I'm sure it was complete coincidence.
Why?
What's wrong with open discussion here?
novum is ok with it sadly for you.

You'll have to watch the name calling here I think, I don't think you'll get away with it.

amaralsright wrote:

You're sounding a bit desperate mate.

Take it easy.

Engage in civil debate and everything will be fine.

Two words 'CLEAN SLATE'

it applies to all!!

well said Thoreau, if this turns into the almaright v's dogsmilk show I'll be less inclined to visit.

I think you are both decent guys but dragging personal beefs from another forum to continue the same old agrument is a bit immature, no?

Perhaps we could set up a subforum just for you two and we could take bets on who would win...I could make some money

I haven't dragged anything anywhere.

Once again, for the record

My first post on this forum was at 7.56 am last sunday.
dogsmilk became a member 14 minutes later.

Which is all coincidence of course.

I am up for civil open discussion and I am not telling anyone to go and post at CODOH.

Civil open discussion, that's the way forward isn't it?

amaralsright wrote:
Zionism first and foremost is about a nation state. It is in the dictionary you know

andyh wrote:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_nationality_law

3 out of 5 years for naturalization. Even slacker than Ireland where its 5 out of 8.

andyh wrote:
So all Israeli citizens are Israelis by nationality?

And they are all equal in law?

There's no special designations on their ID cards or anything?

Can a Palestinian who marries a Jew become an Israeli citizen?

All rhetorical questions.

Doesn't it all sound a lot like South Africa in the bad times? Where are the UN sanctions?

amaralsright wrote:
I'm impressed!

You joined at 7.56am last Sunday and dogsmilk joined 14 mins later.

Were you both up and about getting ready for church, mass, synagogue, mosque

Do you really think you are that special that he's up and about on a Sunday morning stalking your internet forum memberships?

Perhaps you are both the same person?

amaralsright wrote: Well you would expect a citizen of any nation on Earth to have that nationality at least, lol
Unless you're benloon or picha who get confused between nationality and 'native whites' and all that hilarious stupidity...
Which law? If its any religious stuff then I doubt it...
(same as other countries who do not have a secular state)
No idea about israeli ID cards. The jews behind all this conspiracy stuff are handing out sheeple cards to their own people too huh?
Not according to that page, although naturalization would allow it if they stayed 3 years.

Vetoed by the UK and the US.

As it is a clean slate policy the timings of people posting and joining up are really null and void - I understand that you wish to talk about certain topics amaral - and as has been stated the topics you wish to discuss are not banned from here - that you wish to bring those subjects here doesnt necessarily mean that others wish to rehash them - they were done to death elsewhere and are discussed at length on other forums - by all means start a thread here on the topics that interest you - that way people are free to join in the discussion or leave it - but be aware I for one will be vocal where I see remarks that cross a line between fact finding and information sharing and stereotyping/generalising and derogatory remarks about anyone.

From what I have read dogsmilk has responded to the remarks about the coincidence regarding sign up times - he has also addressed the fact that he does not wish to end up in circular arguments that go nowhere about topics that have been done elsewhere.

You are both welcome here and are both valued as contributors - would be awesome for those contributions to reflect the values this place holds up - respect and clean slates being two of them.

We are here to discuss subjects with eachother - to offer contrasting perspectives - not browbeat people into submission. This is not a competition - everyones contribution and opinion is as valid as anyone elses - An example being I am not a person of faith - but I have respect for posters who are and can more then happily say my opinion (and hopefully not offend) and in turn acknowledge their opinion and right to that opinion (without being offended) we wont agree but we don't need to as we are comfortable with our own beliefs and in letting others have theirs.

If people here cannot respect me and my opinions even if they vehemently disagree with them and vice versa on my part there can be no forward movement in creating a cohesive, positive and informative community.

I have been inspired in some way by every single member of these forums - I do not agree with them all and they disagree with me - but so far we have created a harmony that I wish to see continue.