WT and the Illuminati - truth or fiction? (page 22)

SnowQueen

Bohm: So I guess we can both agree the above is all factually accurate, but I understand you to say the above is not the cause at all.

All of that is factually correct and undisputed, but it doesn't tell the whole story. In the case of WWII, the false flag was the fire at the Reichstag in 1933. We may never know the truth as to who arsonist Marinus van der Lubbe was working for, but we know from history that the event benefitted the Nazis more than anyone else and that Hitler took full and swift advantage of it.

As Wikipedia notes, the event is seen as pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany, as it gave the Nazis the pretext for suspending most rights and civil liberties set out in the Weimar Constitution, which was replaced with the Reichstag Fire Decree in direct response to the arson attack, to weed out communists and increase state security throughout Germany.

The media helped of course: 'The next day, the Preussische Pressedienst (Prussian Press Service) reported that "this act of incendiarism is the most monstrous act of terrorism carried out by Bolshevism in Germany". The Vossische Zeitung newspaper warned its readers that "the government is of the opinion that the situation is such that a danger to the state and nation existed and still exists". ' Does any of that sound familiar?

The primary facilitators and puppet-masters behind the scenes of WWII were elite bankers and political zionists, which is why the US funded the war - for both profit and political gain - and it is possible that WWII could be considered a strategic battle in a bigger war, the end-game of which is to bring about a single world government.

If you haven't already seen it, I suggest you watch the documentary posted by Tornapart on page 7 of this thread. If you don't have time to watch it all, the pertinent sections covering world wars I and II runs from 58mins in to 1hr 22mins.

For anyone who likes to deny conspiracies it's interesting to note that in the Wikipedia page linked to above it states, 'The Nazis alleged that Van der Lubbe was part of the Communist conspiracy to burn down the Reichstag and seize power, while the Communists alleged that Van der Lubbe was part of the Nazi conspiracy to blame the crime on them.' The man himself maintained he acted alone.

Someone somewhere is always lying, so it's pretty much inevitable that there's a conspiracy - which I would define as a strategic, hidden agenda which deliberately obscures the truth to gain an advantage - on one side or the other, or otherwise both!

(I realise I got a bit waylaid and fell behind with the thread as I was writing my response!)

Nambo

Yeah thats an easy get out bohm, sarcasm and leaving the onus on me, why dont you give your counter arguments more credibility by purchasing the following books.

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Jews-A-Lifelong-Friendship/dp/0805078800 http://www.amazon.com/Churchills-Promised-Land-Statecraft-University/dp/0300116098/ref=pd_sim_b_5 As for your comments ignat, perhaps you could explain what you mean please? Reading books, we have no other option as we where not there, but these books do quote from material heald in archievs of the time. What do you mean by "critical thinking skills"?, I would have thought the very term would have backed up our side of the discussion, the ability to not just belive whet some with an agenda tell us, but to seek out alternative views and see if they fit in with the pattern of the world. Perhaps you could give some examples of what you mean?

bohm

The problem here is that when you assert the reichtag was burned by zionists you actually need to provide evidence that is actually true, and you do no such thing.

so back to the question, what evidence do you have (as in, actual evidence, not simply re-telling the conspiracy) that WW2 was started by covert reasons unrelated to those listed on the wikipedia page?

bohm

Nambo: if you guys could give a single piece of evidence for the conspiracy i might be interested in reading those books. All you offer is simply re-telling the same tale and pretending that makes it true.

And the burden of proof is actually on you.

SnowQueen

I never said the Reichstage was burned by zionists, the financiers don't get their hands dirty with direct action and the political zionists are similarly hiding in the shadows.

I'm simply suggesting that the fire was an inside job, pinned on a convenient scapegoat, as opposed to the official story given by the Nazis to the German people at the time which was used as a justification for imposing controls on the population - controls which, in the absence of blatant propoganda against the communists, would not have been accepted.

I've suggested you watch the section of the documentary highlighted, as this contains various pieces of evidence from someone who has gone through the archives. Please feel free to provide counter-evidence that disputes his claims.

EntirelyPossible

In the case of WWII, the false flag was the fire at the Reichstag in 1933.

See, when your evidence of a conspiracy is a well known piece of information (that the fire may have been political arson) and concludes with "we don't know who he was working for", that's only evidence of "that's been suspected by everyone for a long time". Or that you read wikipedia.

bohm

And you are free to suggest it was an inside job, but without any evidence I am not free to accept it, I cannot accept it.

SnowQueen

So instead you accept the official story, which you are free to do, but do you have satisfactory evidence that the official story is true?

Do you have any reason to doubt them? Do you think that they might have any reason to lie or mislead you? If so, are you interested in knowing the truth?

"if you guys could give a single piece of evidence for the conspiracy i might be interested in reading those books."

Perhaps the evidence is in the books and that's the point of citing them.

Have you watched the documentary I recommended and considered the points contained therein?

What's the point of citing sources if you're not going to look at them?

jgnat

"primary facilitators and puppet-masters behind the scenes of WWII were elite bankers and political zionists"

Now, that is the outrageous statement that carries the burden of proof.

You mix truth with supposition. What does THAT sound like?

Evidence is not in books.

EntirelyPossible

SQ, you complain about the officeal story, but the official story is "We're pretty sure this was a plot, but we aren't sure by who due to lack of evidence", pretty much exactly what you are saying.

WT and the Illuminati - truth or fiction?

Share this