mojomonkey Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 A little birdy told me Ian Brady and Derek Bird were trained to kill while in the armed forces but you dont get told that by your lamestream media. Show me a source, I can find no evidence of either having any military service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endovelicus Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 A little birdy told me Ian Brady and Derek Bird were trained to kill while in the armed forces but you dont get told that by your lamestream media. You need to ask your little birdy a few questions. Start off with, when was Ian Brady serving in the armed forces and being taught to kill? Was it when he first left school and worked as a teaboy at Harland & Wolff? Was it in his next job as a butcher's messenger boy? Or perhaps it was when he became a fruit porter at Smithfield Market? Or maybe his two years in a Borstal Institution was a cover for him actually being in the army? Maybe that was where he spent so much time learning book keeping to get the clerical job at Millwards Merchandising where he met Hindley? That really is the problem, isn't it? You get hold of a ridiculous rumour and, because it suits your purpose, report it as a fact. That is the reason why most people who bother to read the kind of utter shit you post on here regard you - correctly - as a complete nutter of extremely limited intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Even if Brady and Bird did serve in the Military so what? Soldiers are trained to kill, that is what their job is. How many ex-services people are there? Just because someone has served in the forces does not mean they are suddenly going to go on a killing spree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossRoss Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 A little birdy told me Ian Brady and Derek Bird were trained to kill while in the armed forces but you dont get told that by your lamestream media. Show me a source, I can find no evidence of either having any military service. my sources have been taken off the internet now so this is from memory. ian brady would have done national service as it was the norm at the time and i am guessing served in malaya at the time of the emergency there. derek bird served in the army in a close operating/observation platoon, a recon and sniper unit, search northern irish republican forums or comments, he may be nicknamed private walnut. he was in the army over 10 years before becoming a taxi driver. his lifestyle exceeded his taxi driver income and was probably explained by an army pension. google has long since been nobbled as a search engine so you are wasting your time searching via google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossRoss Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 A little birdy told me Ian Brady and Derek Bird were trained to kill while in the armed forces but you dont get told that by your lamestream media. You need to ask your little birdy a few questions. Start off with, when was Ian Brady serving in the armed forces and being taught to kill? Was it when he first left school and worked as a teaboy at Harland & Wolff? Was it in his next job as a butcher's messenger boy? Or perhaps it was when he became a fruit porter at Smithfield Market? Or maybe his two years in a Borstal Institution was a cover for him actually being in the army? Maybe that was where he spent so much time learning book keeping to get the clerical job at Millwards Merchandising where he met Hindley? That really is the problem, isn't it? You get hold of a ridiculous rumour and, because it suits your purpose, report it as a fact. That is the reason why most people who bother to read the kind of utter shit you post on here regard you - correctly - as a complete nutter of extremely limited intelligence. perhaps you would like to post ian brady's cv on here with dates and times. ridiculous rumour utter shit complete nutter that is the sort of abuse that people used to keep jimmy savile's victims quiet, what really is your problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 A little birdy told me Ian Brady and Derek Bird were trained to kill while in the armed forces but you dont get told that by your lamestream media. Show me a source, I can find no evidence of either having any military service. my sources have been taken off the internet now. That is convinient for you then... It means you can make up any BS and then just say that your sources have been nobbled. Not that you ever try and verify your "sources". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossRoss Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 A little birdy told me Ian Brady and Derek Bird were trained to kill while in the armed forces but you dont get told that by your lamestream media. Show me a source, I can find no evidence of either having any military service. my sources have been taken off the internet now. That is convinient for you then... It means you can make up any BS and then just say that your sources have been nobbled. Not that you ever try and verify your "sources". kevin annett and his film unrepetant is on youtube to watch any time you like, but you cant be arsed with baby skulls, personal testimony or mass graves perhaps you can find your own copy of unlawful killing and debunk that too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Even if Brady and Bird did serve in the Military so what? Soldiers are trained to kill, that is what their job is. How many ex-services people are there? Just because someone has served in the forces does not mean they are suddenly going to go on a killing spree. Well, not unless they read a CrossRoss post and then believe me all bet's are off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 ridiculous rumour utter shit complete nutter that is the sort of abuse that people used to keep jimmy savile's victims quiet, what really is your problem? with facts (you have heard of them, haven't you?) CrossRoss has heard of them and the truth is out there on YouTube apparently!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Take guns off the populace and the only ones left with them are coppers and criminals. Hmmm.... Indeed. Makes it easier to tell who the bad guys are. Much harder to do if everyone is walking around with a gun. What happens if the government become the bad guys? Just a thought. Stalin took weapons off the populace then killed 20m or so. Mao did the same and knocked off 40m. Hitler wasn't too keen on his subjects being armed before he put his plans into place either. All not too long ago.... Even if (and I say "if" just to humour your usual brand of conspiracy nutjobbery) the government decides to "go to war" against the civilian population, you are forgetting one important thing... 1. The government has the military. So you can stroke your hunting rifle all you like. Mr Drone, Mr Tank and Mr Highly trained Soldier will ruin you any day of the week. You may have a whole stock pile of weapons, ammo, ration packs and enough copies of Nutjob Monthly to see you through until the end of days....Thats not going to stop an Apache making your day a shitty one. So in short, if they wanted to go to war against the civillain population, there is nothing to stop them. And if thats the case, why havent they already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Even if (and I say "if" just to humour your usual brand of conspiracy nutjobbery) the government decides to "go to war" against the civilian population, you are forgetting one important thing... 1. The government has the military. So you can stroke your hunting rifle all you like. Mr Drone, Mr Tank and Mr Highly trained Soldier will ruin you any day of the week. You may have a whole stock pile of weapons, ammo, ration packs and enough copies of Nutjob Monthly to see you through until the end of days....Thats not going to stop an Apache making your day a shitty one. So in short, if they wanted to go to war against the civillain population, there is nothing to stop them. And if thats the case, why havent they already? And that is based on the assumption that the Army would willingly comply with Politicians and turn against the population - which let us not forget includes their own family & friends. What would stop the heads of the Army thinking, "Hmm, actually I have the guns, tanks, apaches etc not that big job in Parliament. Maybe I will just take the job?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Even if (and I say "if" just to humour your usual brand of conspiracy nutjobbery) the government decides to "go to war" against the civilian population, you are forgetting one important thing... 1. The government has the military. So you can stroke your hunting rifle all you like. Mr Drone, Mr Tank and Mr Highly trained Soldier will ruin you any day of the week. You may have a whole stock pile of weapons, ammo, ration packs and enough copies of Nutjob Monthly to see you through until the end of days....Thats not going to stop an Apache making your day a shitty one. So in short, if they wanted to go to war against the civillain population, there is nothing to stop them. And if thats the case, why havent they already? And that is based on the assumption that the Army would willingly comply with Politicians and turn against the population - which let us not forget includes their own family & friends. What would stop the heads of the Army thinking, "Hmm, actually I have the guns, tanks, apaches etc not that big job in Parliament. Maybe I will just take the job?" But, but, but, but, that doesnt fit with the whole "dah gubermant is gonna take mah guns!!!!" conspiracy, survivalist nutjobs idea of how things are.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 But, but, but, but, that doesnt fit with the whole "dah gubermant is gonna take mah guns!!!!" conspiracy, survivalist nutjobs idea of how things are.... B*gger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Take guns off the populace and the only ones left with them are coppers and criminals. Hmmm.... Indeed. Makes it easier to tell who the bad guys are. Much harder to do if everyone is walking around with a gun. What happens if the government become the bad guys? Just a thought. Stalin took weapons off the populace then killed 20m or so. Mao did the same and knocked off 40m. Hitler wasn't too keen on his subjects being armed before he put his plans into place either. All not too long ago.... Even if (and I say "if" just to humour your usual brand of conspiracy nutjobbery) the government decides to "go to war" against the civilian population, you are forgetting one important thing... 1. The government has the military. So you can stroke your hunting rifle all you like. Mr Drone, Mr Tank and Mr Highly trained Soldier will ruin you any day of the week. You may have a whole stock pile of weapons, ammo, ration packs and enough copies of Nutjob Monthly to see you through until the end of days....Thats not going to stop an Apache making your day a shitty one. So in short, if they wanted to go to war against the civillain population, there is nothing to stop them. And if thats the case, why havent they already? There's is an ex-military guy who regularly makes quite interesting videos on YT, he has balanced and well substantiated views on these subjects and tries to address the common claims of the "chest beaters" and conspiracy nuts. He spent 24years in the US military and would seem to know what he is talking about. As you say, if the government wanted everyone dead then they would achieve that quite easily and would have probably already made it happen. But that doesn't make much sense, as he puts it, "that would be like a farmer going out one morning and killing all his animals" . Its just not in their interest. He believes that genocide generally comes from "within", i.e. from certain groups and members of the populace who would (and historically always do) seize the opportunity of WROL (without rule of law) situations. Not hard to imagine, even when you just consider some of the fruitloop, hateful, religious organizations that are out there. From that to all the looting, rape, and violence in New Orleans after hurricane katrina, I think most reasonable people would agree that you wouldn't want your family and property defenseless to that kind of stuff. Bearing in mind that emergency services cease to function in these events, its all down to you. He talks about it on and off throughout but try 11:00 and 20:00 minutes in. https://www.youtube....h?v=jcsxLbEiPX4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Take guns off the populace and the only ones left with them are coppers and criminals. Hmmm.... Indeed. Makes it easier to tell who the bad guys are. Much harder to do if everyone is walking around with a gun. What happens if the government become the bad guys? Just a thought. Stalin took weapons off the populace then killed 20m or so. Mao did the same and knocked off 40m. Hitler wasn't too keen on his subjects being armed before he put his plans into place either. All not too long ago.... Even if (and I say "if" just to humour your usual brand of conspiracy nutjobbery) the government decides to "go to war" against the civilian population, you are forgetting one important thing... 1. The government has the military. So you can stroke your hunting rifle all you like. Mr Drone, Mr Tank and Mr Highly trained Soldier will ruin you any day of the week. You may have a whole stock pile of weapons, ammo, ration packs and enough copies of Nutjob Monthly to see you through until the end of days....Thats not going to stop an Apache making your day a shitty one. So in short, if they wanted to go to war against the civillain population, there is nothing to stop them. And if thats the case, why havent they already? Of course numbnut, I was playing devil's advocate. However it does make you think about the means in which Stalin, Mao, Hitler etc.... did get the military to turn their guns on their own population seemingly so easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.