Re: BRITISH MERCENARIES MURDER CIVILIANS VIDEO

On 28 Nov 2005 10:11:23 -0800, "Andy Cooper" <drewcooper@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>Norman Leonski wrote:
>> gonzo wrote:
>> > "Norman Leonski" <norman_leonski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:1133198820.916761.206500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > >
>> > > gonzo wrote:
>> > > > "Norman Leonski" <norman_leonski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > > > news:1133197873.778779.323200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/27/wirq27.xml&s
>> > > > ***=/news/2005/11/27/ixworld.html
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "Norman Leonski" <norman_leonski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > > > > > news:1133197171.518502.90790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > majorkonigs...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > > > > > > > SEE BRITISH MERCENARIES KILL IRAQI CIVILIANS FOR FUN, THIS VIDEO
>> > WAS
>> > > > > > > > MADE BY AEGIS DEFENSE SERVICES, A COMPANY HIRED BY TONY BLAIR TO
>> > > > > > > > PROVIDE SECURITY IN IRAQ
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Who has confirmed that the shooter was a British Merc? During
>> > WWII,
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > Germans were well known to use English speaking terror squads to
>> > cause
>> > > > > > > incedents that would discredit the Allies. Who is positive that
>> > this
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > not the case here, and where is your proof that this is not the
>> > case?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Perhaps I've not seen the evidence. Would someone link me to it?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > Red Sanders wrote:
>> > > > > > Well other than the fact that it was on the security firms website
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The security firm denies that it was them. Try again.
>> > > > >
>> > > > doesnt change the fact it was on their website. they dont deny it was
>> > them
>> > > > either.
>> > >
>> > > A spokesman for Aegis Defence Services, said: "There is nothing to
>> > > indicate that these film clips are in any way connected to Aegis."
>> > >
>> > > That is pretty clear. They also say that they are doing an internal
>> > > audit to find if anyone in their employ had anything to do with it.
>> > >
>> > > So the subject line of this thread is bull***.
>> > >
>> > > That's my point.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > well apart from its a british company that largely employs britons and that
>> > british voices can be heard on it... what would you deduce from that watson?
>> > cheers
>> > james
>>
>> I would deduce that you are jumping to conclusions with no evidence.
>>
>> During WWII, the Germans were well known to use English speaking terror
>> squads to
>> cause incidents that would discredit the Allies. Who is positive that
>> this is not the case here, and where is your proof that this is not the
>> case?
>>
>> A disgruntled emplyee of the security firm could have been approached
>> by the real culprits and paid to place the film on the site.
>>
>> Prove to me that this wasn't the case, Sherlock.
>
>
> Your explanation would be described as 'conspiracy theory' by Bush
>and Blair, Norman Leonski.

So, if it were a conspiracy, then that would prove me correct? How
about if someone just provides proof, not supposition, that is was
done by the Brits.

>The evidence is also a lot more compelling
>than was provided for Saddam having WMD (for instance a few drawings
>of dodgy looking trucks).

No, it isn't. A person who is never seen shoots at vehicles, and a
voice is on the film. No, none of that could be faked. Yeah, right.

I apologize for ruining your image of us
>Brits Red Sanders .The lesson I have just learned is not to post
>directly after I have discovered or viewed something that angers me .

What makes you think I'm angry? I'm not. I don't even like the fucking
British. I just don't like half baked claims.
.

Quantcast