9/11: Genocide and murder of millions to gain control over oilfields

In context:

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7884337&postcount=65

Me:

Me:

Just giving the opportunity - for you - to explain in full...

Caveat: No planes allowed

 

Zzap / storch :troll:?

 

Arguing semantics again, I see. You are a waste of time, dude. Go jerk off some more. Your shit gets old pretty quick. Ever heard of western imperialism? Is it that foreign of a concept to you, or do you have to argue over every little piece of minutia you can? Yes, Odon, the US (and other countries) finds excuses to invade foreign soil (terrorism, etc.), then goes in and exploits the resources of these countries (drugs, oil, land, etc). Wow, who would have fucking thought!! So just keep defending that and believe what you want. Nobody cares about debating with you. You have shown that you don't really care about the truth. We get that. War is peace and ignorance is strength. Like I have said before, you are the Parsons of Orwell's 1984. You are the Agent Smith of The Matrix. All you seem to want to do is defend the evil that exists in the world, and start petty arguments with people who have alternative beliefs. Get a fucking life!! You're not going to change what I think, and I am not going to change what you think. Give it a fucking rest already!

 

It is a little more than semantics to question if the UK OWNS the soil/land of another country. We are NOT talking about exploiting a situation. Zzap mentioned the UK owning the soil of - for e.g. - Iraq: Crown treaties. Rights of conquest.

I don't really care about the truth? Yeah, good one.

Have I mentioned you anywhere in this thread? Why would I want to bring you into this thread?

Clearly you have not bothered to read the thread propely.

Get over yourself already. Jeez.

 

the biggest problem you have is that you already jumped in way over your head. soil and land are not the same thing in english common law.


he is right you are arguing minutia, however it is a fact that the right of conquest existed. you claim it no longer exists. I have seen nothing what so ever that specifically amends it out of existence and protects against the same result being accomplished in another way, AND that it is retroactive.


when you read this take note of the word "FORMAL", so the ball is again in your court and unless you can show where england gave up all its underlying land titles you have nothing.

 

Do you mean this:

'...led to the abandonment of the right of conquest in formal international law. '

...and that it still exists 'informally'?

Well, if so, that's a bit convenient, isn't it?

Don't you think I read that?

So you can't provide any evidence because it's 'informal' - how convenient.

It isn't 'minutia' ...

Pressed_Rat seemed to be talking about a very different idea than I was/you were.

http://www.rense.com/general38/own.htm

It's faintly ridiculous, isn't it?

 

yep unless you can show us that it is banned completely.
the laws only apply to the slaves.
which does not include the sovereigns and their pals.

easy one for you; who owns the soil in england?



yeh minutia when you are in a 911 thread.

 

Like I said: Well, if so, that's a bit convenient, isn't it?

Where are these signed treaties?

 

Too bad you skip answering my question.

treaties war reparations and a payment plan is always signed after conquest. loser pays the bills, winner puts people in power/government who will conform to them and not pay the bills so the country goes bankrupt, the people lose their land rights and eventually become slaves.

Its what england has been doing since the beginning of time/.

 

Zzap

I skipped your questions because you didn't answer - with any type of evidence.
It was the rather weak attempt to shift the onus onto me and away from yourself.

I don't need to know what the treaties entail, per se.
I wanted to see the treaties you are talking about.
I can't provide a £100,000 'prize' for posting them, but I will make a contribution to your fave' charity if you post them.

I thought you said they already had!

I do know what you are talking about historically.
But I think it is not happening here.
And just saying it is so, does not make it so.
You need to provide a little bit more evidence than that.
You know, like you keeping asking others to provide.

 

easy one for you; who owns the soil in england?

if you cant answer that off the top of your head the second your eyes got to the question mark you are so far in over your head none of this will make sense to you. I dont mind pointing a finger to show someone the necessary buzz words and where to get the information but I am not going to do your homework for you.

It is simply a waste of my time to continue until you can at a minimum "start" by answering that question. Yes there are more.

 

I am not talking about England. If you want to preface your response about the ownership of the oilfields with something about England, that is up to you.

Why do you not just post a more detailed response regarding my questions, and let me decide If I get It or not. I just wanted some of your info, not a debate.

 

to GAIN control of oil fields? it was the existing oil interests now, that were at least partially behind krystal knoct 2001. that they hired a highly effecient organization of middle eastern dessidants, to do the actual wet work, was a complete smoke screen and misdirection of public attention that seems for the most part to have worked.

 

?

 

sorry man but every post you show me you know nothing about this. its not your decision to make, if I am going to waste my time its my decision what to post and what not.

the question was pertinent and particular.

 

It is strange that the mere mention of a plane and you come running to post dozens of long posts with pics etc. Mention of something else and you go all coy. Well, I think you have exhausted all the excuses now.
See you in a few months when there is another thread about planes\911.

 

There is no difference.

I am not a school teacher in the 911 threads and I am not s school teacher here.

You seem to think that any time someone says something you do not understand they are required to gather up all their research for you and hand it over.

so that said, what I am saying, is no different than telling you that you have to know simple addition and subtraction before we can functionally talk about a math problem.

Land law, trusts etc get very complex, so you need at least some kind of ground level understanding for a fruitful discussion and this topic is not for the lazy researcher or faint of heart if they desire to come away with any real understanding.

If you dont come into this discussion with a minimum knowledge of the subject you are incapable of discussing it even on the most basic level. Meaning you will demand I dig everything up post it and teach you while dragging you along kicking and screaming all the way.

I told you what to look up to start, (a discussion), if that is too difficult for you well then I guess thats just too bad.

 

I have done some homework.
I know what 'right of conquest' means.
I know what Crown treaties are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_Treaty_(1930) etc

In March 1925, an agreement was concluded that contained none of the Iraqi demands. The TPC, now renamed the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), was granted a full and complete concession for a period of seventy-five years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Mesopotamia#Oil_concession

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sèvres

Nowhere have I found that the UK currently owns the land or mineral rights in Iraq.

I have not found any relevant treaty.

That is why I am asking you for some evidence.

If they own the land why invade?

 

I think we have our answer.