Breaking: Diana Death: Police Passed New Information

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Generally speaking, not really. 2001 actually saw a drop in the amount of terrorist attacks from the previous year, globally and if you're not an American, you do not quite attach the same significance to the 9/11 attacks. Aside from the obvious, 2001 was yet another year where stuff happened, same as any other.

If you believe that then you Sir are a Damn Fool!

Korg.

Interestingly, according to this report, although the frequency of terrorist attacks in the US has declined in the years since 9/11, globally there has been an increase since 2004. Some good data in that report worth pondering over.

Originally posted by NEB0168
Hear me out here.

Quickest way to get Charles out of the way so new Daddy and oh-so-lovable Prince William can take the throne and restore the goodwill towards the Monarchy?

Implicate Charles as complicit in Diana's death, or, privately threaten him with reveal of his knowledge of her death, and if he doesn't bite and abdicate, launch a new "investigation" to show him how serious you are.

This is all a play to get William on the throne faster.

I'm feeling your theory mate and believe there are definitely some PR manoeuvres going on in this regard.

I recall not so long ago there was a lot of talk about Charles being bypassed in favour of Wills (i think after Diana and George smith scandals but may have been about Camilla) and it seemed like this was going to be the case, yet lately there has been much PR from his camp and confident discussions about his succeeding the Queen like all of those previous discussions and that ill feeling had never occurred. I have been pondering this u turn for a while now.

Skip forward to yesterday and we learn that Charles has been seconding his people into Whitehall posts to get the low down on goings on. I believe it has been known for some time that certain aspects in Whitehall have been fed up with his meddling and would logically deduce they would not appreciate him as king - let alone having spies all over the place. All a bit reminiscent of Prince Bertie no?

So also yesterday this story is released by msm tv news who have never discussed such issues about Diana and combine it with stories about Harry doing work on mines which is massively symbolic and reminiscent of Di. Also on Facebook last night there were pics posted on his page about how similar he looks to Di - mothers son etc. FB being another PR marketing tool. Then today we have Wills on the news talking fatherhood etc - more good PR. All of these stories would not have been on sky if there was not some agreement from palace departments in the first place. Especially because of the previous efforts to protect her boys from speculation etc.

I'm probably going to get shot down by you all for thinking out loud again but am really beginning to think the writing is somewhat on the wall here... Albeit not with the customary evidence that is expected. Can't we not consider all options like this? It's not entirely unrealistic!

Originally posted by LarryLove

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Generally speaking, not really. 2001 actually saw a drop in the amount of terrorist attacks from the previous year, globally and if you're not an American, you do not quite attach the same significance to the 9/11 attacks. Aside from the obvious, 2001 was yet another year where stuff happened, same as any other.

If you believe that then you Sir are a Damn Fool!

Korg.

Interestingly, according to this report, although the frequency of terrorist attacks in the US has declined in the years since 9/11, globally there has been an increase since 2004. Some good data in that report worth pondering over.

An interesting report...

But nothing can be in focus without context....

The trouble is with the kind of non critical thinking that appears to be the case as in stumason example, people simply cannot read in between the lines.

I think it's fair to say that arguing that 2001 was not a special year is an example of blanching over the important information....

Much like when the reports came in of Diana's death... people didn't really take much notice of the evidence or it's true meaning... only the information presented to them.

Diana's death was a sad day for all... it marked the the beginning of a downward spiral of ever increasing circles of control over the masses.

Korg.

reply to post by micpsi


Actually, I totally believe that. No one prefers Charles to Will -- Will is ABSOLUTELY the better choice to restore goodwill towards the monarchy. Frankly, I believe Charles has been nothing but an embarrassment for the Queen. Charles as King = end of monarchy. He's a stodgy, nerdy, tired, strange little man who wants to be a tamp inside of Camilla. I would think that the good PR that would come with Will as King would be much preferred.

Don't get me wrong, there will be some completely believable, noble reason for Wills to be the next King passing Charles. They won't embarrass him, but they don't want him as King, either.

Originally posted by NEB0168
reply to post by micpsi

 

Actually, I totally believe that. No one prefers Charles to Will -- Will is ABSOLUTELY the better choice to restore goodwill towards the monarchy. Frankly, I believe Charles has been nothing but an embarrassment for the Queen. Charles as King = end of monarchy. He's a stodgy, nerdy, tired, strange little man who wants to be a tamp inside of Camilla. I would think that the good PR that would come with Will as King would be much preferred.

Don't get me wrong, there will be some completely believable, noble reason for Wills to be the next King passing Charles. They won't embarrass him, but they don't want him as King, either.

I suspect you are right. But I don't believe "they" (whoever they are) would ever risk forcing Charles either to abdicate or to never become king MERELY because of his relative unpopularity compared with William. It would have to a far more serious reason than that - one that threatened the very future of the monarchy. I cannot think what that could be.

Originally posted by NEB0168
reply to post by micpsi

 

Actually, I totally believe that. No one prefers Charles to Will -- Will is ABSOLUTELY the better choice to restore goodwill towards the monarchy. Frankly, I believe Charles has been nothing but an embarrassment for the Queen. Charles as King = end of monarchy. He's a stodgy, nerdy, tired, strange little man who wants to be a tamp inside of Camilla. I would think that the good PR that would come with Will as King would be much preferred.

Don't get me wrong, there will be some completely believable, noble reason for Wills to be the next King passing Charles. They won't embarrass him, but they don't want him as King, either.

Honestly, you talk about embarrassment and the Royal family like they are two separate entities?

What is it William is supposed to be 'restoring'? Royalist Sympathies? I can't think of anything else off-hand.. Or worse. Charles / William, it's all the same to me, exactly the same..

If you're behind William, then it's just sympathy for the poor Inbred boy Isn't it? Because his mum died? Aww he must be the first.. Why else would you care to have an opinion on a guy that has uttered about two words to the media in the past 30 years.

Either that or you're showing support for their exploits? You support he and his brother bombing and killing innocents in the middle east? A purely right-wing agenda, or you support them having babies they will never have to pay for - but the state will - that will skip the NHS queue just because they 'Oughta'. Good for you I guess. I hope you never have kids that get shunned or pushed back in the queue due to inbred vagrants that you supported in the first place.

Family Guy making fun of Princess Diana + 9/11 prediction all in a few seconds (Episode released in 2000)

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I am not sure you can use the death of Diana as the start to a 'downward spiral' of events designed to control the masses. Some may consider the assination of JFK as the catalyst and others argue it was 9/11. You are quite correct, all terrorist acts must be viewed with full context, but I guarantee you could pluck any year in the history of record keeping and define one occurrence out of those particular 365 days as 'game changing'.

Originally posted by r666evolution
Family Guy making fun of Princess Diana + 9/11 prediction all in a few seconds (Episode released in 2000)

The 9/11 bit is a bit uncanny

Theories are nuts as usual. I dont understand how someone submitting new evidence has anything to do with the future kings or queens status. Not one of them cares incase noone noticed.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
The trouble is with the kind of non critical thinking that appears to be the case as in stumason example, people simply cannot read in between the lines.

Got to love the irony in you criticise me for having some sort of "non critical" thinking process, despite it being quite evident I am the opposite given I am actually quite critical of many things without solid evidence, when you're the one espousing demon worship and satanic sacrifices...

Righty ho, you carry on with your "critical thinking" and "reading between the lines", you're clearly so much better at it than the rest of us plebs...

reply to post by LarryLove


Exactly - every year has it's momentous events and one year is barely much different from the next and it is also entirely subjective.

While Americans may view 2001 and 9/11 as a defining point in their history, for the bulk of us it was just something that happened. Likewise, 7/7 in 2005 could be described as pivotal for the UK, but had little bearing on anyone else. The 2004 Tsunami utterly changed the landscape of S.E Asia and killed many more people than any terrorist attack, yet also had little impact in us on this side of the world.

It depends entirely on your point of view as to what is "special" and, like you said, you could go through any year and try and attach meaning to something but that doesn't mean there is any.

And about context, Diana's death seems quite cut and dry when you look at the context surrounding it. She was a world icon, mother of two Princes and the trash mags wanted shots of her with her new boyfriend, which was causing a stir in the media. It is therefore not surprising they were chased by said media, leading ultimately to a crash - a simple, run of the mill collision which happens every day, of every week, of every year all over the world.

But no, those with "critical thinking" abilities want us to believe it was either a (amateurish) assassination attempt by MI5/6/The Royal Family or, would you believe, a Satanic sacrifice......

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ChristianJihad
as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) the video is only banned in the UK

You are wrong, the video is NOT banned in the UK - care to show a official source stating that it is banned?

"But there was a specific form of insurance needed by the US distributors to cover them for their French and UK offices. This proved impossible to secure. The film has been withdrawn in perpetuity."

www.theguardian.com...

reply to post by ChristianJihad


So it's not actually banned then!

All that article says is that they couldn't obtain any insurance against any possible libel lawsuits. Feel free to publish the video yourself, no criminal charges will be filed. However, be ready for a carpstorm and being made bankrupt as a result of a libel case.

You know what that says about the video though? Basically, they were not sure they could back up the claims made in the video (they had no evidence) and therefore were wide open to a large libel case for which no-one would insure them, which also says they were not confident they could win such a case, meaning that the video is probably a load of bollocks.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
The trouble is with the kind of non critical thinking that appears to be the case as in stumason example, people simply cannot read in between the lines.

Got to love the irony in you criticise me for having some sort of "non critical" thinking process, despite it being quite evident I am the opposite given I am actually quite critical of many things without solid evidence, when you're the one espousing demon worship and satanic sacrifices...

Righty ho, you carry on with your "critical thinking" and "reading between the lines", you're clearly so much better at it than the rest of us plebs...

Well said Mr 2001 was not so special.....

Nothing to see here... move along! AGENT!!!!

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


It wasn't!

It might be to you and other people out there, but for a great many on the planet it was just another year full of the same old crap that happens year in year out. It's only special to Americans because, lets be frank, you had never had anything like it on your soil and were unused to it, plus your media and Government blew it all out of proportion and pumped the whole "USA! USA! Number !" patriotic crap to new highs.

Here in the UK, we had just finished 30 years of terrorism which claimed far more lives than 9/11, so no, 2001 was not that important.

Neither really was 2005 and the 7/7 attacks. While the USA was paralysed with fear for weeks after 9/11,. the next day in London after tubes and buses blew up, we were out waiting for the very same tubes and buses....

Nor was 1997 and none of it had anything to do with monsters or silly stories written by illiterate goat herders from 2,000 years ago.

You're attaching significance to it because it fits in with your world view of Demons and Satanic sacrifice. But every year, some crap happens and for someone it might be important, but for most of us it is simply another news story and certainly nothing to do with beasts who lurk under our beds...

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

It wasn't!

Here in the UK, we had just finished 30 years of terrorism which claimed far more lives than 9/11, so no, 2001 was not that important.

Neither really was 2005 and the 7/7 attacks. While the USA was paralysed with fear for weeks after 9/11,. the next day in London after tubes and buses blew up, we were out waiting for the very same tubes and buses....

Firstly I am English and Live in England... Never been stateside although I would love to visit some day.

And if you cannot see the global effects of Diana's murder or 911 or 7/7 then you are as blind as you appear to be... as you are of reasonable intelligence, I pose an alternative suggestion to your clear disregard of the white elephant, you are whether intentional or not on TPTB's payoll.

Korg.

It wouldnt surprise me if she was murdered. As for Charles becoming king lol Thats a joke. I wonder what lessons he learned from his mentor Sir jimmy so vile savile, they were the best friends for over 40 years. Sir jimmy was running around buck house in his track suit and bling when ever he liked, one would think he was a family member.
Its about time we got rid of these royals, the only decent one among the lot of them was Diana. Look what they did to her.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


What "global significance"?

There was none, at all. It had no bearing on anything, aside from two boys losing their mother which, sadly, happens every day. What is so significant about Diana dying?

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

What "global significance"?

There was none, at all. It had no bearing on anything, aside from two boys losing their mother which, sadly, happens every day. What is so significant about Diana dying?

just so everyone can asses your comments...

Are you really saying that you believe that 2001 had no global significance??.. and the events of 2001 has had no global effects???

To ask the question what was so significant about Diana being killed, you clearly have no knowledge over what Diana did globally and what she was about to do before she was killed.... I suggest you research further!

Korg.

Korg.