A) Nicholas Winton was complicit in human trafficking and (civilian) “rescuers” have actually often themselves been predators,
and NOT:
B) (Clandestine military) rescuers are currently saving children from their satanic predators’ underground tunnels (which is how most people on this thread seem to be interpreting his tweet)
…then you have a perfectly valid interpretation, and one worth discussing. Is that what you’re trying to say?
The post’s title, BTW, works for either interpretation.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything except that I don't trust what comes out of these peoples mouths because of their bedfellows and historical precedence for these types of matters. "Oh just removing some refugee children," said Laura Silsby. Humanitarian efforts can be human trafficking efforts as we have seen. That's, in fact, why we're all here today.
A) Nicholas Winton was complicit in human trafficking and (civilian) “rescuers” have actually often themselves been predators,
YES.
Folks interpreting this to mean anything else aren't paying attention to history. I had a few people tell me I'm negative for thinking anything involving the trafficking of children under the guise of philanthropy should be looked at with a fine tooth comb. Checking out their associates (AHEM, JIMMY SAVILLE) is just the surface. To brush these things off is elementary. You don't make it onto the BBC and the nightly news without making a contract with the Rofschild Media Matrix which is also involved in human trafficking by way of covering up tracks and spinning the story so the bad guy looks like the good guy and vice versa.
If you’re saying that Scavino’s message was:
A) Nicholas Winton was complicit in human trafficking and (civilian) “rescuers” have actually often themselves been predators,
and NOT:
B) (Clandestine military) rescuers are currently saving children from their satanic predators’ underground tunnels (which is how most people on this thread seem to be interpreting his tweet)
…then you have a perfectly valid interpretation, and one worth discussing. Is that what you’re trying to say?
The post’s title, BTW, works for either interpretation.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything except that I don't trust what comes out of these peoples mouths because of their bedfellows and historical precedence for these types of matters. "Oh just removing some refugee children," said Laura Silsby. Humanitarian efforts can be human trafficking efforts as we have seen. That's, in fact, why we're all here today.
YES.
Folks interpreting this to mean anything else aren't paying attention to history. I had a few people tell me I'm negative for thinking anything involving the trafficking of children under the guise of philanthropy should be looked at with a fine tooth comb. Checking out their associates (AHEM, JIMMY SAVILLE) is just the surface. To brush these things off is elementary. You don't make it onto the BBC and the nightly news without making a contract with the Rofschild Media Matrix which is also involved in human trafficking by way of covering up tracks and spinning the story so the bad guy looks like the good guy and vice versa.
You get it.