A Place to Stand

As good a reason as any to abolish the BBC, and all of the state broadcasting monopolies across the former British empire. This includes the de facto monopoly here in the States.
 

I know that you find proof a challenging concept but there is no evidence that this site has any connection with the BBC. Wanting it to be connected is not enough Neil.

Anyway, since when was making fun of reactionary retards a problem? I do it all the time as you know.
 

The fact that it is full of material removed from the net 7 only available to people with access to BBC records should be a bit of a giveaway to even the most retarded had you thought about it Norman.

In the years you have been doing this Norman I did once acknowledge you had made a partial hit. I'll let you know if you do it again.
 

In the years you have been doing this Norman...

years?
 

Speak You're Branes very own Nelson here.

When I read a few quotes from my site in your post I assumed you'd visited the site and then copied and pasted them.

Is this hopelessly naive of me? Should I assume that you work for my ISP? Or fabricate some other paranoid bullshit to explain how content from one part of the web can possibly have ended up in another???

I'm not going to risk leaving it there. I have the idea, from your hilariously obtuse misreading of Alex's joke the other day, that you're going to misunderstand me unless I spell it out, very clearly, as if to an idiot:

1) I don't work for the BBC and never have.
2) I just cut n paste the comments from the HYS site, like anyone else in the world could
3) I'm just some random bloke from Nottingham who thinks the HYS crap is funny.

Basically, Norman's right and you're badly wrong on every count (I'm guessing this has happened to you before?). There's no conspiracy. You're just a bit of a self-important twat, getting your knickers in a twist over something completely imaginary. All kinds of people from all kinds of different places are going to find that amusing.

Jah bless.

Nelson

ps. And nobody's censoring anything you post on SYB (overwhelmingly or not). Seriously, I wouldn't, I love it when you people turn up.
 

While I accept your claim not to have censored me as the very highest standard of honesty to which you aspire it is, of course, a lie. Anybody can see that my responses both shortly before & shortly after "Neil Craig's mother" challenged me to reply aren't there - the same applies to others.

You are putting up stuff after it has been deleted - obviously this means you have access to it after it has been deleted.
 

No Neil. It means one of the thousands submissions I get from the general public was emailed before it got taken down. It's not magic or a conspiracy. Besides which, EVERYONE has access to HYS content after it's been deleted, you muppet.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/

And no, I really haven't "censored" you, you self-absorbed ninny. I can't see a comment from "Neil Craig's Mother" either. Are you 100% sure you're looking at my blog and not somebody else's? :)

Hold it together lad.
 

on 12 Jul 2009 at 1:47 am Neil Craig's Mother
"Has anyone seen Neil around? Its way past his bedtime"

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/2009/07/10/science-fact/

And quite obviously my responses both before & after that have been censored.

Prat
 

Riiiight... um yeah. Obviously censored.

*backs away slowly*. Cya later Neil! Big hugs!
 

Not seeing is believing dickhead.
 

Oh Neil. You really are a self-important, pompous windbag. Tell us on here what you said that was removed on Nelson's blog.
 

From memory I believe in the first one I thanked History crow for his method of criticsing what I said by saying it was wrong but without saying why.

In the 2nd one I doubted if "Neil Craig's mother" (the answering post you said you couldn't find) wasn't really my late mother & that I had indeed responded but unaccountably it hadn't appeared :-)

We will see if these mysterious gremlins continue to inhabit your site!
 

Don't get (even more) confused, Neil. It's not my site. As you may see on the "Science Fact" comments, there are some technical "issues" happening on the SYB site.

As for people not spelling out why they disagree with you; I speak only for myself in saying that your remarks actually fall below the threshold of rationality, so it becomes difficult to respond.

An example of such an irrational remark, though it's not actually said by you, is "ronduck"'s comment about "de facto [media] monopoly" in the US; this is confusing (or actually batshit crazy) because there are a number of dominant media organisations in the US.
 

Nelson does not censor comments. The only time he did anything to comments was last year when he turned on a blah filter. Your comments must not have been posted, due to the expedient of you not clicking on the "submit comment" button. Never mind, lfie goes on etc...
 

Since the nearest to an example you can come up with wasn't from me you prove my point.

In fact Ronduck's is a perfectly reasonable point since the US media is largely owned by people who have more in common with each other than with ordinary people & all are regulated by the FCC. If you don't realise that political, media & finacial leaders tend to scratch each other's backs you know little about the world. It would certainly be difficult to claim that in the recent election the US MSM put Obama (let alone the Nazi Biden) under the same sort of scrutiny they did Palin.
 

Strangely enough the person who first mentione the Branes site to me, Sectariat, said of may apparent censorship "it sounds like they've given you the same treatment they gave me". You can see it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/07/newnights_politics_pen.html

This would be a quite remarkable happenstance if there was no censorship.
 

Neil, why would we censor you? We LOVE when you post on SYB, it's the highlight of our day. Another perfect little package of pompous stupidity, removed from reality's mundane requirement to make sense or offer evidence for your bizarre claims. Ready for us to pick apart and make sport of, watching you flounder in an environment your years of blogging have never prepared you for - where someone reads what you say and points out that it's all rubbish. Don't you realise we live for that?

And looking at what we apparently "censored" as you posted above, why on earth do you think we'd delete such banal arsedrivel and leave your full unexpurgated rants on the site?

And I still don't understand why you think censorship should happen to people who post on this blog, whose posts you must authorise and yet should not happen to people who post on SYB which you consider to be a pointless waste of internet space. Aren't you admitting that actually SYB is a more valulable forum for free speech?
 

No.
 

Care to explain why? I mean, I don't hold out any hope you'll start offering proof or rationale at this late stage, but I live in hope that you can explain why it's one rule for you and another for everyone else?
 

Your claim not to have accidentally censored me & Sectariat is clearly untrue. The rest is verbal diaherra.
 

Look, you don't have to lose face by admitting you're a hypocrite in front of all the UN commissioners and captains of industry who read your blog. Just give me a secret sign, like making a massive leap of logic devoid of supporting evidence or explanation in your next blog post. That way just you and me will know.
 

So you accept I have never said anything "devoid of supporting evidence or explantion" before (otherwise it could not be a sign, secret or otherwise).

Perhaps Branes could give a similar secret sign by producing a single thread which which does contain some logic, supporting evidence or even explanation.
 

Oh Neil, you spunky deliberand, you. I confess it was a ruse. I hoped to wait until your next blog post and then claim it was a secret sign known only to the two of us star-crossed lovers. Only a person so devoid of a sense of sarcasm as yourself, or maybe that kid in the third year who only knows how to answer insults with "I know you are but what am I?" could possibly have seen the giant gap in my logic. Truly A Mind For Our Times you are, Neil.
 

I eagerly await your next "deliberate ruse".
 

Well I was planning to vote for anyone but you, but 99.96% of the turnout beat me to it.
 

I don't think you were. I think this is another of your cunning "deliberate ruses." But at least you have been studying something worthwhile.
 

I don't think you were. I think this is another of your cunning "deliberate ruses." But at least you have been studying something worthwhile.
 

Neil's double post there just wordlessly communicates his general bafflement with logic, Occam's Razor and life in general. I am laughing so much I'm close to tears.
 

"I don't think you were. I think this is another of your cunning "deliberate ruses.""

I... er... what? Hang on, I'm going to have to parse these sentences piece by piece, bear with me.

"I don't think you were [planning to vote for anyone but you]."

Well, actually, on this one occasion I think I can say that I wasn't being sarcastic. I actually would vote for anyone but you, even if the other choices were a mop with tits and a dead man. Regardless of what the election was for, even. Yeah, I think I'm pretty confident in saying that I would actually vote for anyone other than you, just like 207,677 other people.

"I think this is another of your cunning "deliberate ruses.""

So explain the ruse to me? Is it that I really was going to vote for you but I'm just saying I wouldn't and then after the next election I'll come up to you and say "Ah, look! You actually got 81 votes because I did vote for you!" I mean, assuming none of the other 79 people have either died or moved away from Scotland or seen sense in the meantime. Just take the number 81 as read for now.

That would be a bit of a shit ruse, to be honest, because it would end up with me voting for someone who's borderline insane and I don't think that makes for a healthy democracy, especially when they back that insanity up with a propensity for censorship. It's kind of a Caligula/King George vibe, which would be a disaster, although it gives me a great idea for some slash fiction.

Perhaps the ruse is that 99.96% of the turnout didn't beat me to it, but actually it's on record that they did, so you could only think that was a ruse if you were disconnected from reality, which I know you are very much not Neil. To reiterate, I think you are firmly grounded in reality and have ideas that are very clever and I am being absolutely straight faced when I say this *WINK WINK*.

So as I say, I don't think I understand what my own ruse was. Certainly you must do Neil, because you wouldn't just bash out a post that just concludes something without thinking about it, so perhaps you can explain it to my inferior brain?

But I agree with you, Neil, I do think I have been studying something worthwhile. In fact I think understanding democracy is possibly the most important duty we have as citizens of this great nation. It's the only way that the will of the people can be represented to those who govern. Without democratic representation how would we ever know that 99.96% of the electorate thinks any set of policies are better than yours?
 

Did I mention verbal diaherra?

You don't live in Glasgow hence you couldn't vote here (call it a hunch).

"I think understanding democracy is possibly the most important duty we have as citizens of this great nation."

And has your study come up with some thought more original than that cliche? The citizens of this great country wait in eager anticipation.
 

I do so live in Glasgow! And I have the heroin tracks and inability to string three words together without throwing a fist to prove it! Yarrfuckingerroff and so on and so forth.

How many of the citizens of this great country wait in anticipation here on your blog, Neil? Could I count them on the fingers of both hands, or would that leave one hand cruelly redundant and sliding into substance dependency (that is a Glasgow in-joke for those that don't get it)?
 

A blog is an 'imaginary wide circle of friends' so you can tell yourself you are admired and wise and matter. This site is full of ridiculous paranoia. Neil Craig - you are clearly an internet loony and I claim my five pounds. Your grasp of reality is extremely distorted and you sit in your little blog, swapping comments with equally confused people and believe that your little consensus of odd-bods adds up to proof of something.

Tragic.
 

Hello Neil, this is Alex (of British moat fame). I just wanted to point out to you that you've made a rookie error with your censorship thing, namely that absence of comment is only fifty per cent of the proof you need.

Also I woke up today and there was no unicorn in my bathroom. I suspect that you stole it and I demand you return it immediately. Don't pretend otherwise neither.
 

You have a point - it could be that Kelvin has no sexual fantasies. Oops no he has already tried to post them. Wrong again then eh.

(what is it you are famous for?)
 

Again, you're half right. Kelvin has no sexual fantasies of his own. Seriously. He frequently relates them to me and Nelson in excruciating detail and they're pretty much all cribbed wholesale from Omar Khayyam. Seriously, it's embarrassing. And you'll know me from that joke about the BNP and Britain getting a moat that went miles over your head.

But more to the point BRING ME MY UNICORN BACK IMMEDIATELY!
 

Erm, I am a Speak You're Braner and if the BBC WERE Genocidal child rapists, I would have quite a lot to say about it. But they're not, you see - it's just another creation of your clear mental illness.

And our comments are IRONY, Neil, IRONY. Is there a special ingredient in Irn Bru that stops your brain understanding irony?

And we do NOT all work for the BBC. God, I wish I did and actually had some bloody money.

You are mad, sad and pathetic. Get some help - I mean that kindly.
 

This is interesting. And Neil Craig is a nutter.

I just received this link entirely out of the blue with no prior warning as to the content so I can't claim to know what Neil Craig actually *does* with his life, but it's clearly (or at least, hopefully) nothing involving anything requiring a semblance of rational thought or coherent speech.
 

In the years you have been doing this Norman I did once acknowledge you had made a partial
hit. I'll let you know if you do it again.

In all the years I've been making telling points against you, admittedly some of which you have lacked the wit to spot, you have indeed only acknowledged one, despite your being comprehensively out-argued on many occasions.

Here is another of your failures to give me my due credit. Your allegation that the SYB website is linked to the BBC has been well and truely fisked. So where's my apology? Surely this is not the height of honesty to which your blog aspires?
 

Moron you forgot to put in a link.

Who helps these people tie their shoelaces?
 

Fact is they are using material available to the BBC but not publicly.
 

Neil, you are trying to restate your original argument. Your original post said:

spEak You’re bRanes where a bunch of Hooray Henrys who work at the BBC (they have access to all their computer records of comments censored by from other BBC blogs)

I simply want you to acknowledge unequivocally that your assertion that the use of censored material from the BBC website proves that SYB is authored by BBC employees is incorrect.
 

Unless you can explain how BBC records were accessed (you have not attempted to do so) then they clearly are.

Perhaps you would care to acknowledge, unequivocally, that the LibDem party has participated in war crimes, racial genocide, child sexual slavery & organlegging, matter which are very much not contradicted by the evidence.
 

It has been clearly explained in posts above how these records were accessed without any need for authorised BBC intervention. The method would have occurred to any three year old child with a knowledge of Windows. You simply have no proof of your clear original assertion and I want you to acknowledge this.

I am happy to unequivocally confirm that you are a fantasist and that much of the material on your blog is a confection of nonsense built up from baseless arguments like those in your original post.
 

That's been done Neil. I think it was Nelson who put the link up, but here it is again:

http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/

Even you should have no trouble spotting that one.
 

You apparently mean
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored

which doesn't actually mention the stuff from Nick Robinson's blog which was deleted & then used by Branes - just for an example.

Or perhaps it has been mysteriously altered subsequently like the link Kelvin produced insisting it showed Tina Fey's words being spoken by Sarah Palin, & of course didn't.
 

Kelvin, there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Craig is indeed a lunatic but you lost the moral high ground (and stopped being funny) the minute you made the racist comments about Glaswegians being heroin addicted, unintelligible Irn Bru slurpers. That sort of attack was more pathetic than anything Mr. Craig has come up with so far. Please wipe the froth from your lips before rising to this nutter's bait in future.
 

You should see what he & others put up on his own site. Well maybe you shouldn't. Since you haven't already done so it seems I am being plagued by anonymice.
 

"You apparently mean
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored

which doesn't actually mention the stuff from Nick Robinson's blog which was deleted & then used by Branes - just for an example.

Because we all know that if something is deleted from one place on the internet, any emails or mirrors still flying around the aether will also be redacted immediately.

/sarcasm, because you, Neil, Have a very hard time spotting it.
 

Your have been offered clear proof to show that it is easy to accesss BBC material that has been removed from BBC websites, then, rather than accept the boring simple truth, you weave a complex loop-hole to allow your conspiracies to flourish. This is called 'deluding yourself'.

Seriously, get a grip. I am prepared to admit that you aren't stupid, but you are worryingly delusional and monomaniacal. You wrote the following post on Newsnight's forum (where anyone can read it!) It is quite simply NOT the product of a healthy mind...

It is simply a statement of fact that the BNP are thousands of times less supportive of fascism & nazism than all 3 Parliamentary parties & than every single BBC, ITN & popular press journalist. The BBC cannot dispute this but form experience they can censor the facts.


If you genuinely believe this outrageously impossible fantasy, then you are not well. You are luxuriating in your delusions, preferring to cling to them rather that confront them.

There are no great conspiracies. There is only your desire to create them. I reapeat my suggestion to seek counselling. The sooner the better.
 

Loop - So you no longer claim the site you said would clearly show your posts didn't come from private BBC records doesn't show your posts didn't come from private BBC records. How astonishing.

So this little Mous has been to the Branes site. I would be really interested in seeing you disprove that quote & even more interested in seeing you disprove the entire thing in its original context. No?
 

First off, my original claim (for there have been only two) was that you were incapable of creating a cogent argument.

The second post simply stated that if something is removed from one point of the internet, it is not removed from the Internet in its entirety. The thing about SYB is people, people who don't work for, at, or with any connection to the BBC (just to be clear), email mad shit to the SYB site.
If the source material is since expunged, the email still has a copy - it's not removed whilst said electronic message is in transit or being housed on a non-BBC mail server.

Also; disclaimer: I don't work for the BBC.
 

So you email Branes comments the BBC are deleting before they decide to delete them. What amazing predictive powers you have.
 

Personally I do nothing of the sort. But postulate this;
The funny comments? The ones with the powers to inflame the senses of the just and the righteous and those blessed with more than three braincells connected by two firing synapses?
Those are the ones most likely to be removed by the BBC, surely.
 

So they continuously guess right. Guessers that good could wipe out William Hills. I think my theory more statistically likely.
 

You don't want to know what *I* think.
 

Not really & certainly not on what you think the maths of statistics ought to be. Does anybody?
 

Neil

Fiona Bruce here. You've rumbled us. It was only a matter of time I suppose.

Well done. You must be the cleverest man of the Internet.
 

I'd give up trying to explain, Loop. The way Speak Your Branes and, indeed, the internet works has been explained to Neil several times, including by Nelson.

Either Neil does not wish to accept the boring truth and will continue to flap his caketrap in a 'Yeah, but what about...' rehash of his previous arguments.

Or he is so unbelievably obtuse that he simply Doesn't Get It On So Many Levels. I'd wager Neil was the same at school, wide-eyed and agog at his teachers' attempts to explain concepts even a five year old could understand. Especially Science and Maths.

Actually there is another possible explanation to Nelson obtaining deleted BBC - waggly-fingered, wizardy magic. What do you think of that, eh, Neil?

Love and kisses,

Rosie
 

Gosh Fiona. Do you think you could get me Susan Watts autograph.
 

As you say it has been explained to me several different times - with several different mutually incompatible explanations - and with supporting evidence that repeatedly doesn't.
 

See? Neil's reply? 'Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but.' It's all in your head, Neil. There is no grand conspiracy. It's all magic. Honest!

Never mind, Neil, my offer from last week is still on the table. I like my men obtuse, unhinged and with beard. Rowr! Lucky you, eh?

Rosie x
 

Neil, I'm not a technology whiz by any means, but I believe what people are trying to say is that the following is just one way in which deleted posts may find their way to SYB:

1. a racist/ sexist/ offensive/ insane/ just-plain-stupid comment is posted on (eg) HYS.
2. a SYB regular recognises said comment as the type of thing SYB thrives on
3. Said SYB regular copies and pastes said comment into an email to Nelson
4. BBC moderators subsequently delete said comment because it is racist/ sexist/ offensive/ insane/ just-plain-stupid
5. Too late! By then it's already wung its way to said Nelson, who selects the cream for SYB, thus making the comment magically reappear on the internet.

Now doesn't that seem simpler and frankly a LITTLE more likely than a fiendish BBC conspiracy covertly funded by the licence fee?

Two further points:

a. no 'amazing predictive powers' are required: contrary to what you say above, not all comments used have since been deleted by the BBC, just some of them, and these have presumably been deleted for precisely the same reasons they've been selected by SYBers.

b. I don't work for the BBC, but my friend's mum used to. Does that count?
 

Neil, I read your exchange with Secratariat and think both you and he are starting off from the premise that spEak You're bRanes is exclusively dedicated to censored comments. It's not. The vast majority of them are neither deleted nor intended as such. We just like making fun of idiotic comments.

Now there are ways in which content which is now deleted can find its way onto the blog: the newssniffer site, as mentioned before (which I personally have used a fair few times to get the really juicy material), sometimes we or our submitters find and copy comments which are later reactively moderated. But in the vast majority of cases, this simply didn't happen, and the comments were on both SYB and HYS. This was until the recent HYS server crash meant that a lot of comments we had used were lost from the BBC site while remaining on ours.

As a general rule, whether a comment is published or not isn't relevant to our site. We only care about it being idiotic and self-important. There is one exception to the rule, and that is comments that claim they will never get published. In this case, what we find absolutely, side-splittingly, trouser-ruiningly hilarious is that they actually were.
 

Another new incompatible explantion, a repitition of one which is already statistically impossible & Rosie.

Lucky me.
 

Neil, what I find most interesting is your continued insistence that we work for the BBC, and yet the simple act of complaining to the BBC about us would disprove this. The BBC would - because it is the case - categorically deny any link whatsoever between themselves and SYB. Given how utterly desperate you are for the BBC to categorically deny every other conspiracy theory that pings across your feeble synpases, I'd have thought you'd leap at the chance to finally get one, rather than feebly handwave away the notion as "not wanting to get us in trouble" as you did on SYB.

Unless... unless it's the case that you don't actually WANT that denial, Neil, because it would rob you of the chance to be the hurt and wronged party. Actually, you love being the heroic underdog that you think impotently raging on the internet makes you. And you think that maintaining that shell around your fragile psyche is important enough to justify any amount of hypocrisy; on the subject of censorship, scientific evidence, even what Sarah Palin said when presented with the video of her saying it. And then, joy of joys, when someone confronts you with your hypocrisy you can just label them up as a big bully and snuggle further into your comforting blanket of denial.

When you look at it like that, Neil, everything you preach suddenly gets much clearer. You can fervently believe in contradictory and plain unachievable policies, because the fact that no-one will vote for them gives you that joy of being The One Smart Guy Who's Right Among All The Dullards. The fact that the BBC have never bothered to deny things that you make up in your head and then accuse them of when they're not even aware of them makes you Smart To Their Conspiratorial Ways. Getting a tiny share of the vote is double good because it proves you're so smart that almost everyone is too dumb to understand your genius, AND you get to whip your favourite old dobbin, The Conspiratorial Media.

I've had you all wrong, Neil, and I apologise. I never realised that you actually WANT to fail because you think it's more - what, noble? Romantic? - than success. And I'm sorry I fed your delusion for so long. It's been tremendously entertaining for me but I realise now I've just been manipulating a sorry old man's coping mechanism. If you need to tilt at windmills to get yourself through the day, I think I have too much pity to be your Sancho Panza any more. I hope you get better soon.
 

Quote from 'anonymous':

"...and if the BBC WERE Genocidal child rapists, I would have quite a lot to say about it. But they're not, you see..."


Listen up, you ignorant, arrogant dumbass!

Since 1997, the BBC has - like most of the establishment Western media - enabled the genocidal Albanian KLA Nazi terrorists and Mafia gangsters to perpetrate these despicable crimes of child rape in Kosovo by deliberately keeping silent about it and censoring any attempt by concerned citizens to expose it.


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if the Western public had known about it, then there would have been immense public outrage and a demand for the Albanian criminals to be brought to justice.


Ergo, there is no question that the BBC - like the British Liberal Democrats, the Tories & New Labor -is just as guilty as the Albanian Mafia and KLA of the crime of child rape.

Got that? You arrogant, ignorant dumbass!


"He who overlooks one crime invites the commission of another."

Syrus
 

100% right CCfNJ.

Regretably Kelvin has made it clear that mere facts do not achieve entry to his cranium. His last post contains both the acknowledgement that the BBC don't acknowledge entirely accurate complaints & the assertion that they would.

I like the Americanism "dumbass" - it expresses contempt without the interfering pity that "moron" involves.
 

Incompatible with what, Neil? With something someone on the internet told you, or with something you imagined based on what someone on the internet told you? I think I'm starting to understand your way of thinking.

I tell you what Neil, most of our posts have a link to the original debate. Why not click on that and have a look at the original comments, sitting there, on the Have Your Say site, being not deleted. In fact, I've even done some for you so you don't have to click more than once per link.

Neo the Clown: Our comment, the original.
Tremble O Motorola: Our comment, the originals.
Deep Thought: Our comment, the original.
Not Your Typical BNP Voters: Our comment, originals from harry portsmouth and Average Joe, Paul and Englander.
Skim Reading: Our comment, originals from Dave, The Rev Oik, Alf and Pizzey.

Now, I bet you can't even be bothered with that, so maybe have a think about how most of the comments we tackle, though idiotic, still seem reasonable enough to get past the moderators.
 

So CC is a sock puppet then? Bravo. Oh, but with an Americanism thrown in to displace our super-sleuthing BBC waggly-finger wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey liberal established fascist etc etc where was I?
 

By the way, concerning child rape: that is a crime that tragically takes place in every country, along with murder, theft, and others. Britain is such a country. Got any brilliant conclusions to draw about that, Einstein?
 

Tell you what alex when you have trailed through (A) gone through a dozen of my posts (B) checked out everything I said on all the links & (C) provided I will do the same for you.

Loopy I have no idea where you were but I'm sure you will let us know when you find out.
 

Neil, do you understand how statistics works at all?

I am not personally acquainted with any of the guys from SyB, but as I understand it, they receive loads of emails from people who have copied-and-pasted entries from HYS.

The most interesting ones, the ones that make us incredulous about the mind-boggling, rabidly frothing stupidity of the people who post them, are the ones that make it onto SyB. These are also more likely to be censored. This is creating an artificial parsing of the data, meaning you are seeing a pattern where there isn't one.

Oh, and I once had someone from the BBC come round my house and threaten me because they had made a mistake with their license fee admin. So I'm probably as dangerous a subversive as you.
 

Tell you what alex when you have trailed through (A) gone through a dozen of my posts (B)checked out everything I said on all the links & (C) provided I will do the same for you

I'm having trouble finding any meaning in this. It certainly does not answer any of the points made to you. Care to try again? You need to demonstrate that the material you have quoted could only have been obtained by access to sealed BBC records only available to employees.

You've failed miserably so far.

It's that or an apology Neil! If you've any honesty of course.
 

Your failure to understand is for you not me to deal with. Your failure of logic is obvious - I have demonstrated the high probability of my case & nobody else has produced counter evidence.

As regards honesty you disgusting, lying, genocidal Nazi you have long owed me apologies for your many proven lies. Perhaps shoould preface any discussion by demanding that anybody expressing doubt of what i said should first confirm that they denouce Norman Fraser of 8 Striven Gardens, Glasgow as a wholly corrupt lying Nazi & the leadership of the LibDims also. New not worth it.
 

Well Neil, I haven't read all the links (it takes a while to get through all those HL Mencken quotes. My he had some interesting opinions on black people), but I reckon I've read about a dozen of your posts. Definitely the full first page and a couple more. Your turn.

If it's just a matter of time, then why not click on Tremble O Motorola and Neo the Clown, as the links in those go directly to the comment we used, and of course on our site you can just scroll down until you hit grey.

If, as I suspect, it's because you're terrified of seeing comments, as used on SYB, sitting there undeleted on the BBC see website, and therefore being proven wrong, then at least be a man and admit it, if not to me then to yourself.

Also Neil, publishing someone's home address online is a shitty, shitty thing to do and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself you angry, petty, irresponsible little man.
 

Still short of B & C then.

I note what you say about Norman. It may interst you to know that he did the same regarding my shop on a newspaper comment a while ago.

Come to that the "shitty shitty petty irresponsible" people on Branes made considerable play of publicly identifying me. I must have missed the bit where you denounced them all as shitty, shitty & irresponsible since you certainly said that if you are in some way not a lying corrupt hypocrit. Perhaps you could point out where?
 

As regards honesty you disgusting, lying, genocidal Nazi you have long owed me apologies for your many proven lies.

As I said already Neil, you are a fantasist. Another example of your fantasies is:

I have demonstrated the high probability of my case & nobody else has produced counter evidence.

On the contrary, you have let this thread run far enough to demonstrate your inability to construct a counter-argument. Denial, bluster and insult (with a little mixture of cowardice) is not really an adequate substitute.
 

Yeah, but...yeah, but...yeah, but...please Sir! Norman did it to me first!

Keep flapping that caketrap, Neil!
 

A wee bit more regarding cowardice Neil, because I think you will censor this for 'obscenity' when you really mean 'effectiveness'.

You really should explain to the nice people how on a Glasgow Herald comment trail you advocated spitting on councillors whose views one disagrees with. By way of a response to this, I merely gave the general public your shop address and pointed out your repeated support for Nick Griffin and the BNP. At which point you suddenly reneged on your own principles.

I thus demand that you print your own address too. Cowardice and dishonesty will, of course, prevent you.
 

Neil, we pointed readers to information that you yourself had volunteered on your own myriad of websites.

It's what we do. We find stuff people have put up on the internet of their own free will and mock them for it. It's not the same as giving out confidential information, and there's certainly no way knowing your party's dismal election results could ever result in personal physical harassment or damage to property.

As for B and C, well, I've looked through a lot of links, and I have no idea what you meant by "deliver", but you could maybe try just clicking one. Say this post and this source. I promise it'll take two clicks and less than a minute's time. That is, unless you're chicken.
 

I was just telling people on my blog to leave you alone Neil, and thinking you weren't as daft as you first appeared. Then I turned up here and saw this. Really Neil, when you've been so comprehensively caught out, it makes sense to ADMIT it. It ADDS to your credibility, rather than detracts from it. Scientists understand this. You obviously don't. Anyone reading this page is going to get the impression that you're stubborn beyond sense.

So, here's my last ditch attempt. God knows why I'm bothering. I'm afraid it's questions again.

1) Do you accept that it's possible to use copy and paste to make a copy of something you find on the web?
2) Do you accept that if the original is deleted, the copies still exist?
3) Do you understand or at least accept that the News Sniffer site automatically parses the BBC's RSS feeds and so is able to log, and display, the comments they delete? And that therefore ANYONE could do what you claim only a BBC employee could do?

If you don't accept all these three fairly simple and obvious points, you best explain why.

If you accept these three, your argument is fundamentally flawed as the appearance of deleted comments would NOT prove that the blog author worked at the BBC. And don't even get me started on the fact that hardly any of the comments we use ARE deleted. Plenty of examples of that above too, e.g. see Alex's links.

I'm about 99% confident that you're STILL going to insist you're right and that I work for the BBC. It's piss funny from where I'm standing, having just got home from my job that conspicuously didn't involve working at the BBC. Also, and you should probably care more about this, it's making you look stupid.

Actually, one final question, is there ANY way I could prove I don't work for the BBC? Or is this an article of faith for you, rather than a matter of reason? :)
 

I'd like to suggest a truce here. Mostly, this is because your side of the "discussion", Neil, is looking more and more unstable as time goes by.

Assuming that these comments aren't removed at some point in the future anyone with the slightest level of understanding will be able to see that the explanations for how the SYB site gets its quotes stands up to any scrutiny you'd like to throw at it. I, for one, don't particularly wish to give you any more of my attention since you consistently prove yourself to be unworthy of it.
 

What?! They told people where your shop is?! How bloody DARE they!! People might arrive and *gasp* try to purchase items!!
 

As Norman makes abundantly clear his intent was not to get me customers but to get me assaulted by somebody believing his lie about me being a BNP supporter.

As he knows I could have truthfully retaliated by pointing out a much less socially acceptable predeliction of his which he boasted of at a public LibDem meeting.

I think that makes it clear that far from trying to match him I have been extremely forebearing.

Nelson if you check earlier I have already been on the Sniffer site & some of what was claimed wasn't there.
 

I notice you studiously ignored all the other questions. You should link to this thread on your homepage, just in case anyone visiting your blog was wondering whether to believe a word you say.
 

I'm going to keep hammering away. I realise that, merely by bothering with you, I'm leaking dignity like a newsreader on Comic Relief, but damn, this is funny.

I'll ask again, and watch you do your mental gymnastics as you expertly miss the point.

1) Do you accept that it's possible to use copy and paste to make a copy of something you find on the web?

2) Do you accept that if the original is deleted, the copies still exist?

3) Do you understand or at least accept that the News Sniffer site automatically parses the BBC's RSS feeds and so is able to log, and display, the comments they delete? And that therefore ANYONE could do what you claim only a BBC employee could do? (Neil I *don't* get comments from News Sniffer, I'm simply pointing out that there's no need)

4) Is there ANY way I could prove I don't work for the BBC? Or is this an article of faith for you, rather than a matter of reason?

I don't work for the BBC, Neil. I have never worked for the BBC. Neil, I don't work for the BBC. Do you still think I do Neil? Because I don't. I don't work for the BBC Neil.

It's not a massive deal really, you could just say "Ah, ok, I thought you did. Oops" and you'd instantly look 50% less mental! Or you could continue to make a prat of yourself in front of more readers than your blog has ever seen before :)

Here's another one to try. Subscribe to your own blog feed in Bloglines (www.bloglines.com). Now, delete a post on your blog, and go visit bloglines again. It's still there in the bloglines database isn't it? Someone at bloglines.com must work for you!

Funnily enough, bloglines IS how I get most of my "Regular Twats" content and is exactly how I found the recent post from "Dave Blake". I have literally no idea whether it's still on the BBC site or not. All I know is that it appeared in my feed on Bloglines.

Look, here's the public feed at the BBC, anyone can subscribe to it:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/rss/rssuser.jspa?userID=2276116&lang=en_GB
And here's a screenshot of (some of) my HYS blogline subscriptions:
http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/images/ScreenShot165.jpg
And here's the screenshot of Dave's post, together with another one I have saved (Again, I have no idea if it's still on the BBC site)
http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/images/ScreenShot166.jpg

I guess I must work for the BBC eh? Either that or I understand how the internet works (perhaps my actual job is something like "programmer and linux sysadmin for a company that builds web applications"? Too far-fetched?)

Maybe it'd help if you imagine how this thread is going to look next time you're trying to persuade people to vote for you (and if you delete it, I'll still have the copy I made of it, do you see how that works yet?).
 

Oh man. This is quality entertainment!

Dear Norman, you have my sympathy. It seems that you are one of the focal points for Neil's fantasies. I don't pretend to understand much of it (his sentence constructions can be a little hard to follow) but it seems that EVEYONE, including you, is a genocidal Nazi, except for the BNP obviously. We only have to interact with him online, whereas it seems he is a genuine presence in your life. It must be deeply tiring. Come on down to Speak Your Branes, get yourself a pseudonym and have an expletive-laden vent of his follies. It'll do you good.
 

I note Nelson you have not apologised for claiming on Branes I censored you. Presumably not being a total hypocrit you will quickly rectify that error.

1 & 2 are obvious but only work if it is copied before it is removed, which should also be obvious particuarly since I have already explained that. Despite claims Sniffer has all this stuff it hasn't - also previously explained. 4 would require some reason to believe in your honesty. I refer you to the first sentence here.
 

I note, Neil, that you only published Nelson's posts after he mentioned them on SYB. Therefore..actually, no. I can not be bothered to labour the point further. You won't get it anyway, will you Neil? I'm bored with your implacable paranoid delusions and cyclical arguments. So, I'm going to go back to my usual programming:

I've gone right off you, Neil. You are far too obtuse, unhinged and beardy, even for me. I think I'll turn my attention towards Norman Fraser and pursue him instead. He's easy to find after all. An unscrupulous bastard did publish his home address on their blog, didn't they, Neil?
 

It would have been even more foolish than native talent suggests for Nelson to have said he had been censored sfter I had got round to publishing him. Nonethless what he is now doing is maintaining it which isn't much brighter.

Norman's address has been available online from the LibDem's in the past & probably still is. So the commentor who said it was OK for Branes to use personal details to attack me but quite wrong of me to out Norman will, being somewhat honest, be making an unqualified apology.

And shortly after we will have cooling in Hell.
 

My goodness, Neil. What a well thought out and compelling argument! It's official - you have won the internet. Just drop in at Speak Your Branes HQ and Nelson will give you the key.

I still love Norman though. I've always had a soft spot for the underdog.
 

I doubt that is a term he would accept.
 

"So the commentor who said it was OK for Branes to use personal details to attack me but quite wrong of me to out Norman will, being somewhat honest, be making an unqualified apology."

Neil, I must have missed the bit where your home address was published by SYB/Norman. Could you refer me to the relevant post please?

Because, you see, I quite agree with the implication in your outraged comment above - revealing the personal home address of innocents (such as, oh I don't know, Norman's family) to the fruitcakes who stalk the internet is absolutely and utterly unforgiveable.
 

"1 & 2 are obvious but only work if it is copied before it is removed"

Finally! Well done, Neil. You've come a long way since your strange claim that:

"The fact that it is full of material removed from the net 7 only available to people with access to BBC records should be a bit of a giveaway to even the most retarded"

So, now that you've accepted that the comments on my blog don't reveal anything about who employs me, could you enlighten us as to WHY you still think I work for the BBC?

You'd think I'd give up on this, wouldn't you? Except I know that, no matter how hard you strain at the fabric of reality, you're never going to come up with anything that even *suggests* I might work at the BBC. Because I don't and never have.

It's still not too late, Neil. Just say the words that are sticking in your throat.. "I was wrong". You'd be a bigger man for it, and you'll feel better. I promise.

ps. The suggestion that you censored me was, as anybody less obtuse would see, a sarcastic dig at *your* obsession with censorship.
 

Not only was my workplace effectively identified but various Branes, probably humourously, threatened various sorts of violence against me. That you attack me & have not a word to say against that shows what a hypocritical lying little shit you are. No offence.
 

How dare you? That is absolutely uncalled for, Neil, and frankly I resent it.

I am NOT little.
 

Look go back over what has been said here already. To have copied up these posts before they were delted in the expectation they would be clearly indicates a degree of foresite which could more profitably be used bankrupting William Hill's.

You have, of course, chosen the most sarcastic of your comments alleging I cnesored you. You still haven't apologised, which. if your "advice" here was honest you would have wished to do unprompted.
 

Neil, we don't post comments "in the expectation" they'll be deleted. We collect ones we find FUNNY. Not DELETED ones. Did you read the "About" and "Contact" pages? Asking people to submit comments? Yeah? Have you noticed that lots of the SYB posts start off with "Thanks to X", the person who emailed it to us?

As Alex points out above, most of the comments we post AREN'T deleted. He gave you links to lots of them, showing them appearing on SYB and ALSO on the BBC. Perhaps you've avoided clicking on them, for fear you'll be proved wrong again, but rest assured that anyone else reading this thread WILL click on them. They will be shaking their head in bemusement as they read your increasingly desperate attempts to justify what was, after all, just a stupid mistake you made a few days ago. A mistake that you could put behind you simply by saying "Fair enough, I was wrong about that".

So, you've agreed I wouldn't have to work at the BBC to get deleted comments. There's incontrovertible evidence above that, on the whole, SYB doesn't even use deleted comments. There's reams of evidence on SYB itself that we get most of the comments from email submission by the general public. Basically, everything you've said so far has been shown to be wrong.

So, at the risk becoming as boring as you, can you explain why you still think I work at the BBC? I only ask because I don't actually work at the BBC. Never have.
 

Incidentally, I never thought to ask, where DID you get the idea that SYB collects deleted comments?

It seems your whole argument (I'm being charitable) now hinges on this idea, which is a shame because

a) It's wrong

and

b) It's EXACTLY what NewsSniffer does using public RSS feeds and a simple script.
 

Neil Craig said "... To have copied up these posts before they were delted in the expectation they would be clearly indicates a degree of foresite which could ... "

I say: Is that English. Would be clearly what ?
 

For the love of God.

They are NOT copied with the foresight that they will be deleted.
They are copied because they are hilarious in their various flaws, be they phobic, racist, or just plain mental.

If the BBC choose to delete them, then so be it. They still exist elsewhere.

... haven't I said all this before?
 

Neil, let's look at this simply.

1) lots of people visit SYB. I realise that the idea of a lot of people visiting a blog must be alien to you, but you can surely accept it's possible?

2) when someone posts something hilariously racist on HYS, one of these SYBers uses copy and paste to send it to Nelson.

3) Nelson posts it if it hilariously racist enough; at the same time, someone on the BBC deletes it if it is hilariously racist enough.

However: not all comments used by SYB are deleted (see posts passim - that means "various posts beforehand", Neil, but it's a big word so I won't hold your confusion against you); not all deleted comments are used; and (most importantly) at no point in this process does Nelson have to use his job at the BBC to find anything out - I mean, whoops!

(Neil, by the way, that was a joke. I pretended to accidentally let slip that Nelson works at the BBC for humourous effect. Please don't go around going "LOOK! PROOF!", because it isn't. You may be obtuse, but even you can see I wasn't being serious? Even you?)

Did you understand that, Mr Craig, you thick shit? No offence.
 

"...shows what a hypocritical lying little shit you are. No offence."

No offence? what a gem!

"To have copied up these posts before they were del[e]ted in the expectation they would be clearly indicates a degree of foresite which could more profitably be used bankrupting William Hill's."

To persistently ignore that many SYB posts have not been deleted (never mind the rest which mock posters from the Guardian, Daily Mail, Telegraph, etc) demonstrates obtuseness or pure dishonesty of such an arrogant level as to make the most rabid flat-earther appear truthful and sane.

All to avoid admitting having a foolish assumption based on your conspiracy theory wrt the msm.

You sir, come across as a self-obsessed twit of well below average intelligence.
 

SYB on tour!!! awsome. As a fellow Scot I understand a certain level of paranoid fantasy is built into our very being so I'll have to give you some slack for being genetically susceptible to mentalness. That said as a New Zealand resident I'm on the verge of getting my postal ballot rights back so I can be more active in not voting for you. Keep up the crazy, this is the best entertainment outside of SYB on the internets...
 

Dr Delkin & Loopy meet Nelson who says I am wrong because Branes doesn't have deleted comments Nelson meet Dr Delkin & Loop who say I am wrong because they do. Let me know when you work it out.

Swift I never claimed that all Branes posts were deleted BBBC ones. One is enough.

Jamie speak for yourself about being genetically paranoid. Perhaps we will now have somebody on Branes claiming to be a black PHD & that they are all genetically programmed to eat watermellons.
 

My apologies to all; I was labouring under the impression we were 'discussing' the blog posts that revolved around 'deleted comments', and thus omitted the mounds of posts where the source was left intact.

How foolish of me.

Furthermore I should also now like to reiterate that the Earth is round, Evolution is fact despite that pesky scientific 'theory' term, Soylent green is people, copyright infringement isn't theft, I *would* download a car blah blah blah...

... and nobody picked up that for the past few posts I'd been setting my homepage as the BBC site. I'm dismayed.
 

I thought you were a bit mental when you said all these bits:-

"The fact that it is full of material removed from the net 7 only available to people with access to BBC records should be a bit of a giveaway

So you email Branes comments the BBC are deleting before they decide to delete them. What amazing predictive powers you have.

So they continuously guess right. Guessers that good could wipe out William Hills. I think my theory more statistically likely.

Unless you can explain how BBC records were accessed (you have not attempted to do so) then they clearly are.

I guess it was just an honest mistake that you made. Repeatedly. While everyone was pointing it out to you. Never mind. At least you put it right eventually (or got as close as you ever do, and pretended not to have ever got it wrong):-

I never claimed that all Branes posts were deleted BBBC ones. One is enough.

Well done Neil. You're getting close to the truth now. So, do you think maybe the odd one was copied and pasted before it was removed?

Actually, I seem to remember you saying that method was:

obvious but [would] only work if it is copied before it is removed

Ah yes! You do! Excellent.

So remind me. Now that you've conceded that

a) SYB is NOT full of deleted BBC content but possibly contains the odd one (have you actually found one by the way? I'm not aware of any)
b) It's perfectly possible for the occasional deleted post to turn up and
c) SYB can therefore be run by anyone with a net connection

There's only one mistake left. So tell me, do you still think I work for the BBC? Or are you about to pretend you never claimed I did? It'd be MUCH more dignified if you just admitted the mistake :) Come on Neil, you're so close now.
 

I never claimed full of, nobody else ever claimed occasional so no not unless they have precognative powers.
 

As he [Norman] knows I could have truthfully retaliated by pointing out a much less socially acceptable predeliction of his which he boasted of at a public LibDem meeting...I think that makes it clear that far from trying to match him I have been extremely forebearing.

Ho! Ho! Neil, this is a smear! You attempt to blacken my name by insinuating you know something about me which your delicacy forebears you to disclose. In fact you are again fantasising.

Feel free to tell your readers what my 'predeliction' is. I'd be interested to know what it is myself. I can then demonstrate yet again how much truth is in what you say. And don't dare censor this comment if you claim an ounce of honesty.
 

Since you insist Norman. While I was still a member you, while chairing the LibDem Constituency selection meeting for Maryhill constituency, supported the sexual enslavement of children saying if the KLA/NATO POLICE/Albanian Mafia were to set up such a aervice locally you would be round at their door to pay for a bit of child rape. Amy Rodger, despite being one of the potential candidates on "trial" there publicly rebuked you.

Since I considered & consider it a Freudian admission, rather than real activity, I have not used it publicly & censored it from my online reprinting of documentation to the party about my expulsion.
 

Have you decided to shout abuse at Norman instead of publish my most recent comment? The one I submitted a few hours ago? There wasn't much in it. Just you contradicting yourself.

Remember how you decided I work for the BBC because you thought I ran a site full of deleted BBC content? No? Here's a quick reminder:-

"The fact that it is full of [content deleted from the BBC] should be a bit of a giveaway to even the most retarded"

And then you admitted that it was possible for the odd deleted comment to appear, but that it was improbable that I could pick ALL of them? And then everyone explained it to you for days and days and days that we don't purposely use ANY deleted content, but that it was possible that the BBC delete them after we'd posted them? And you made a tit of yourself by still insisting you were right? Then, eventually, your fantasy began to buckle under the weight of reality? And you pretended you'd known it all along? Look, here you go:

"I never claimed full of [content deleted from the BBC]"

So let's try again. I don't work for the BBC. I never have. Tell me Neil, do YOU still think I work for the BBC? Or are you finally prepared to admit that you were wrong?
 

My my, Neil and Norman, this is a fascinating back-and-forth you've got. I'm literally shitting out my own eyes in anticipation of the next instalment.

"have you actually found one by the way? I'm not aware of any"
I think I published a couple of deleted ones once that I got off Newssniffer. It was how I found [mugged_as_mp_laughs]. And then I've got one (which you never published) in the way Neil's so incredulous of. I found one of our twats pretending to be John Adair (giving some hilarious location like 'Blah Your Branes'). It was like the most recent comment, and I copied it, pasted it into a post and then when I looked back it had gone. So that's one in a thousand posts MINIMUM, giving us a rate of at least 0.1%. How do you respond to THAT Neil Craig?

(Disclaimer: Some of the above post, including but not limited to the last three sentences, may contain sarcasm)
 

Clearly i exagerated about saying "full" of deleted BBC stuff. I look forward to Branes anguished out rage at Alex' "literally shitting out my own eyes" which, call it a hunch, I suspect is not literally true or indeed to your outraged attack on yourself for saying I "shouted abuse" at Norman. This site works by writing not voice & what I did was to very calmly give a factual answer purely because he had demanded it.
 

you...supported the sexual enslavement of children saying if the KLA/NATO POLICE/Albanian Mafia were to set up such a service locally you would be round at their door to pay for a bit of child rape.

Utterly laughable Neil. Your memory is as accurate as your understanding*. I made no such statement to the meeting in question. About twenty people attended that meeting, some of whom I do not know personally, and I am certain that none of them would corroborate your account.

* As I do understand how to cut and paste documents into Word, I have kept a record of this thread for future use. Ensure this comment appears please.
 

So you finally understand that I don't work at the BBC? And that your own prejudices led you to make a mistake? Good work, lad. I feel honoured to have helped you realise, for the first time, that you were wrong.

Has this made you wonder how much other stuff you've got badly wrong?

You could probably be less wrong about stuff if you listen to other people, look at evidence etc, instead of assuming you're already right and just weaving everything else into your fantasy.
 

My memory is that it was slightly above 20. You do not dispute that this was mentioned in my defence to the LibDems & that neither you nor they disputed it at the time.
 

Neil, satisfy my curiosity, if you'd be so kind, by answering the following question. I'm dying (not literally) to know.

A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice, and I would be grateful if you would avoid dissemination, as it truly is not a trick question. In fact, I challenge you, Neil, to put aside your politicians' training and give a one word answer.

Do you still believe Nelson works for the BBC?
 

Do you believe he works for McDonalds? On what do you base that belief?

It is not a matter of belief it is a matter of fact & so far he has produced no evidence.
 

Oh for the...

I work for the BBC.
I also work for NASA, the WHO, the CDC and the Pentagon.

Since I offer no evidence to the contrary, it must be true.

Right?
 

I'm interested to hear you used to be a member of The Liberal Democrats. You seem to have altered your political position from their party line since then, which is putting it mildly I'm sure you'd agree. I am frankly amazed. At some point in your life you felt compelled to actively promote Lib Dem policies but now prefer to be, well, let's just say, considerably further over to the right.

I'd understand if you had joined, then left, UKIP to be The 9%G, or even The Tories, but you were a Lib-Dem?

May I ask what issue/event drove you to such a deep and radical change in your political beliefs?
 

Well Loop either that or you lie pretty constantly.

Mous you wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Well all right. I was expelled, officailly for being a traditional liberal but actually, according to Norman who was the front man for it, for opposition to Nazism, racial genocide & child rape which all party members now officially support.

Check my index or search "purged by the liberal democrats" & subsequent posts if you don't.
 

Neil.

Sarcasm.
 

Nazism, racial genocide & child rape which all party members [of the Lib Dems] now officially support. - NC

You see, it's at this point that I feel i must be missing some huge chunk of data. All members of the Lib Dems officially support nazism, racial genocide & child rape?

I'm not taking the piss Neil, I'm just trying to understand your position. You believe The Tories, The Lib Dems, and Labour all actively support nazism, racial genocide & child rape in Kosovo, and the entire media is refusing to broadcast this, even though they are aware of it.

Is that the jist of your position?
 

"Do you believe he works for McDonalds? On what do you base that belief?"

No, I don't believe he works for McDonald's. I think, given the vast number of employers in this country, that it's possible he works for McDonald's but statistically unlikely.

Can you say the same about him working for the BBC?

p.s. Loop, can you get me Daltrey's autograph?
 

By definition Mous, if my expulsion was for that then anybody who has not been expelled supports those, if only by their silence.

This is, as I said, the inevitable consequence of the party officially deciding this. I will gtrant that, unofficially a lot of members have managed to avoid thinking about their support of genocide & that probably some officials within the party would not be keen on enforcing it.

That the media refuse to report such things as the Dragodan massacre (at least 210 unarmed civilians murdered by our police outside the British military HQ) & the kidnap & dissection while alive of at least 300 of 1,300 "missing & killed" Serbs (both officially acknowledged) must be evident. By any objective standards such things are orders of magnitude more newsworthy than anything Israel did in Gaza but - do you accept they have not received 1/1000th as much coverage?
 

Was that sarcasm Loop because nobody remotely human could mean it while it would be possible, just, for the most corrupt & disgusting piece of human ordure to think it funny?

No sarcasm.
 

And Milosevic, where does he fit into all of this? Do you agree with the mainstream opinion that he was a ethnic cleansing war criminal? Or do you take a different view? Is he a mass-murderer or a patsy for you?
 

I agree with David Owen, on oath at the Milosevic "trial", that Milosevic was opposed to any sort of racism. Bet you don't remember seeing the BBC report that statement do you?
 

"Bet you don't remember seeing the BBC report that statement do you?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3236649.stm
 

So you think the Serbs are innocent victims in the Blalkans war?

What is your stance on Srebrenica?

You say British Police murdered 210 unarmed civilians. Where and when was that?
 

Precisely Mous - the vdry least mention they could give it buried near the end of a long & slanted is understating it article. And online where the BBC are always more careful because (A) it is on permanent (fairly) record & (B) it gets seenn by fewer people than TV news.

And you didn't answer the question whether you had seen that on the BBC at the time - which does answer the question.

Frizzy the only proven massacre at Srebrnica was of 3,800 Serb civilians. The Moslem leader Nasir Oric showed video tapes of him beheading women & children to the press. Again not something you will have seen reported in the press or TV I suspect.

You can see more on my blog should you be interested - search the index or put Srebrinica in the search facility.
 

My favourite thing about this blog is the fact that until you mentioned SyB, you had fuck-all traffic. Drop a few insults about a thriving website, suddenly your hits and comments skyrocket.

If I didn't know better, I'd think this was a calculated move to increase your online profile...

I await your denial.
 

"The only proven massacre at Srebrnica was of 3,800 Serb civilians." - Neil Craig.

Not a lot I can say to that really, is there? It's like people who deny the holocaust, there's no reasonable argument that can be used on them. They simply refuse. Saying, "I've seen the gas chambers, the hair, the shoes, the photos etc makes no difference to them. The testimony of Jews who survived makes no difference to them. The obvious fact that 5,000,000+ Jews were alive before the war and missing after makes no difference. Even The German's saying, "Yes, We did it, we gassed millions of Jews." makes no difference. They won't accept it. Some people prefer to believe emotionally-comfortable yet irrational lies over the difficult truth, no matter how extraodinarily impossible those lies are. You are a such a person. I'm sure 100s of people have tried to tear the scales from your eyes. So I'm not going to bother,

(simply for my own conscience and to distance myself from your claim I will say you are wrong. The Srebrenica massacre was carried out by Serb soldiers, both regular and irregular, under the command of Mladic and inflicted on approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslims. Those are the simple, hard facts. You may deny them, but that doesn't stop them being undeniable. Your denial is at odds with reality and extremely offensive, which is why you appear to have been shunned socially and why normal people like SYB are mocking you.)

Are you of Serbian extraction? Why do you care so much that Serb atrocities must be completely denied, even to the point of damaging your reputation and political career?
 

"You may deny them, but that doesn't stop them being undeniable"

Now thats what I inteligent. The details are on here & it there is certainly not a lot you can say if you have not even attempted to check them.

I intend to stand up for the truth & oppose genocide & the lies used to promote them & do not wish to be part of a political party that prevents people doing that. Craig is not a Serbian name. I suspect that if you were told if you believe in the Jewish Holocaust you must be Jewish you would not approve. You would be right since it would be a racist remark by an apparent Nazi. You probably don't know, because the BBC deliberately lied about it for 30 years, that the Bosnian Moslem leader like the Croatian leader, was a WW2 Nazi.
 

Don't snip Neil. It is unattractive. You have a habit of confronting straight questions with a little nit-pick answers and then pretend you have answered comprehensively.

"You may deny them, but that doesn't stop them being undeniable"

That is a perfectly logical statement. You may deny that Manchester United's home ground is Old Trafford. You can say, "It is NOT Old Trafford. It is Celtic Park." and refuse any further persuasion. But it is still undeniable that MUFC play at Old Trafford. The point I'm trying to make is that your denial is simply unsupportable. Because the facts are undeniable.

As well you knew. So kindly raise your game and stop stooping to childish petty answers.
 

No. What you call the facts are not deniable but they have been comprehensibly disproven by many people including on here. What does seem difficult to deny is that you are actively not interested in the facts & have not looked at them

So lets see what you know about this undeniable case.

Do you dispite that Izetbegovic (the Moslem President) whom you are supportingm was a Nazi?

Do you dispute the real genocide of 3,800 Serbs?

If not where are the bodies?

Do you dispute that since then DNA evaluation has improved to the extent it can differentiate between ethnicities with a fair degree of certainty?

Can you explain why the NATO funded "court" refuses to check?

Do you dispute Oric showed reporters that video?

Do you dispute that the US told Izetbrgovic, just before the "massacre" that they needed such a story soon to justify bombing?

Do you dispute that over 7,000 of the troops from Srebrenica survived?

Do you even know any of this?

If not do you dispute that you have personally been brainwashed by our media, to support Nazism & genocide?
 

Neil, I am frankly not interested in the details on your website. I thought I'd give you a chance and put 'Dragodan Massacre' in google and got many hits from around the internet. All of them turned out to be you on different forums. Nobody else. There is not ONE immediately available source to support your claim that 210 civilians were murdered by British policemen. Not even Wikipedia. Why haven't you written a Wiki article about it?

I am sure your website has masses of 'evidence' to prove your Pro-Serb revisionism, the point is, so do holocaust deniers websites and Moon Hoax theorists websites and creationist websites. But you have the gall to dismiss their folly thus...

"A rule of thumb is that conspiracies cannot get too big without everybody knowing..." -Neil Craig re Moon Hoax conspiracies.

Put yourself in my shoes, if you can. You brush away the moon hoax with the very sensible claim that it is simply too big to be a conspiracy. Why should I not turn your own words against you? Why should I not say it is impossible that The Media, The Hague, International Politics, The Independant Charities, The UN, The entire Western F____ing World are in a conspiracy to hide the truth in The Balkans. Because surely that would be impossible. You said so yourself! That is why I don't need to read your website to know that you are wrong.

Jeez *slaps forehead* I've just realised... you said that the Moon hoax is impossible because the Russians would blow it out of the water. If the yanks hadn't been to the moon, russian spies would have found out and told the world. Well why aren't the Russians telling everyone the truth now? Serbia is their little ally. The Russians are utterly furious about Kosovan independance. Why haven't the Russians told the world the truth this time?
 

Putting myself in your shoes does not mean agreeing that you are right to refuse to look at the evidence. For example what I have said about Dragodan comes from the British Foreign Office via an FoI enquiry detailed here which you refuse to look at.

As regards what I said over the size of hoaxes meaning they come out - this one is widely known around those parts of the world not under NATO & indeed by many people willing to face facts here. What we are seeing here is not secrecy but propaganda as described by Dr Goebbels.

Clearly you are acknowledging that you have not known any of this & that you are scared to find out that you have indeed been brainwashed to support Nazism, genocide & indeed worse.
 

To be brutally frank Neil, your website is a little scrambled and hard to follow. I would not know where to start looking.

But that does not alter the fact that the conspiracy you claim exists (AND of course the climate change conspiracy you also insist on) is impossible due to its vast size and deafeningly silence.

I have no doubt that atrocities were carried out on all sides. But your denial of the Srebrenica massacre is unspeakably wicked. It puts you on a par with David Irving. And he went to jail for the bile he wrote.
 

So why didn't UK/US/NATO/The Press hush up Abu Gharib? Why did ALL the newspapers/TV leap on it instantly and publish every sordid detail they could find?

What was the name of that Iraqi waiter beaten to death by British soldiers? They couldn't hush that up. The trial's were a bit soft, but the facts got out.

The Iraq War is fifty times more important and sensitive than Bosnia. To be heartless, 'the world' doesn't give a shit about The Balkans. It is not an important place. A few bankrupt little countries with no special strategic or economic importance. But you claim there is a huge conspiracy to hide Bosnian atrocities in the Balkans, while incredibly damaging facts about US atrocities were allowed to escape, jepordising their whole Middle East strategy. Massively damaging revelations. The Middle East reaction to Abu Gharib was a disaster for the west. But they didn't cover it up. You claim 'They' bust a gut to protect Bosnia's dirty secrets but just let the Iraq War slide out of their hands.

Does this seem likely to you?
 

"If I didn't know better, I'd think this was a calculated move to increase your online profile...

I await your denial."

Another dimwitted conspiracy theory. Surely you don't deny being a conspiracy nut?

If Neil Craig is truly as irrelevant and delusional as you claim then why are you increasing his online profile instead of ignoring him?

Incidentally, when did you stop beating you wife? Or are you going to deny that you ever beat her?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I suspect is not literally true or
I was using the word 'literally' in its FIGURATIVE sense. Shlub. Also see my disclaimer.
indeed to your outraged attack on yourself for saying I "shouted abuse" at Norman.
Er, Neil, that wasn't me. That was a different person, in a different post, posting under a different name and linking to a different website. I know our opinions are pretty much exactly the same (i.e. different to yours), but we are still separate entities.
Do you dispite that Izetbegovic (the Moslem President) whom you are supportingm was a Nazi?
There's an 'e' in 'despite' Neil.
 

Frizzy it is no argument against a fact that it is unlikely. Does it seem likely to you that the Earth's Moon is far & away proportionately larger than any other planet's? Does it seem likely to you that water is one of the few materials whose solid form is lighter than its liquid. It certainly seems unlikely to me but that is not an argument for saying the Moon isn't there & icebergs don't exist.

You are, of course, wrong about Yugoslavia being of less global importance than non-solvent Iraq. This is the country that, until D-Day held down more Nazi troops than Britain & America combined.

Alex "I was using the word 'literally' in its FIGURATIVE sense" - idiot

"Er, Neil, that wasn't me" - I have previously said it saved time to put all the idiots together so you can't object to me talking of you in a figurative sense.

Actually there is a "u" in dispute & when you have to resort to spelling to avoid answering the question then it is obvious you are intellectually bankrupt.
 

Frizzy it is no argument against a fact that it is unlikely. - Neil

Yes it is, Neil. It 100% definitely is. Unlikeliness is an incredibly valid rejection of your argument, both legally and scientifically. (Occam's Razor. The phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt'.)

The scientific explanations for why ice floats or the moon is large are THE MOST SIMPLE EXPLANATIONS THAT REMAIN TRUE. These explanations fit the evidence and theoretical models. Your 'Balkan Model' is not only unlikely, it does not fit the evidence. There is a more rational, more plausible alternative explanation. To be honest, I'm disappointed you used your Ice and The Moon justification. They don't mirror your situation and are such a lacklustre parallel. You seem fiercely loyal to scientific method, until they conflict with your Balkan claims.

If I'm honest Neil, I am not here to gain insight into The Balkans, (about which I know only what the average educated man knows (please don't weary my eyes with a triumphant twisting of that statement)) I had a brief fling with a pretty Serbian girl at Uni in 99 (she was a war refugee) and I am friends-of-a-friend with a Bosnian woman (also a war refugee.) I've talked to both of them at length (more to the Serb obviously) and your account conflicts with theirs but their accounts agree with each other. I'm sure you will tell me that they are lying or have been lied to. But Occam's Razor forces me to reject your claims in favour of a more simple explanation.

On A Place to Stand you have presented your and evidence and your model. Let me briefly present the alternative Occam's Razor explanation of the evidence.

Evidence
1) You are the creator of a website presenting a model (of the Balkans) diametrically opposed to the mainstream view.
2) Your 'one man' explanation flies in the face of all the 'evidence' gathered by numerous large organisations.
3) You 'one man' explanation is massively complex and takes the less likely explanation at almost every turn.
4) Your 'one man' explanation selects the details which support your argument and then rejects the rest with claims about cover-ups and propaganda.
5) In 'real' life, you were expelled from the Lib Dems who found your behaviour and ideas irreconcilable with their own and there would appear to be a lot of ‘heat’ regarding your actions and claims.
6) From the amount of effort and type you dedicate to your website, it is safe to conclude you spend many dozens of hours a week researching and building it, despite the obvious lack of support or readership.

Model
1) Conspiracy Theories (particularly on the internet) are recognised by society as a recurrent phenomenon and have been studied as a group. These studies generally conclude that conspiracy theorists have difficulty allowing their theory/model to genuinely interact with evidence. All the evidence presented to the theorist is first filtered through their theory/model, THEN analysed. Preventing the theory/model from being altered. This not only breaks a fundamental rule of scientific method, it also casts doubts on the mental state of the theorist in question. (I apologise in advance Neil, but this is simply the general evidence regarding conspiracy theorists.) They are mostly male, obsessives showing clear signs of withdrawal from normal social interaction.

So we are presented with two arguments.

A is: "All the evidence for the entire Yugoslavian conflict has been doctored as part of a conspiracy involving a wide section of Western society." in accordance with the model presented by Neil Craig.

or

B. The Mainstream Model of the Yugoslavian conflict remains true and Neil Craig's behaviour is in accordance with a phenomenon known as 'an internet-based conspiracy website' and his model is the product of mental stress.

The answer is B, Neil. It is the most simple explanation which remains true. You know it is.

Yours, Frizzyperm
 

That was a long answer & I respect the fact that it was not simply flip rudeness. However the point made about the Moon is that it is certainly there & theories which depend on it not being thereby fall. The same applies to your theory. If the genocide of 3,800 Serbs at Sreberinca, the Nazi antecedents of our Bosnian & Croatian allies, the Dragodan massacre, the kidnapping of schoolgirls to be brothel slaves & the dissection of living people for their organs are matters of fact then I am simply right.

In fact all are attested to from reputable western sources as you can easily see from the links here by going through my index. If they are matters of fact then our media has certainly lied. Indeed if even a tiny portion of them were true our media would certainly have lied & censored to assist in genocide.

You might also find To Kill a Nation: the Attack on Yugoslavia (ISBN: 1859843662 / 1-85984-366-2)
Parenti. Michael of use - it contains far direct statements, almost all from reputable western sources, than I have managed.

Your whole theory depends on deliberately ignoring the existence of the evidence which is like saying the Moon is improbable & if I close my eyes I can't see it so it isn't there.
 

Neil,

How about you save us from the general disorganisation and poor layout of your main site, and re-cite here, giving dates and a reputable source, the evidence of:

* 3800 Serbs killed at Srebrenica (note spelling)
* Mr Izetbegović's Nazi links (his Wikipedia page only shows him fighting with Tito, a communist)
* The Dragodan massacre
* Kidnapping of schoolgirls
* Organ harvesting

We (the single entity) await with bated breath.
 

'Dispute' and 'despite' are two entirely different words Neil. I would have thought you'd know that.

Now what was the question I was meant to be answering?
 

"Neil,

How about you save us from the general disorganisation and poor layout of your main site, and re-cite here, giving dates and a reputable source, the evidence of:

* 3800 Serbs killed at Srebrenica (note spelling)
* Mr Izetbegović's Nazi links (his Wikipedia page only shows him fighting with Tito, a communist)
* The Dragodan massacre
* Kidnapping of schoolgirls
* Organ harvesting

We (the single entity) await with bated breath."


Mister Ed,

how about you get your liberal- Leftist head out of your ass and do your own research on Google and on this site instead of expecting Neil Craig and others to spoon feed you the information?

But here, I'm in a 'help a liberal-Leftist ignoramus' type of mood today so I'll give you a little clue about Alija Izetbegovic which the biased liberal-Leftist Wikipedia won't tell you about in any detail:

The late Izetbegovic was in 1939/1940 the co-founder of the Islamofascist youth movement known as the "Young Muslims": the Young Muslims is the Bosnian branch of the international Islamofascist movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood which was founded in Egypt in 1928 and is still in existence today.

The vast majority of Islamofascist/Nazi muslim groups -such as al Qaeda - are in one way or another linked to - or trace their origin to - the Islamofascist/Nazi Muslim Brotherhood.

The slaughter of thousands of Serbian civilians - men, women and children - in towns and villages surrounding Izetbegovic's terrorist base of operations in Srebrenica was documented as having indeed occurred by the 'Dutchbat' UN troops and by French UN General Philippe Morillon.The Serbs have already collected the names of almost 4,000of their people who were murdered by Izetbegovic's troops from 1992 to 1995.

Alija Izetbegovic's subordinate in Srebrenica - the Islamofascist criminal thug named Naser Oric [who today runs a brothel for underage European girls in Bosnia after being released by the US/NATO controlled kangaroo court in 2006] - back in 1994 boasted to reporters from the Washington Post [John Pomfret] and the Canadian Toronto Star [Bill Schiller] about how he personally engaged in mass beheading, throat cutting and the use of explosives to perpetrate mass murder of civilian Serbian men,women and children.

To prove he wasn't just bluffing, Oric proceeded to show the US and Canadian reporters his extensive video recordings of his mass-murder terror campaigns against the Serbian civilians in and around towns and villages adjoining Srebrenica from 1992 to 1994.

While showing these horrific video recordings to the US and Canadian reporters in his living room, he laughed at his genocidal murderous exploits like a crazed psychopath -which is precisely what this vicious Islamofascist animal - Naser Oric - clearly is.
 

Plenty of factual information on the the World War 2 Nazi link to the Young Muslims and Izetbegovic can even be found here on this very blog site at the following link:

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2007/03/some-more-comments.html



The Canadian branch of the "Young Muslims" organization have taken down from their website...Surprise, Surprise... [NOT!]...their highly revealing article by Ismail Royer - bragging about how the late Alija Izetbegovic was a co-founder of the Bosnian branch of the Young Muslims organization which was modelled on the Islamofascist/Nazi Muslim Brotherhood [Ikhwan al-Muslimeen] founded in Egypt in 1928.

But not to worry...I have found a copy of Ismail Royer's article elsewhere on the web:


http://www.usislam.org/islamicyouth/GreatMuslims/alija_izetbegovic.htm


Just type in al Banna Nazi or Muslim Brotherhood Banna Nazi into Google and see what you get.
 

"There is none so blind as they that won’t see."
Jonathon Swift
 

Maybe this is a stupid question, but do you have any information on this for which Neil Craig is not the source?
 

So your reply to my asking for dates and reputable sources is to rave about "Islamofascism"?

By the way, "concerned citizen", the reason I'm asking Neil to cite evidence, is because Neil is asserting something. He who asserts must prove.
 

Apropos of nothing at all: http://xkcd.com/386/
 

Ok, I googled this, "al Banna Nazi" and got articles such as

"The Nazi Roots of Palestinian Nationalismn" Hmmm... that's the sort of stuff you're into, is it?

"There is none so blind as they that won’t see." Jonathon Swift

Well quite, Neil. Have either of you ever actually been to a muslim country? (two weeks on a beach in Egypt doesn't count)

(and btw... just saying "read Neil's site if you want the facts" is wrong for so many reasons. But mostly because it is not laid out in any reasearchable or coherent way and the 'prose' has a tendency to get a little, erm, self-involved?)
 

Hang on? Is all this Serbia conspiracy just a subset of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict then? Are you banging on about ______ (whatever the f*** it is you are banging on about) because you are a Zionist hardliner? Is that the big picture behind this? Blame the Muslims in Bosnia as part of the wider defence of Israel?
 

Neil,

So that there's no suggestion or suspicion of censorship, I've created a thread on an open forum to continue this debate.
 

Neil,

So that there's no suggestion or suspicion of censorship, I've created a thread on an open forum to continue this debate.

It's at www.pointlessinternetargumentforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=691
 

Yes Alex it is a stupid question since CCfNJ had already given a link & other infornation not from here.

The wartime links between anti-Israeli Palestinians & Hitler are a matter of record. To be fair there were also Palestinians on the Allied side.

I note you have started a post on "pointless arguments". I don't do pointless arguments but if you ever want an inteligent one younknow where to come.
 

The link in question simply pointed out that Izetbegovic was in an organisation called the "Young Muslims". Nothing about Nazis or massacres. Everything else was either a link to something you wrote or a link to a list of things you wrote, or totally unsubstantiated assertions.
 

"Nazi formations created by deserters from the Home Guards (Domobranci), led by Neshad Topcic, the Muslim nationalist group, the Young Muslims (Mladi Muslimani)"

http://greyfalcon.us/Kosovo%20and%20Bosnia%20During%20World%20War%20II.htm

that would be those Young Muslims
 

There is, as regular readers of 'A Place to Smear' might suspect, no reputable source for this 'information' on Izetbegovic. See Oliver Kamm's comments on the provenance of this nonsense and point that Marko Attila Hoare, was unable to locate the source for that claim in primary material or the scholarly literature.

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/02/balkan_claims_r.html

Izetbegovic was born on 8 August 1925. He must indeed have been a precocious lad if he did everything ascribed to him by Serb nationalists. See

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

Neil has oddly not taken up the challenge of debating on "pointlessinternetarguments" forum. Don't worry about the name, Neil. It's just a BBS. The only difference between there and here is that you can't censor it.

Scared?
 

Neil,

I commend you for producing a relatively independent link which backs up your claims. However, it's not really a reputable enough source. We're looking for books, reputable newspapers, that kind of thing.
 

Life is to short to hunt you down everywhere.
 

You don't need to hunt us down.
We're waiting for you at the BBS.
If life is too short, just think of the time you'll save by not having to "moderate"; just present your evidence. If what you allege is true, surely you owe it to the Serbs, if not to everyone, to clearly state the evidence?
 

I have stated the evidence for everything I have said clearly & unambigously. Nobody has made a seriouus attempt to dispute any of it.
 

I have stated the evidence for everything I have said clearly & unambigously. Nobody has made a seriouus attempt to dispute any of it.

Neil, I've posted this twice over the last two days and it has not so far appeared. Are you too
afraid to publish it?

There is no reputable source for this 'information' on Izetbegovic. See Oliver Kamm's
comments on the provenance of this nonsense and that Marko Attila Hoare, was unable to locate the source for that claim in primary material or the scholarly literature.

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/02/balkan_claims_r.html

Izetbegovic was born on 8 August 1925. He must indeed have been a precocious lad if he did everything ascribed to him by Serb nationalists. See

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

Firstly you are, of course, lying about having put this post before. I have decided not to accept posts from you which are purely rudeness or repeat things which have already benn disproved.

Kamm has proven himself willing to lie in the Nazi cause & does not accept comments on matters of fact which do not suit him. His post does not say that Izetbegovic's Young Moslem organisation did not act as auxilliaries to the SS Handzar ivision but simply that it was "not to my knowledge" which is meaningless. That Izetbegovic was a leader of the Young Muslims before his 19th birthday should, indeed, be no surprise when you note that the title includes the word "Young".

If not a total hypocrit, you will be able to point out the occasions you have posted on Kamm's site against HIS censorship. Any bets?

Or indeed on any "LibDem" site that practices censorship in the Nazi cause.
 

This morning I have sent notes to four other of your comment streams on which my comments have not appeared. It is not impossible that your site has techical problems but I am very aware
that your censorship policy is erratic and inconsistent.

Yes Kamm has refused your posts because of their abusive nature. I have commented on his site twice disagreeing with him and the posts have appeared.

You regularly insist that sources that disagree with you are lying or some other insulting phrase. Your readers (the good Mr Duck and I) can make up their own mind on that. Kamm states that a reputable Serbo-croatian speaking historian can find no primary source which confirms your material on Izatbegovic. I myself have tried a good number of books and websites to no avail. You have not provided any proof to the contrary.

The ball is back in your court. Maybe you can reply promptly and civilly this time but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted at 14.57 on 01/08/09
 

Neil, a top tip. You seem to think not denying or not mentioning something is the same as endorsing something. You're wrong to think that. Not only does that kind of muddy thinking complicate everything, it's not how regular people think or communicate.
 

Is this the same Norman Fraser who has repeatedly been exposed as a liar on this blog?

Naturally, one proven liar - Mr Fraser - will quote another proven liar - Oliver Kamm - whom in turn will quote yet another proven liar - former ICTY employee Marko Attila Hoare - in support of their untenable positions concerning the proven Islamofascist, Alija Izetbegovic [On numerous occasions Hoare has flat out lied that the recreated WW2 Bosnian SS Handschar division - resurrected by Izetbegovic's administration in 1992 - never even existed!

Hoare's lies continued for years, even after a report exposing the existence of this newly recreated Bosnian SS Handschar division by Robert Fox in the UK Daily Telegraph in 1993]

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H4712, June 17, 2005

STATE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS
AND GRANTS AGREEMENT
ON QUESTIONABLE BOSNIAN
AMBASSADOR APPOINTMENT



The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
MARCHANT).

Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. FRANKS) is recognized for 5 minutes.


Mr. FRANKS of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker,in April of this year, my office expressed a deep and sincere concern to the State Department over agreeing to the designation of Bisera Turkovic as the new Bosnian Ambassador to the
United States.

At that time, State was postured to recommend an agreement on this appointment.After several discussions, the State Department asked me not to go public with my concerns because there was a pending deal with the Bosnian government to send Bosnian troops to Iraq in July.

In good faith, Mr. Speaker, my
office agreed not to publicly raise our very grave and sincere concerns.

But, Mr. Speaker, our office was surprised and profoundly disappointed when we learned this past Wednesday, after literally months, that the State Department had granted agreement on
this outrageous appointment without
contacting us or informing us in any way.


Mr. Speaker, President Bush has repeatedly and strongly stated that in this fight against terrorism, that you
are ‘‘either with us or you are against us.’’

Yet, I am beginning to wonder if
our own State Department is with us.

Bisera Turkovic is one of the founders of the radical Islamist Muslim SDA Party in Bosnia, a party that has had, since its foundation, strong links with
al Qaeda, numerous other terrorist organizations,and even the intelligence mechanisms of Iran.


In 1939, Bisera Turkovic’s father,
Alija Izetbegovic, started a group called the Young Muslims.

After World War II, they were prosecuted as Nazi war criminals and spent time in prison together.

Over the years, Dr. Turkovic
was promoted by Izetbegovic and then founded the SDA Party in 1990.

Alija Izetbegovic was a close confidante of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini.

And when he became President
Izetbegovic, he recirculated his 1970 Islamic Declaration and openly espoused his view that ‘‘there can be no peace or coexistence between Islamic faith and non-Islamic faith.’’

Mr. Speaker, soon after the beginning of the Bosnian civil war in 1992, Dr. Turkovic was accredited as Bosnian ambassador to Zagreb.

It was this post, coordinating with others, that was constantly
used by the SDA and their
leadership to provide Bosnian passports, visas, humanitarian worker status, and logistical support to radical Islamist mujahideen coming into Bosnia
to fight their own jihad there.

Individuals such as Anwar Sha’ban, the spiritual leader of al Qaeda in Bosnia and the cousin of Osama bin Laden, Abu al-Madani, who was killed fighting soldiers in Sarajevo, and even Osama
bin Laden himself entered Bosnia
through Zagreb.

In violation of a U.S. embargo, the SDA also organized a massive flow of weapons from Iran through Croatia during Bisera Turkovic’s time as ambassador.

[Continued below]
 

[Continued from above]


When my office raised these concerns,Mr. Speaker, we were told that the actions during the war were Bosnian government policy at that time and that it was a long time ago.

But, Mr. Speaker, can it possibly be the position of our State Department that despite
the fact that we know that Iranian
weapons were smuggled into Bosnia
in contradiction to a U.N. embargo,
and that foreign mujahideen were
given documentation to enter Bosnia
to fight a jihad, often fronting as humanitarian workers, that that is not enough evidence to deny diplomatic status to someone who was centrally involved and who remains a senior level official for the party that instituted
these very policies?


My office has also raised issues of
concern with regard to Bisera
Turkovic’s ethical fitness, Mr. Speaker; and the State Department has said that ‘‘we can’t deny appointees on the basis of being corrupt.’’


Mr. Speaker, these actions on the part of our State Department are a disservice to our President, they are a disgrace to the United States of America,and they are a betrayal to the cause of human freedom.

It is past time that the State Department start acting like it represents the interests of America and the citizens of this Nation.

The people of this Nation deserve better than to be served by a State Department that aids our enemies and then lies to cover its actions.

http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2005/2005_H04712.pdf
 

Links to books from non-Serbian authors exposing Izetbegovic's World War 2 Islamofascist "Young Muslims" background and his wartime connections to the Arabic Islamofascist co-sponsor of the Holocaust - the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini - as well as his close connections in the 1990's to Islamofascist terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda and to Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic Republic of Iran after the 1979 revolution:


http://books.google.com/books?id=97ChE9yj_eQC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=%22young+muslims%22+Husseini+Izetbegovic&source=bl&ots=2dOeaYZyh8&sig=fOfKtHpXcY9GxT19xOXEzYubXJI&hl=en&ei=k0B1StXdDJGKMuiT_bAM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=%22young%20muslims%22%20Husseini%20Izetbegovic&f=false



http://books.google.com/books?id=HGkthBwbNg8C&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=%22young+muslims%22+Husseini+Izetbegovic&source=bl&ots=5PqZ66euIC&sig=J2eyFuYNQ6VdBGeKpv3mPfCndcY&hl=en&ei=SEF1SvjzKoK4NYqw-bAM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=%22young%20muslims%22%20Husseini%20Izetbegovic&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=c8Xb6x2XYvIC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=%22young+muslims%22+Fascist+Izetbegovic&source=bl&ots=meWhfd9Kfc&sig=lAWUnC31kUSD45YeE6BJ4G3O2mg&hl=en&ei=mUh1SvvCBIbUMsa1-LAM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=%22young%20muslims%22%20Fascist%20Izetbegovic&f=false


http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:WlPZaehgQ-YJ:www.coldtype.net/Assets.08/pdfs/0408.Ed.Safari.pdf+%22young+muslims%22+Fascist+Izetbegovic&cd=27&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
 

To Mr.Craig:


Next time you get some Islamofascist/Nazi sympathizer claiming that the World War 2 SS Handschar division were Bosnian muslim "freedom fighters" and "did not murder Serbs, Jews and Gyspies" or that "there was no connection between the SS, Hajj Amin al-Husseini and the Young Muslims", you can refer them to the books above.

Be aware of them quoting Nazi-sympathetic books disguised as "impartial, scholarly works" by the offspring of World War 2 German Nazis: especially when they refer to the writers as "neutral American historians".

I noticed you had an online debate back in February 2008 on the Scotsman with someone who quoted the name George Lepre [author of Himmler's Bosnian Division] as an "American historian" who wrote "an impartial scholarly work" [or words to that effect].

What he neglected to tell you was that George Lepre just happens to be the son of Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig.

And just who exactly was Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig?

Why he was none other than the German Waffen SS commander of the Bosnian Muslim SS Handschar division from early 1943 onwards!


Here is a real nice picture of George Lepre's dad in his SS uniform inspecting the Bosnian Muslim SS Handshar troops:

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/bosnia/han14.jpg

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/bosnia/han3.jpg

Bosnian Muslim magazine Svijet from Sarajevo glorifies the SS Handschar division!!

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/bosnia/svijet.htm
 

Bosnian Muslim newspapers expose Izetbegovic's vision for Bosnia: an Islamofascist State!


(Re-printed for fair use only)

Quote from Adnan Jahic in Bosnian [Muslim]Weekly newspaper “Zmaj od Bosne”:

“The territory controlled by the Bosnian Army after the war will be a Muslim state. This is a desire of the Muslim people and, after all, our leaders: secular leader Alija Izetbegovic and religious leader Mustafa Ceric (the latter one in a private conversation with me confirmed that the old dream of Alija Izetbegovic, member of the organization “Young Muslims”, has been and remains the establishment of the Muslim state in Bosnia-Hercegovina; finally, his dream is close to realization and “he is not terribly upset because of that”).


Virtuous Muslim State:

Vision of the future Bosnian state by Adnan Jahic, head of SDA [Izetbegovic's party] for Tuzla region and a member of the newly elected Bosnian Parliament. This article originally appeared in Zmaj od Bosne, a pro-SDA paper, in 1993 and was reprinted during the election campaign [of 1996].
Front Slobode supported the opposition in the election campaign. 8/23/96


http://www.ex-yupress.com/froslo/froslo4.html

http://4international.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/izetbegovics-vision-for-bosnia-an-islamist-fascist-state/



Dani [Bosnian Muslim newspaper]Interview with Fatmir Alispahic


Bosniak Lives Paid for Izetbegovic's Awards

interview by Emir IMAMOVIC

Dani, Sarajevo, Federation Bosnia-Hercegovina, B-H, August 25, 2000


DANI: An increasingly frequent topic of your columns in Oslobodjenje is the Bosniak denial of own identity and acceptance to forget events from the recent past. Where do you recognize these developments and what is their cause?

ALISPAHIC: The Bosniak identity is endangered from two directions. The first direction is the decades-long effort of Izetbegovic's oligarchy to install among Bosniaks foreign observance of Islam, Shiite, pan-Islamist, are based on Sharia law, even though Bosnian Muslims are Sunnis. That is like the difference between heroin and marijuana. It is not necessary to explain how Izetbegovic and his followers sold Bosniak interests for Arab money and various awards for the strengthening of Islam. The other direction is the effort of the SDP to label Bosniak values as Islamic fundamentalism, which buys favor with the international mentors, as well as Serbs and Croats, who continue to behave as civic Serbs and Croats. Bosniaks form the political alternative are willing to play the role of quislings. I claim that the intent of the international community is to politically and economically suppress Bosniaks and finish the division of BH to two ethno-nationalist parts. They will finish that with the assistance of Bosniaks who will sell the idea of BH for short-lived terms in power, although BH can be called whatever without equal Bosniaks. In order to do that, it is necessary to pacify and exhaust the consciousness and memory of Bosniaks. Izetbegovic and his followers played a perfect first half in the match for Bosniak disappearance.

DANI:Your views are additionally interesting because you belong to the intellectual elite of the city that for the last ten years had the reputation of the Bosnian oasis of tolerance. Could it be now said that that tolerance has outlived its usefulness?

ALISPAHIC:No, I do not belong to the elite that commercialized what a group of citizens did during the war defending Tuzla from nationalism. That elite all the time during the war vacillated between religious fascists from the SDA and what was expected of them. They even named two streets in Tuzla after pro-fascist Bosniaks from WWII, Hitler's and Pavelic's officers.

http://www.ex-yupress.com/dani/dani58.html
 

Links to books from non-Serbian authors exposing Izetbegovic's World War 2 Islamofascist "Young Muslims" background and his wartime connections to the Arabic Islamofascist co-sponsor of the Holocaust - the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini - as well as his close connections in the 1990's to Islamofascist terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda and to Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic Republic of Iran after the 1979 revolution:


http://books.google.com/books?id=97ChE9yj_eQC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=%22young+muslims%22+Husseini+Izetbegovic&source=bl&ots=2dOeaYZyh8&sig=fOfKtHpXcY9GxT19xOXEzYubXJI&hl=en&ei=k0B1StXdDJGKMuiT_bAM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=%22young%20muslims%22%20Husseini%20Izetbegovic&f=false



http://books.google.com/books?id=HGkthBwbNg8C&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=%22young+muslims%22+Husseini+Izetbegovic&source=bl&ots=5PqZ66euIC&sig=J2eyFuYNQ6VdBGeKpv3mPfCndcY&hl=en&ei=SEF1SvjzKoK4NYqw-bAM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=%22young%20muslims%22%20Husseini%20Izetbegovic&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=c8Xb6x2XYvIC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=%22young+muslims%22+Fascist+Izetbegovic&source=bl&ots=meWhfd9Kfc&sig=lAWUnC31kUSD45YeE6BJ4G3O2mg&hl=en&ei=mUh1SvvCBIbUMsa1-LAM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=%22young%20muslims%22%20Fascist%20Izetbegovic&f=false


http://books.google.com.au/books?id=-7dq8mi0DWkC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=Izetbegovic+Handzar+balkan+caliphate&source=bl&ots=_7beI_tDSx&sig=MFb3UbtKsk2WjHjuMK4Vf3N7O40&hl=en&ei=dXl1SpKLM6bq6gPHzoy4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false



http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:WlPZaehgQ-YJ:www.coldtype.net/Assets.08/pdfs/0408.Ed.Safari.pdf+%22young+muslims%22+Fascist+Izetbegovic&cd=27&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
 

Mr Fraser & indeed the entire LubDim party does keep illiberal company.

The only disagreement I would have with that is that it is not improper for the State Dept to accredit diplomats involved in introducing al Quaeda & Iranian terrorist & weapons to Bosnia & Hercegovina to assist the Nazi regime, in breach of mandatory UN sanctions, because the people flying them in were the US air force.
 

Mr Fraser & indeed the entire LubDim party does keep illiberal company.

The only disagreement I would have with that is that it is not improper for the State Dept to accredit diplomats involved in introducing al Quaeda & Iranian terrorist & weapons to Bosnia & Hercegovina to assist the Nazi regime, in breach of mandatory UN sanctions, because the people flying them in were the US air force.


I cannot disagree with the overwhelming evidence attesting to the veracity of the above.

Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base

Congressional Press Release, US Congress, 16 January 1997

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html
 

...but did any of them mention that the BBC owned SYB?
 

Mr Franks from AZ said...

Yet, I am beginning to wonder if
our own State Department is with us.

That was true during the Cold War as well. State has been a left wing cesspool since the Roosevelt administration.

But then the whole US government has been a leftist cesspool since then.
 

Ok, I've let these comments run on for a few months and now I think it's time to own up.

I have to apologise to both Neil Craig and SYB because I was the one who, without permission, removed Neil's comments from the SYB site.

I felt that I had to do this for the following reasons:

1. I thought it was funnier to have displayed only some of Neil's comments, thereby making him look foolish. I now realise how immature this was.

2. The contents of Neil's posts were quite subversive, and I didn't think it was right for the SYB readers to see them.

So sorry to SYB and sorry to Neil. I've grown up a lot in the last few months and I now realise that the best way to discuss serious issues is via undiluted exchange of opinion, no matter how subversive it might be.

Keep fighting Neil; you're (slowly) winning.

Julian
 

Is this the schizophrenic's version of the fifty-hitler post?
 

The Branes didn't do anything so witty. They simply barred me from the site for being consistently unarguably right. Not entirely consistent with their claim to be opposed to censorship in principle, or indeed with entire alleged basis of the site, but then they claimed not to be Beeboids either.

I'm sure they are still chortling merrily about anybody who disputes the "scientific consensus2 on catastrophic warming & all the rest.
 

Except you're not. Barred, that is.
 

Except that I still am mous.

You will see why it is difficult to trust branes on anything else they say either.
 

speakyourbarnes ..its an arrogant ,nasty site.and the foul language is puerile .it is a self righteous nasty pile .I look forward to its demise.a curse on it.one of my BBC posts was put on SYB ..breach of copywrite....and the coments posted by contributers were nigh on libel and personal affronts ..cowards.

a nasty site .
 

Arrogant and nasty is certainly true but my objection is that they then censor anybody who tries to comment on their obvious idiocies.

Such cowardice sits badly with arrogance.