Science/Environment Extinction Rebellion

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Rettolalia said:
Which part specifically?
Click to expand...
Let's see if you can engage.
Why did Avi repeatedly claim there were 200 arsonists? A lie on top of a lie.
Why did he blame the Greens for the fires, after it's been clearly pointed out as false.
Why did he keep referring to the hardship of the police, but when they asked him and his security detail to help them out and just move on, he wants to debate what laws he is breaking?
 
CM86 said:
Let's see if you can engage.
Why did Avi repeatedly claim there were 200 arsonists? A lie on top of a lie.
Why did he blame the Greens for the fires, after it's been clearly pointed out as false.
Why did he keep referring to the hardship of the police, but when they asked him and his security detail to help them out and just move on, he wants to debate what laws he is breaking?
Click to expand...

I’m not going to comment on the claims of 200 arsonists, other than to say, I have heard that claim from more people than just Avi, and I’ll take the same approach I take with a lot of the climate change debate - I don’t profess to know what the truth is, so I’m not going to come down on one side or the other. Do you dispute arson is involved?

As for him ‘blaming’ the Greens, I think far too many are blaming the Greens/hazard reduction exclusively. But are the Greens partially responsible for making matters worse? Almost certainly.



Avi shouldn’t of gone on Friday, but he couldn’t help himself.

I won’t defend him on that.
 
Rettolalia said:
I’m not going to comment on the claims of 200 arsonists,
Click to expand...
I bet you will though...
Rettolalia said:
I’m not going to comment on the claims of 200 arsonists, other than to say, I have heard that claim from more people than just Avi, and I’ll take the same approach I take with a lot of the climate change debate - I don’t profess to know what the truth is, so I’m not going to come down on one side or the other. Do you dispute arson is involved?
Click to expand...
You've definitely taken the same approach as you do with most things... You've ignored the evidence, you've ignored the clarification and outrage that the lies you support have caused. You've ignored the now common understanding of the deliberate deception pushed by the elites that it was arson.
You've claimed knowledge on a situation you've demonstrated you don't know anything about...

Rettolalia said:
As for him ‘blaming’ the Greens, I think far too many are blaming the Greens/hazard reduction exclusively. But are the Greens partially responsible for making matters worse? Almost certainly.
Click to expand...
What meaningless verbiage.
You've once again ignored all the evidence, and claimed it's the Greens. While pretending that you're open minded...

Rettolalia said:
Avi shouldn’t of gone on Friday, but he couldn’t help himself.

I won’t defend him on that.
Click to expand...
I bet you will...

He went because that's when the protest was.

He went with a huge security detail.
He made a massive point of how unfair it is on the police, while deliberately making their job harder because he had double checked with his lawyer on what he could get away with.

He lied to extend the known lie about the number of arsonists.

He lied about the impact the Greens had.

He embarrassed himself repeatedly.



And you posted his video...
Now you're pretending you don't support him.
 
CM86 said:
I bet you will though...

You've definitely taken the same approach as you do with most things... You've ignored the evidence, you've ignored the clarification and outrage that the lies you support have caused. You've ignored the now common understanding of the deliberate deception pushed by the elites that it was arson.
You've claimed knowledge on a situation you've demonstrated you don't know anything about...


What meaningless verbiage.
You've once again ignored all the evidence, and claimed it's the Greens. While pretending that you're open minded...


I bet you will...

He went because that's when the protest was.

He went with a huge security detail.
He made a massive point of how unfair it is on the police, while deliberately making their job harder because he had double checked with his lawyer on what he could get away with.

He lied to extend the known lie about the number of arsonists.

He lied about the impact the Greens had.

He embarrassed himself repeatedly.



And you posted his video...
Now you're pretending you don't support him.
Click to expand...

I loathe the modern woke left and identity politics.

Doesn’t mean I support Avi.

Just to clarify....

Are you suggesting that none of the fires have been deliberately lit? Absolutely no role for arson in any of this?

And huge security detail? Get your hand off it.
 
Rettolalia said:
I loathe the modern woke left and identity politics.

Doesn’t mean I support Avi.

Just to clarify....

Are you suggesting that none of the fires have been deliberately lit? Absolutely no role for arson in any of this?

And huge security detail? Get your hand off it.
Click to expand...
Please respond to the questions you've caused.

Stop running away.
Don't be a troll. Be honest about your beliefs...
 
Rettolalia said:
Yeah ok, I preferred it when you had me on ignore.

Let’s go back to that.
Click to expand...
What account was that?
Don't forget, this Retts account is pretty new, and is just back from suspension, rather than being on 'ignore'.

And I'll reiterate the point that you keep supporting...

"There is a reason you need to troll, rather than engage in debate.​
​
​
When you troll, you can hide your bigotry, and be supported by hidden bigots.​
​
But when you engage, you display your bigotry, and hidden bigots 'overlook' you. "​
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Chief said:
Haha - Yemeni got water thrown over him? Classic.

Remember when totally non-PC comedian Jim Jeffries owned him in that interview and Avi went ballistic? Good times and a win for not only the non-PC progressive Jeffries but all good people tired of the politically correct Avi Yemenis of the world.
Click to expand...

That was a very ugly example of editing, not to mention when the network phoned the FBI as Yemeni was flying into the US because they were scared of him.

It happens on tv all the time, so never ever give an interview, but if there was a creative editing to deliberately misrepresent someone in a position to do something about it then we might find some enforced honesty in the matter.

No matter what someone's persuasion, they don't deserve to be deliberately misrepresented by another entity for that entity's benefit. There will be a lot of news groups slaughtered in the courts if that were law.
 
CM86 said:
And I'll reiterate the point that you keep supporting...

"There is a reason you need to troll, rather than engage in debate.​
​
​
When you troll, you can hide your bigotry, and be supported by hidden bigots.​
​
But when you engage, you display your bigotry, and hidden bigots 'overlook' you. "​
Click to expand...

This is all a bit rich coming from a bloke who has just got caught using a sock puppet alias account to like and reply to posts from this account. Or is it the other way around?

And once again, where is my bigotry?

And who are these ‘hidden bigots’ that are ‘overlooking’ me?

You sound like you need support.

Reach out for it.
 
Taylor said:
That was a very ugly example of editing, not to mention when the network phoned the FBI as Yemeni was flying into the US because they were scared of him.

It happens on tv all the time, so never ever give an interview, but if there was a creative editing to deliberately misrepresent someone in a position to do something about it then we might find some enforced honesty in the matter.

No matter what someone's persuasion, they don't deserve to be deliberately misrepresented by another entity for that entity's benefit. There will be a lot of news groups slaughtered in the courts if that were law.
Click to expand...

Only saying this as I’m a little OCD, and I keep seeing it...but it’s Yemini.

No E.
 
TimmeT said:
fu** me youre a hypocrite. one minute youre abusing posters like Andrew Birch for rejecting articles you post for being utter trash and lying and yet here you are doing the same thing.

maybe its because really you cant engage?
Click to expand...
CM86 said:
The difference is. I watched the entire clip, and responded to what was in it.
That's why Retts told me to ignore Avi...

On the other hand, Andrew refused to read the article, because it was from the Guardian.

And you've just made up that I abused him for it.



Let's see if you can engage.
Why did Avi repeatedly claim there were 200 arsonists? A lie on top of a lie.
Why did he blame the Greens for the fires, after it's been clearly pointed out as false.
Why did he keep referring to the hardship of the police, but when they asked him and his security detail to help them out and just move on, he wants to debate what laws he is breaking?

I don't expect you to answer these questions, because you can't engage.
Click to expand...

"I don't expect you to answer these questions, because you can't engage."​

What a surprise, you didn't respond to that...
 
CM86 said:
"I don't expect you to answer these questions, because you can't engage."​

What a surprise, you didn't respond to that...
Click to expand...
It probably is because I have only seen the alert now you utterly dumb flog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top