-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Conspiracy Theory: Why Lo Hwei-Yen stood no chance of getting out alive!!!
- Thread starter masgnoeL
- Start date
the lees are bunch of mou lan yong...they only know how to bully the weak like CSJ, when faced with a strong opponents like Mas Kastari, they'll probably pee in their pants...and their balls shrinked like crazy..
if one of the hostages is my relative, i would be eager and happy to go into that damned hotel and spray those islamic mofos with my trusty mp5-sd in my ninja outfit, before banging them with flash or concussion grenades to wake up their bloody ideas.
Last edited:
1. You seem to love to use the word "facts", when in fact (pardon the pun) many a time what you assert are not incontrovertible facts and that is indeed a "fact"
No need for me to repeat myself just look at my previoous post including my comments in red.
2. On the issue of the unfortunate murdered Jews, you appear to be distorting what I said. Note I used the words "save for the Jews..." before going on to say that no other ethnic group/nationality "appeared" to be randomly targetted. So I was not picking and choosing as you now claim. Moreover I qualify what I say with the words "appear";"appeared" and "appearing" because unlike you, I am not so rash and brash to make sweeping 'factual' assertions without solid concrete objective evidence.
3. Are you sure the Singapore authorities, regardless of whether it was the MFA or otherwise, did not relay the late Ms Lo's message to the Indian authorities? I recall reading newsreports that her message was indeed relayed.
4. I have never asserted that it is a "fact" that the late Ms Lo was "randomly and arbitrarily" taken hostage. Again note my qualification "appeared". To me from all the accounts that I have read thus far, I am of the view that is more likely that she was taken hostage by chance while trying to evade the terrorists together with her small group when they left the dinning area on the ground floor.
5. Now you assert that I am "wrong on both counts" i.e. 1) that you said she was killed by the paki terrorists and 2) that "her killing was randomly and arbitrary". On 1), I think you misconceived because I don't think I made such a definitive assertion, please see my previous post again. On 2) Do you have incontrovertible facts to conclusively demonstrate that I am wrong? Note I qualified my statement with the word "appeared".
6. Your "gangland killing" is a conspiracy theory at best, based on your own reading of the news accounts, purely subjective and inconclusive. Pollack may not have been with Ms Lo but Pollack's eye witness narrative of the terrorists attack at Taj (it appears that all the the terrorists at all the material target areas were directly related based on the sole captured paki terrorists account) appears indicative of the intent of all the terrorists. And from Pollack's account there appears to be no indication of "gangland killing" as claimed by you.
7. On the issue of being "singled out" and "relaying of messages", all I am saying is that there could have been other coincidental reasons apart from your conspiracy assertions. It is neither here nor there, since the facts do not appear to have been established or if so established I have yet to read of such an objective conclusive factual account. Btw I don't think her hubby, MFA or otherwise have suggested that she was "singled out" because she was a Singaporean. And this is the point I am trying to make. I have yet to read of any conclusive factual confirmation that the late Ms Lo or any other hostages/victims were "singled out" because of ethnicity/nationality save for the Jews at Nariman House. Pollack's eyewitness narrative appears to back me up on this, also the fact there were soem muslim victims as well.
8. On who and how she was killed, I do not know for sure as a fact. I never claimed otherwise.
9. Unlike you, I am not prone to bandying about the word "fact" to support my contentions. However I do acknowledge that the whole story on what happened to the late Ms Lo still appears murky. For instance why did the late Ms Lo say there were "5 terrorists" holding her group when perhaps they may have been only 2? What did the late Ms lo mean by "please hurry up" in her last message to her hubby? Why was the late Ms Lo allowed to send emails/texts to her 3 close friends (or did she do this on the sly without the terrorrists knowing)? Was the late Ms Lo the only hostage in this incident who was instructed by the terrorists to relay a message, and if so what does this imply? What did George Yeo mean by saying Ms Lo had made a "sacrifice" in his comments on facebook? Am I reading to much into GY's comments?
Perhaps more shall revealed in the coming days, weeks, months by the authorities and the independent worldwide investigative press.
No need for me to repeat myself just look at my previoous post including my comments in red.2. On the issue of the unfortunate murdered Jews, you appear to be distorting what I said. Note I used the words "save for the Jews..." before going on to say that no other ethnic group/nationality "appeared" to be randomly targetted. So I was not picking and choosing as you now claim. Moreover I qualify what I say with the words "appear";"appeared" and "appearing" because unlike you, I am not so rash and brash to make sweeping 'factual' assertions without solid concrete objective evidence.
3. Are you sure the Singapore authorities, regardless of whether it was the MFA or otherwise, did not relay the late Ms Lo's message to the Indian authorities? I recall reading newsreports that her message was indeed relayed.
4. I have never asserted that it is a "fact" that the late Ms Lo was "randomly and arbitrarily" taken hostage. Again note my qualification "appeared". To me from all the accounts that I have read thus far, I am of the view that is more likely that she was taken hostage by chance while trying to evade the terrorists together with her small group when they left the dinning area on the ground floor.
5. Now you assert that I am "wrong on both counts" i.e. 1) that you said she was killed by the paki terrorists and 2) that "her killing was randomly and arbitrary". On 1), I think you misconceived because I don't think I made such a definitive assertion, please see my previous post again. On 2) Do you have incontrovertible facts to conclusively demonstrate that I am wrong? Note I qualified my statement with the word "appeared".
6. Your "gangland killing" is a conspiracy theory at best, based on your own reading of the news accounts, purely subjective and inconclusive. Pollack may not have been with Ms Lo but Pollack's eye witness narrative of the terrorists attack at Taj (it appears that all the the terrorists at all the material target areas were directly related based on the sole captured paki terrorists account) appears indicative of the intent of all the terrorists. And from Pollack's account there appears to be no indication of "gangland killing" as claimed by you.
7. On the issue of being "singled out" and "relaying of messages", all I am saying is that there could have been other coincidental reasons apart from your conspiracy assertions. It is neither here nor there, since the facts do not appear to have been established or if so established I have yet to read of such an objective conclusive factual account. Btw I don't think her hubby, MFA or otherwise have suggested that she was "singled out" because she was a Singaporean. And this is the point I am trying to make. I have yet to read of any conclusive factual confirmation that the late Ms Lo or any other hostages/victims were "singled out" because of ethnicity/nationality save for the Jews at Nariman House. Pollack's eyewitness narrative appears to back me up on this, also the fact there were soem muslim victims as well.
8. On who and how she was killed, I do not know for sure as a fact. I never claimed otherwise.
9. Unlike you, I am not prone to bandying about the word "fact" to support my contentions. However I do acknowledge that the whole story on what happened to the late Ms Lo still appears murky. For instance why did the late Ms Lo say there were "5 terrorists" holding her group when perhaps they may have been only 2? What did the late Ms lo mean by "please hurry up" in her last message to her hubby? Why was the late Ms Lo allowed to send emails/texts to her 3 close friends (or did she do this on the sly without the terrorrists knowing)? Was the late Ms Lo the only hostage in this incident who was instructed by the terrorists to relay a message, and if so what does this imply? What did George Yeo mean by saying Ms Lo had made a "sacrifice" in his comments on facebook? Am I reading to much into GY's comments?
Perhaps more shall revealed in the coming days, weeks, months by the authorities and the independent worldwide investigative press.
Was Michael Pollack with Ms Lo when she was shot? Rather than saying "so what" and saying that my words are speculative and conjecture, why don't you come forth with solid evidence to debunk the facts I laid out?
The various facts I put forth are mere ingredients for conspiracy theorists. I did not put forth any consipracy theory in my post, but the facts are meant to set the conspiracy theorists thinking.
You said "The killings appeared to be random and arbitrary" but yet in the same breath say that the Jews were targetted. So, you pick and choose whichever view you feel reinforces your rebuttal? I lay out the facts in my post. I did not make any assumption or make any claims. But you seem eager to claim "the killings appear to be random and arbitrary".
So, on what basis you say that Ms Lo's killing was arbitrary and random?
Her hubby was the one in the interview who said Ms Lo was picked to relay the message. The consular of the directorate, on national TV, was the one who apologised on behalf of MFA that it did not act on Ms Lo's message because, in the consular's own words "the situation was fluid at that point in time and MFA is sorry for not acting on Ms Lo's message".
While rebutting my post, you also give the impression that Ms Lo was killed by the Pakistani attackers and that the killing was random and arbitrary. You are wrong on both counts. First, I did not say Ms Lo was killed by the Pakistani attackers. Second, you are wrong to conclude that her killing was random and arbitrary.
The facts that were reported in all the news point to an execution style killing. There are reports that state such manner of killing is suggestive of a gangland killing when demands were not met. Again, I did not imagine all this. You can find these reports all over the online news.
I did not say she was the only one singled out to be executed. There could be others killed like her. I don't know that but this is not my message. My message said specifically Ms Lo was singled out to relay the message to the Indian gahment to stop storming the hotel. This news was plastered all over the various news boards and I am not the one who said it. Her hubby and also MFA said so in the news and national TV. Not me.
Her last hours and who killed her were never verified by witnesses or forensics. Why are you so eager then to put the blame on your so-called "terrorists"? Are you telling me she could not have been killed because she was used as a body shield or by friendly fire?
Who is right and has the truth and verified facts, only she knows. But she is dead now. In seeking the truth, conspiracy theories will be formulated by many and frankly, you can't win this argument because there will be conspiracy theories aplenty, whether you like it or not.
Your views are just as speculative and conjecture and as murky as all the conspiracy theories flying around because no one can verify the truth of her death. Only she can.
Fact or subjective opinion? In any event what is your basis?
1. You seem to love to use the word "facts", when in fact (pardon the pun) many a time what you assert are not incontrovertible facts and that is indeed a "fact"
..........Perhaps more shall revealed in the coming days, weeks, months by the authorities and the independent worldwide investigative press.
Reply in red:
1. You seem to love to use the word "facts", when in fact (pardon the pun) many a time what you assert are not incontrovertible facts and that is indeed a "fact"
No need for me to repeat myself just look at my previoous post including my comments in red.No need to repeat myself either. Facts are facts until you can come up with solid evidence to refute the facts laid out.
2. On the issue of the unfortunate murdered Jews, you appear to be distorting what I said. Note I used the words "save for the Jews..." before going on to say that no other ethnic group/nationality "appeared" to be randomly targetted. So I was not picking and choosing as you now claim. Moreover I qualify what I say with the words "appear";"appeared" and "appearing" because unlike you, I am not so rash and brash to make sweeping 'factual' assertions without solid concrete objective evidence.
I talk about Ms Lo being singled out to relay the message to Sinkie gahment but you talk about "no other ethnic group/nationality appear to be randomly targetted. What crap are you talking about? The use of "appear" means what? Means you not sure right? Facts or imagination then? You said Jews are targeted. Why? Based on what evidence? So, you made sweeping statements without even realising it yourself. Need I say more?
3. Are you sure the Singapore authorities, regardless of whether it was the MFA or otherwise, did not relay the late Ms Lo's message to the Indian authorities? I recall reading newsreports that her message was indeed relayed.
Not reported in the news. You recall is imagined, as expected.
4. I have never asserted that it is a "fact" that the late Ms Lo was "randomly and arbitrarily" taken hostage. Again note my qualification "appeared". To me from all the accounts that I have read thus far, I am of the view that is more likely that she was taken hostage by chance while trying to evade the terrorists together with her small group when they left the dinning area on the ground floor.
Now, you are retracting your own words. You did say she was randomly and arbitrarily taken hostage. If you now say that she is NOT randomly and arbitrarily taken hostage, make it clear now. You still get this chance.
What is the use of using words like "chance" when it is merely a twist of words which does not mean anything. "Chance" to you mean what? Clarify.
5. Now you assert that I am "wrong on both counts" i.e. 1) that you said she was killed by the paki terrorists and 2) that "her killing was randomly and arbitrary". On 1), I think you misconceived because I don't think I made such a definitive assertion, please see my previous post again. On 2) Do you have incontrovertible facts to conclusively demonstrate that I am wrong? Note I qualified my statement with the word "appeared".
I don't know what you are talking about now. Are you replying to me for the sake of replying? I do not think I have misconceived what you wrote. You are wrong on both counts, I repeat.
6. Your "gangland killing" is a conspiracy theory at best, based on your own reading of the news accounts, purely subjective and inconclusive. Pollack may not have been with Ms Lo but Pollack's eye witness narrative of the terrorists attack at Taj (it appears that all the the terrorists at all the material target areas were directly related based on the sole captured paki terrorists account) appears indicative of the intent of all the terrorists. And from Pollack's account there appears to be no indication of "gangland killing" as claimed by you.
"Gangland" killing is a conspiracy theory? Suits yourself then. You are talking rocks. Pollack was never witness to any of the 22 foreign hostages killed. Remember, there were close to 200 killed and another nearly 200 injured. Show me any report of Pollack witnessing Ms Lo or any of the 22 hostages killed please. If you can't then you are merely trying to put forth your own unfounded version of what happened. Frankly, I do not know what exactly you are trying to achieve in your replies. Are you trying to tell others you are smart? I hope not, because you are not smart, as can be seen from your replies.
7. On the issue of being "singled out" and "relaying of messages", all I am saying is that there could have been other coincidental reasons apart from your conspiracy assertions. It is neither here nor there, since the facts do not appear to have been established or if so established I have yet to read of such an objective conclusive factual account. Btw I don't think her hubby, MFA or otherwise have suggested that she was "singled out" because she was a Singaporean. And this is the point I am trying to make. I have yet to read of any conclusive factual confirmation that the late Ms Lo or any other hostages/victims were "singled out" because of ethnicity/nationality save for the Jews at Nariman House. Pollack's eyewitness narrative appears to back me up on this, also the fact there were soem muslim victims as well.
While trying to frame me for suggesting a conspiracy theory, you gave your own consipracy theory. To me, Ms Lo was singled out. There were no other reports in the news of being used by the hostages to relay message to the Indian gahment. Show me if you have any report otherwise. Again, I hope I need not repeat myself. Ms Lo is singled out because her hubby said so. MFA said so. Whether there were others singled out, frankly, it is immaterial. So, what rocks are you talking now?
8. On who and how she was killed, I do not know for sure as a fact. I never claimed otherwise.
Oh yes, you did. You said she was killed randomly and arbitrary. Killed by who? Please say so. You do not come here to rebute me yet not making your position clear. Tell us, if not, do not make frivolous statement that she, like the rest, were killed randomly and arbitrarily. Again, what rocks you talking?
9. Unlike you, I am not prone to bandying about the word "fact" to support my contentions. However I do acknowledge that the whole story on what happened to the late Ms Lo still appears murky. For instance why did the late Ms Lo say there were "5 terrorists" holding her group when perhaps they may have been only 2? What did the late Ms lo mean by "please hurry up" in her last message to her hubby? Why was the late Ms Lo allowed to send emails/texts to her 3 close friends (or did she do this on the sly without the terrorrists knowing)? Was the late Ms Lo the only hostage in this incident who was instructed by the terrorists to relay a message, and if so what does this imply? What did George Yeo mean by saying Ms Lo had made a "sacrifice" in his comments on facebook? Am I reading to much into GY's comments?
What is the freaking matter with you? Facts mean facts. If you do not believe they are facts, then don't believe then. I never force you to believe any of the facts that the news reported and in my first post, all I said are statement of facts. Plain and simple.
To me, they are facts are reported by her hubby in the interview he had. The rest of the points in my first posts are also facts. I said she was single out are also a statement of fact unless you can show me otherwise. The rest of your point 9, frankly, I am not interested in as they are your own interpretations only. I have my own analysis of what really transpired, after reading every piece of info available to me online and on national TV.
Perhaps more shall revealed in the coming days, weeks, months by the authorities and the independent worldwide investigative press.
I merely laid out the facts reported by the news and spoken by others, including her hubby and MFA. Whether these facts, when put together by readers, can be formulated into conspiracy theories, I think anyone with a mind of his own, will have his own conspiracy theory. When more facts are revealed, more conspiracy theories will be formed. No one knows the full facts, so no point arguing as if you are so correct. You are just as freaking clueless as anybody else. So, I will not be entertaining any more replies or retort from you. To me, it is pointless.
Fact or subjective opinion? In any event what is your basis?
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by masgnoeL
For Mas Selamat, it is a foregone conclusion. Mas Selamat is dead. Very dead.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- / message --><!-- controls -->
Fact. If he is not dead, where is he now? Use your brain please.
Similar threads
