Skip to comments.Magazine--Polish Elite Assassinated in Russian Air Disaster
Posted on 05/29/2010 12:26:24 PM PDT by Welshman007
In the latest issue of Uncensored Magazine of New Zealand, investigators reveal that they believe Polish government officials were assassinated rather than killed in the recent air tragedy.
In April a Polish plane carrying 96 government officials, including Poland's President, went down in a section of Russia near the site of the infamous Russian massacre of Polish elite 70 years ago.
Conservative Examiner reported this story in a series of articles here, here, here, here, and here.
According to investigative reporter Jane Burgermeister, the magazine, which is slated to go on sale the first week of June, claims that there were only 4 persons aboard the plane when it crashed, rather than the 96 reported by Russian and Polish officials.
The magazine suggests that the top officials of the Polish government were seized prior to boarding the plane, taken to an undisclosed location, and assassinated.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
That being the case, then I apologize for suggesting you may have had something to do with it.
Your posting history says different. I figured you would ignore my rebuttal of that accusation of yours too.
Gee thanks. After all the other accusations of "personal vendetta" and other paranoid comments that's real nice of you.
The only forum on FR that prohibits personal abuse is the Religion Forum. Here's a helpful hint: you're not there. We're not obligated to fall in line with whatever perceived "hotbutton" issue du jour you jump on in order to generate income. In that, you're sadly mistaken as well.
There have been far wackier things posted here without the uproar I've seen on this single thread of yours. Perhaps the problem isn't so much the subject matter as it is you?
From the FR Website home page:
“Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.”
Personal attacks, personal ridicule, lack of common courtesy...nothing here about it being ‘only for the religious forum.’ Just to set the record straight.
You have the mistaken notion that I think everyone should fall in line and agree with me. Bull. It’s the personal nature—abusive nature—of the disagreement.
And if you can’t see the difference, then that is YOUR problem, not mine.
I apologized. You obviously refuse to accept, and further, refuse to apologize for your personal, abusive remarks that involve the most insulting tactic of all—ridicule. No, I won’t apologize for anything else if this is going to be your attitude.
Of course it is.
Carry on. You're on your way to a banning if you can't play nice, and you're being batted around for fun precisely because you don't.
Can't say no one tried to tell you.
No one has been more abusive here than you have.
So, in other words, I am the one who has to ‘play nice’ but not the ones on this thread and a few others who have been abusive. That is so honorable of you.
If I am banned because I defend myself in response to attacks, then that will only demonstrate some things about this site that I am only coming to realize now, after over a year—the blatant unfairness.
Others can engage in personal attack, but I can’t respond in kind. Great. That’s just very honorable of you. Not to mention, good solid ‘family oriented conservative’ stuff.
If I get banned for that, then the claims here are lies.
That is a barefaced lie. I only responded in kind to what was dished out to me.
Take it up with management.
Talk about a bald-faced lie. Nothing abusive in my first posts here until you started with the ad-hominems. It's all there in black and white.
It is already in the pipeline. I have registered a complaint. And if the powers that be can’t see this for what it is, then they will have to ban me...and I will turn around and write about it nationally. Your choice.
You wrote management and await their decision about you; how is that my choice? That’s delusional.
THIS is what started it...YOU, not me:
Im surprised the author didnt say its just like another Ruby Ridge!!! LOL
9 posted on Saturday, May 29, 2010 5:21:12 PM by TigersEye (0basma’s father was a British subject. He can’t be a “natural-born” citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
The author didnt say that even in the article to which you refer. The person quoted in the article said it. That is called reporting. There is a difference.
10 posted on Saturday, May 29, 2010 6:57:23 PM by Welshman007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Good point. The grocery store doesnt make tin foil they just sell it. LOL
Tin foil hat ridicule? Accusing me of saying something about another ‘Ruby Ridge’ when it was a QUESTION based upon a QUOTE of someone in the article.
THAT is when the fun began. I did not start with the personal attacks.
I didn’t even know you were the author when I made my first post. I still don’t care.
The ‘your’ in that was generic, general, for whoever. It seems the general consensus here is that I should be banned.
And yes, I will await management’s decision. If they are so unfair, biased, and nitpicky as to require me to ‘play nice’ when none of you ‘play nice,’ then I want to know, up front, and publicly, if they think I should be banned.
I await their decision.
I’m betting they ignore you. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.