Gaddafi's demise

RenovationMan

vax2002 wrote: »

Trying to put words in to peoples mouths is the white flag of surrender on any argument.

Then stop using your 'Money lender' flag of convenience and tell us who you actually mean.

KnightSmile

Why do some people insinuate Jewish people rule the world? I'm not saying its explicitly stated here but I have read it on other discussion boards. I genuinely dont understand where this comes from? I really don't have a strong opinion on this but I hate generalisations on whole races. Interested if someone could actually educate me, I am sceptical that Jewish people "rule the world".

Road_Hog

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

This forum does not need this kind of conspiracy theory gold bug rubbish.

The thing is, it isn't a conspiracy theory and you should do some research before you start spouting rubbish.

It's well documented that Libya/Gaddafi was not involved on Lockerbie.

Gaddafi/Libya were best pals with the UK government only a couple of years ago, read first page bottom two paragraphs.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/docs/20080211-jack-straw-to-alex-salmond-prisoner-transfer-agreement-libya.pdf

So what happened? Well, first off, he was going to nationalise the oil companies.

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/25-03-2011/117336-reason_for_war_oil-0/

Anything else? Ah yes, he wanted to create a gold oil currency and turn his back on the US Dollar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

vax2002

Thank you for admitting you are trying to insinuate your words as my own, your defamation statements and insinuations have been noted and your acceptance of that fact also duly noted.
Now when I want you to speak for me I shall ask you to do so.
Lets get ONE thing straight
What I write is my statements.
What someone else writes claiming to be representing what I say is the words of someone else.

Thank you.

RenovationMan

vax2002 wrote: »

Thank you for admitting you are trying to insinuate your words as my own, your defamation statements and insinuations have been noted and your acceptance of that fact also duly noted.
Now when I want you to speak for me I shall ask you to do so.
Lets get ONE thing straight
What I write is my statements.
What someone else writes claiming to be representing what I say is the words of someone else.

Thank you.

Interesting attempt at deflection, but the question was very simple. When you say "Money Lenders" who do you actually mean?

p.s. who are you aiming your post at? I can't see anyone admitting/accepting anything in relation to your earlier posts?

Generali

KnightSmile wrote: »

Why do some people insinuate Jewish people rule the world? I'm not saying its explicitly stated here but I have read it on other discussion boards. I genuinely dont understand where this comes from? I really don't have a strong opinion on this but I hate generalisations on whole races. Interested if someone could actually educate me, I am sceptical that Jewish people "rule the world".

AIUI (and I am really not an expert), European anti-Semitism came from two main sources:

- Jews could lend money and Catholics couldn't due to usury laws being imposed by the Pope. Thus Jews could run banks and banks are a good way to make money and can also make you pretty unpopular with people that can't afford to pay you back.
- As alternatives to Roman Catholicism became available within Europe, the Holy See wanted to suppress any 'heresy' including Judaism, Islam (eg Moorish remnants in Spain, the fall of Byzantium in the C15th and later Protestantism)

In addition there is the general tribalism of people and a dislike of those not like us. That shows itself in sporting allegiances (I hate Gooners, Hammers hate Yids etc), racism, blonde jokes etc..

That's just a theory mind. I am not an historian.

chewmylegoff

Road_Hog wrote: »

The thing is, it isn't a conspiracy theory

it is a conspiracy theory though isn't it - because:

1) it is your view that there was a conspiracy amongst the western governments to remove gadaffi for reasons other than the reasons that they gave for engaging in the war.

2) you cannot evidence this, but you put forward some circumstantial material as to why this might be the case.

3) it is therefore an unproven theory, about a conspiracy.

4) Q.E.D.

sabretoothtigger

Why should we spend zillions of bucks on a show trial?

Libya has more money then they do order. A trial may have spent money but helped restore order

RenovationMan

Generali wrote: »

AIUI (and I am really not an expert), European anti-Semitism came from two main sources:

- Jews could lend money and Catholics couldn't due to usury laws being imposed by the Pope. Thus Jews could run banks and banks are a good way to make money and can also make you pretty unpopular with people that can't afford to pay you back.
- As alternatives to Roman Catholicism became available within Europe, the Holy See wanted to suppress any 'heresy' including Judaism, Islam (eg Moorish remnants in Spain, the fall of Byzantium in the C15th and later Protestantism)

I found that this link provided some similar information:

http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-rothschilds/

"In the Middle Ages, the Church, in a misapplication of the Biblical prohibition against charging interest, forbade interest in all instances. The Talmud, in contrast, created an economic system in which loans could be converted into investments, so interest could accrue from them, but under the Christian interpretation, no credit market was possible. The way the Church got around that was by forcing the Jews to become the bankers. Back then, though, they were called “money lenders,” which is a much more pejorative term. “Banker,” at least at one time, represented a term of honor.

Jewish money lending worked as follows. The Count or nobleman of the town would loan money to the Jew, and the Jew in turn would loan money to the non-Jewish peasants. The Jew became the middleman, which was a very dangerous position. The interest rates were usurious in those times – 30% or 40% – so the peasants had a hard time paying anything back. And if the Jew didn’t collect the money, the nobleman would kill him. Therefore, the Jew had to have a large spread in the middle in order to be able to cover his losses and still make a living."

Generali

RenovationMan wrote: »

I found that this link provided some similar information:

http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-rothschilds/

"In the Middle Ages, the Church, in a misapplication of the Biblical prohibition against charging interest, forbade interest in all instances. The Talmud, in contrast, created an economic system in which loans could be converted into investments, so interest could accrue from them, but under the Christian interpretation, no credit market was possible. The way the Church got around that was by forcing the Jews to become the bankers. Back then, though, they were called “money lenders,” which is a much more pejorative term. “Banker,” at least at one time, represented a term of honor.

Jewish money lending worked as follows. The Count or nobleman of the town would loan money to the Jew, and the Jew in turn would loan money to the non-Jewish peasants. The Jew became the middleman, which was a very dangerous position. The interest rates were usurious in those times – 30% or 40% – so the peasants had a hard time paying anything back. And if the Jew didn’t collect the money, the nobleman would kill him. Therefore, the Jew had to have a large spread in the middle in order to be able to cover his losses and still make a living."

Very interesting. So I was along the right lines but also not right!