| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Was 9/11 an inside job? |
| No!!! What are you retarded? |
|
14% |
[ 2 ] |
| No!!!! Pissed off muslims did it! You're going to hell for even asking! |
|
14% |
[ 2 ] |
| Yes, I also wet my pants, and am a stupid French communist liberal moron! |
|
71% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 14 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| John White wrote: | | Quote: | That some CIA assistance to the mujahideen may indirectly have reached Al Qaeda is a rather different affair from your assertion that it was a CIA founded operation, I would say.
Neither did Robin Cook actually say that AQ was a CIA operation, he said it had received arms from the CIA and money from the Saudis. And of course he assumes that there are such things as terrorist attacks, and they are not all inside jobs. |
What is Al Qeada, if NOT the mujahideen? I would say that provided millions of dollars worth of weapons and training very much counts as "founding" the operation. Can you be certain there's no money trail as well? I'd have to go a digging another time, becuase I'm not going to put time into searching now and I dont have stuff ready to hand, but the Saudi financial support is also likely to stretch beyond the countries own borders. I'll look into that (becuase, unlike anti-sophist, you are someone worth having a dialogue with and I'm a fair man)
| Quote: | | The Jersey girls and "Press for Truth", which you obviously find important, also do not suggest or even hint that 9/11 might have been an inside job, indeed their whole argument is instead that there was sufficient information available to the US government to prevent the attacks, or at least reduce their impact, if it had been used properly. Would you say that they are deluded over this? Or disinfo agents, shills or some of the other categories of heretic? |
Of course its important. I'm constantly mystified that critics dont find prior knowledge incredibly important, given that it shows the Bush administration lying about intelligence prior to 9/11 as well as lying about intelligence afterwards (Iraqi WMD's, Iraqi links to Al-queda). Then theres the expostre of the commission as a) seriously resisted b) starved of funds c) placed under crippling restrictions d) manipulated by Zelicow and the White House plus many other problems, showing it in no way to be any kind of credible investigation. The argument that others were doing that research is pure tosh, as it was the express purpose of the commission to establish all the facts...not do a half baked fluff job. Again, where is the genuine patriotism in critics when they are settling for the american public being cynically fobbed off and treated like mushrooms? Of course I dont think the Jersey Girls are shills etc becuase they present the basis of the case for why 9/11 has not been properly investigated, and critics need to grow out of taking the lazy route of characterising 9/11 truth based on the views of its younger or more emotional advocates. Perhaps critics dont have the experaice with which to draw empathy, but it takes people some time to come to terms with realising they have been decived on a massive scale, and I for one seek to help people, not sterotype them..at least where practical. And only critics seem to require a documentary film or any source of information to solve all the questions. "Press for truth" provides a cast iron basis for further inquirey and any genuine critical thinker cannot justify not taking the information on board, and should be supporting the call for a new commission on the basis of press for truth alone, never mind LIHOP (which Press for truth provides for the possibility of) or MIHOP (which only needs the stand down of NORAD). Strawman issues like "what hit the pentagon" and the crazy theories with COINTELPRO fingerporints on them can be left on the side by all genuine people: though equally, there's nothing wrong with considering them. Its just that "inside job" can be shown without them
| Quote: | | The film also fails to conclusively prove that Atta was bankrolled through the ISI, it presents evidence to that effect, but it all comes back to Indian sources, which have to be suspect. |
And western governments never put out propganda? Who's going to believe that in this day and age? If you mean that information from India cannot be trusted becuase they are not firmly in bed with Uncle Sam, the news is, no-one really is these days (including Blighty, we reckon Bush is a grevious major threat to world peace according to polls this week) and its definately the Neo Cons to blame for that, dragging a great nation to its knees. I shouldnt think India is very happy with Pakistan aligning itself with desperate and delusional US ambitions to dominate Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, but it doesn't mean the information isnt valid simply becuase the US favours the country with nuclear weapons in politicing to secure support for seizing oil supplies from a country without. All US citizens should hope the Neocon ambitions are simply based on delusion, becuase the alternative is that they are deliberately working to bring America to ruin, and thats a dark place to have to go indeed. And how the mighty have fallen so far.
I'm curious: doesnt that raise any emotion in critics? |
You fall into the trap of assuming that critics of the "truth" movement are necessarily supporters of Bush and his gang of reckless incompetants, which is certainly not so. Personally, I hope they will be thoroughly humiliated on Tuesday, and are hamstrung by losing control of both Houses.
"Press for Truth" makes a good case that there was sufficient information available to the US government to prevent the attacks, or at least reduce their impact, if it had been used properly, and that the administration attempted to cover that up by resisting and then hamstringing an enquiry. That may well all be true, governments attempting to cover up their incompetance is nothing new at all. But surely you can appreciate that does not go near to proving LIHOP, and MIHOP is a ludicrous fantasy without a shred of evidence? An investigation into why the available intelligence was not better used, in order to better use future intelligence would be worthwhile, an entirely new enquiry into every aspect would simply be a waste of time and a diversion.
Emotion in any investigation is a considerable bar to getting at the truth, as we see in respect of 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
rational debate is always healthy. my main problem with anti-sophist and the 911myths website here (and in most other cases), is that the underlying objective behind their attempts to discredit the evidence, seems to be a suggestion that 9/11 is best not investigated atall beyond the partial investigation which has already taken place. 911myths does its best to support the official story, and is quick to find any evidence to do so before considering any alternative. In many cases, particularly this one (ISI/CIA connections) its evidence is very speculative indeed, and adds many more variables to the explanation (you can't shout 'occams razor' at people and then not use it yourself). Infact, 911myths apparently 'debunks' the weight of this reported connection, simply by saying 'India doesn't like the US and Pakistan having close relations'. Which isn't evidence, just pure speculation. To its credit it does acknoweldge that the FBI confirmed the transfer coming from pakistan, but goes on to say that there is some confusion about who actually made the transfer ( http://911myths.com/html/mustafa_ahmad_al-hawsawi.html ).. unfortunately it does nothing to debunk, only reminds the reader that investigation into this story isn't yet 100% conclusive.. which it isn't as the 911 commission have done their best to dismiss the evidence and not follow it up. Which is something I find suspicious. The victims family members also find it suspicious.
After all that 911myths goes on to admit that there is valid evidence connecting Mamhoud Ahmed to attas funding (the only debate surrounding the transfer concerns the name of the person who actually carried out the transaction, which is arguably, not that important), but suggests that he was acting alone and had no ties to the US. Despite his visiting the US and meetings at the pentagon and National Security Council (specifically Marc Grossman, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs) on september 11th 2001. 911myths plays down the conincidence of this meeting by reminding the reader that Ahmed was visting washington about 3 months earlier. I don't see how this really proves anything. It is perhaps more evidence that conspiring communications could have been taking place.
Researchers into the pakistani ISIs connection to terrorism in the west, should also be aware of the very recent leak from the Ministry of Defence here in the UK. The document leaked to the BBC says, quite openly, that the london bombings on 7/7 were sponsored by the ISI. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5388426.stm
If you still aren't convinced that the US has any ties to the ISI, and that evidence only points towards the ISI then fair enough, but let me ask you this...
What are the makers of www.911myths.com and the critics who subscribe to the content of this site, doing to pressure their government into investigating the evidence that the Pakistani ISI was involved in 9/11? What are you doing to stop the slaughter of innocent human lives in Iraq, a country which has no connection to 9/11? What are you doing to see that the real organisers of 9/11 are punished for their crimes? Will you speak out, write to your politicians and media and tell them you think that the financeers of the murder of 3000 innocent citizens are getting away with their crime, and that you're not happy about it?
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
Last edited by TimmyG on Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:54 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Rich claiming its truthseekers who see facts as mutable. The reality is it is the governments and authorities of the world who have murdered truth with 80 years of psychological spin, and we have to work to establish reality through the (calculated and deliberate) distortion
|
But the irony is that it is indeed you "truthseekers" who are in the forefront when it comes to using distortions and lies in your campaign for the truth, and employ slippery evasions or try to change the subject when confronted with them. "the FBI have no interest in Bin Laden (FACT)" is rather different to "the US military appeared to allow bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora"
The only thing that the Bush administration have been proved to be lying over, thanks to the Jersey Girls and others, is that the use of airliners as missiles had been considered before 9/11 and that warnings were received that should have led to heightened security.
In contrast, every conspiracy site I have ever seen is chockful of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, distortion and lies. The only conclusion can be that genuine evidence for what the "truthseekers" so desperately want to be true is lacking, and they have to fall back on manipulating the evidence. It is like a lazy copper who "knows" the suspect is guilty fitting up the evidence to prove that.
A classic case is Silverstein's famous "pull it" quote, often represented as "Silverstein confessed to having WTC7 blown up". For this to be true, a "truthseeker" will:
Believe Silverstein that he made the statement including the words,
Ignore who he says he was speaking to, a fire chief who phoned him,
Ignore the preceding words, that it was because of the loss of life, and use the words out of context,
Ignore that he says "they", the FDNY, made the decision,
Pretend that "pull it" means demolish with explosives in the demolition world, whereas actually it means pull down with cables, as WTC6 was pulled down. The clip shown on the websites is cut short to conceal how the remains of WTC6 were actually demolished.
Regardless of whether one believes WTC7 was demolished or not, this Silverstein quote is simply not evidence for it at all. But I have never yet seen a "truthseeker" who will acknowledge that fact. You all cling to the gross distortion, and refuse to let go.
How about you, John? Will you be brave enough to reject the lie, or will you show solidarity with those I can only describe as "truthshirkers"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: |
Researchers into the pakistani ISIs connection to terrorism in the west, should also be aware of the very recent leak from the Ministry of Defence here in the UK. The document leaked to the BBC says, quite openly, that the london bombings on 7/7 were sponsored by the ISI. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5388426.stm
|
It doesn't quite say that does it? It says that the ISI has been indirectly supporting terrorism and extremism, and there seems little doubt that is the case, originally to overthrow the Russians in Afghanistan, but becoming something of a way of life. The Pakistan connection with the London bombers is well known, they travelled to Pakistan and received some sort of training there. The ISI may well have supported the training camps, but that is rather different to sponsoring the attacks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Indirectly Pakistan (through the ISI) has been supporting terrorism and extremism - whether in London on 7/7 or in Afghanistan or Iraq. |
fair enough. it didn't say 'sponsoring' there. my mistake.
it still quite damning though.
don't you think an intelligence service, which is clearly training terrorists which have committed acts of terrorism in the west, should be investigated thoroughly by the west?
or do you think its ok to declare a general war on terror and then attack countries in the interest of your economy whilst letting the culprits off?
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: |
What are the makers of www.911myths.com and the critics who subscribe to the content of this site, doing to pressure their government into investigating the evidence that the Pakistani ISI was involved in 9/11? What are you doing to stop the slaughter of innocent human lives in Iraq, a country which has no connection to 9/11? What are you doing to see that the real organisers of 9/11 are punished for their crimes? Will you speak out, write to your politicians and media and tell them you think that the financeers of the murder of 3000 innocent citizens are getting away with their crime, and that you're not happy about it? |
This is just totally irrational. The problem with your cute little "inaction" spiel is that you have no evidence, at all, that there was an inside job. So you go on these big long rants irrationally connecting bizarre events (like slaughtering of people in iraq) because you don't have any actual facts to back up your delusional stories.
I don't know you and gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you've just lost it. You clearly aren't able to deal in reality. You are still one step above the other guy, though, because at least you are trying. At least your have your own opinion, despite the fact they are utterly irrational and based on fantasy. At least they are yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
its not irrational atall. you have misinterpreted what i'm saying.
911myths.com suggests that the pakistani isi funded the attacks but america had no involvement. Surely if you subscribe to this then you want to see the pakistani ISI investigated and brought to justice? I'm not talking about it being an inside job here i'm talking about the suggestion made by a website you have quoted, that the pakistani ISI was invovled. If this is the case don't you feel deceived by the US government? i was just making a point
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: | its not irrational atall. you have misinterpreted what i'm saying.
911myths.com suggests that the pakistani isi funded the attacks but america had no involvement. Surely if you subscribe to this then you want to see the pakistani ISI investigated and brought to justice? I'm not talking about it being an inside job here i'm talking about the suggestion made by a website you have quoted, that the pakistani ISI was invovled. If this is the case don't you feel deceived by the US government? i was just making a point |
For some reason you neglected to point out the connection to Iraq. I'm sure there is a rational reason why the ISI and the Pakistani involvement is connected Iraq beyond your irrational "appeal to emotion"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: | | Quote: | | Indirectly Pakistan (through the ISI) has been supporting terrorism and extremism - whether in London on 7/7 or in Afghanistan or Iraq. |
fair enough. it didn't say 'sponsoring' there. my mistake.
it still quite damning though.
don't you think an intelligence service, which is clearly training terrorists which have committed acts of terrorism in the west, should be investigated thoroughly by the west?
or do you think its ok to declare a general war on terror and then attack countries in the interest of your economy whilst letting the culprits off? |
I think the West should be putting considerable pressure on Pakistan to distance itself from the ISI and fully investigate what its intelligence service has been up to. There was probaly a reasonable case for invading Afghanistan, but whether the escape of bin Laden and many of his followers was down to incompetance, a deal with Pakistan or something else is an open question. The invasion of Iraq was never justified, it was a huge mistake, an initial stunning military success followed by disastrous failure thereafter. It has been entirely against America's true interests, and Bush should be hounded out of office for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There was probaly a reasonable case for invading Afghanistan |
How so though? I mean since when has the invasion and occupation of a country been justified by that country 'harbouring terrorists?'
(Notwithstanding the fact the Taliban had offered to hand over Bin Ladin if hard evidence was produced to prove his guilt - a not entirely unreasonable condition of extradition).
"What was the right way for Britain to deal with IRA bombs in London? One choice would have been to send the RAF to bomb the source of their finances, places like Boston, or to infiltrate commandos to capture those suspected of involvement in such financing and kill them or spirit them to London to face trial.
Putting aside feasibility, that would have been criminal idiocy."
Chomsky, 911 p.62
I mean, if the 7/7 bombers were traced back to a mastermind in Pakistan, should Britain then declare war on Pakistan, invade, stay there and build bases?
'Destroying Al Qaeda' is hardly plausible unless the 'worldwide terror network' rhetoric is dismissed. These guys are EVERYWHERE, right?
America's leadership may be utter w@nkers, but they're not daft and wouldn't do such a thing over 'justice' (do they have that concept?).
There is a fair bit of evidence knocking around they wanted a pop at Afghanistan and there's no way they'd actually invade'n'occupy without really, really wanting to. Otherwise, it'd be airstrikes at the very most. Maybe a covert hit squad. Diplomacy and police work if sanity were applied.
There simply was no sane reason to invade, wreak havok, kill more civilians than died on 911, displace countless people, wreck the (already buggered) infrastructure and end up in an ongoing bloody war on the basis that the Taliban were being awkward.
And let's be clear - it was an invasion. I'm assuming nobody here buys into that 'liberation' *.
Proof of anything sinister it ain't, but one of the things that gives me sympathy with the CT (perhaps only from a LIHOP perspective) is that 911 was so much the right attack from the right people at the right time. Coincidences do happen, but they nevertheless make you wonder.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
You forgot Muslims: guilty on masse with no better justifications than any of the above. I'd agree that the Bush administration do show qualities of being "angry nut jobs" though |
This is a straw man. Only an idiot would hold all Muslims responsible for 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Only an idiot would hold all Muslims responsible for 9/11. |
Absolutely - though I assume you'd therefore be pretty dismayed at some of the graffiti I've seen in the Northwest of England, particularly right after 911.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: | | Quote: | | There was probaly a reasonable case for invading Afghanistan |
How so though? I mean since when has the invasion and occupation of a country been justified by that country 'harbouring terrorists?'
(Notwithstanding the fact the Taliban had offered to hand over Bin Ladin if hard evidence was produced to prove his guilt - a not entirely unreasonable condition of extradition).
|
When you consider that the terrorists are actually being supported by the government of that country, I suppose. I agree that there might well have been other methods which could have been used, but it must be doubtful if the Taleban would ever actually have handed over OBL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | TimmyG wrote: | its not irrational atall. you have misinterpreted what i'm saying.
911myths.com suggests that the pakistani isi funded the attacks but america had no involvement. Surely if you subscribe to this then you want to see the pakistani ISI investigated and brought to justice? I'm not talking about it being an inside job here i'm talking about the suggestion made by a website you have quoted, that the pakistani ISI was invovled. If this is the case don't you feel deceived by the US government? i was just making a point |
For some reason you neglected to point out the connection to Iraq. I'm sure there is a rational reason why the ISI and the Pakistani involvement is connected Iraq beyond your irrational "appeal to emotion"? |
sorry. that was a bit of a rant i know. I was just highlighting my concerns that critics often seem to be agressively defending the governments right not to have evidence investigated thoroughly, and put a lot of energy into telling us we are wrong, the implication often appears to be that we are wrong to be asking questions. Fair enough if you think the questions have been answered, but 911myths suggests that the ISI may have some involvement and that investigation into this issue is incomplete.
there was probably no need mention iraq there, i didn't think it through. My problem is that 9/11 has been used as the pretext for a war which has killed and is killing hundreds of thousands of people, a war based on lies. Don't critics feel decieved and if they do don't they feel like trying to do something about it? or are they happy to be decieved? If they have discovered evidence that pakistan was funding the attacks of 9/11, don't they feel they should pursue this evidence until it is either conclusively proven to be false, or if it is isn't false, dealt with respectively (i.e. pakistan dismantling the ISI, the individuals arrested and questioned, the mainstream media covering the facts appropriately)? OR are they happy for the evidence to be dismissed? If the evidence against the ISI can be proven to be credible, how do critics feel about Bushes close relations with pakistan and Musharraf's refusal to dismantal the ISI, whist american and uk troops are taking lives in country which was associated to 9/11 based on incredibly poor evidence?
There seems to be an awful lot of energy put into telling us we are wrong. Sometimes the extent of these efforts appears to me to be an irrational defence of the whitehouse.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blunt Republican
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 12
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
um... ok, just because Iraq was not involved in 9/11, doesn't mean they don't deserve to be invaded. Actually, even Afghanistan deserved it either way. You're a moron.
_________________
I'll make a signateur later you stupid democrats! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Blunt Republican wrote: | | um... ok, just because Iraq was not involved in 9/11, doesn't mean they don't deserve to be invaded. Actually, even Afghanistan deserved it either way. You're a moron. |
So (accoding to Blunt republican before Aggle-Rythm quotes me out of context again) 600,000 Iraqi's, who had nothing to do with 9/11, are now dead because they "deserve it". And anyone who thinks differently is a moron
Do you think at all before you write such drivel?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Do you think at all before you write such drivel? |
You are one to talk. Maybe it he posted it in a video compilation on youtube with eerie music you'd go around posting it on all the forums and believe whatever he said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I reference 600,000 human beings who have lost their lives in the last 3 years in response to Blunt Republican saying "they deserve it" and your blithering about internet documentaries
Get some perspective
Its certainly clear who is ethically a moron
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | your blithering about internet documentaries
|
'Documentaries' is a strong word for the trash that is your unquestioned bible.
It's so amusing to me hear you be such a hypocrite. I guess it's ok to piss all over 3,000 dead with internet video trash, but 600,000 is just crossing the line, huh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
One human being murdered is one too many: but killing 600,000 who had nothing to do with the murder of 3000 is certainly no form of justice: I'm after finding the real culprits: your after justifying slaughter, and using childish sophistry to do so.
I'll take no lecture from you on ethics Anti-sophist
Try not to disgrace yourself further
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | your after justifying slaughter, and using childish sophistry to do so. |
What a shocker. Another lie. Who would have thought you were incapable of reading and comprehending what you are reading. I'm not justifying anything. I am not trying to justify anything. This is another in a long line of your pathetic strawmen.
I am saying you are just as guilty of the affronts to humanity that you accuse him of being. For some reason you think it's ok to continually insult 3000 dead with your paranoid delusions and lack of critical thinking, yet you get bent out of shape when you think someone is trivializing the death of others.
| Quote: |
I'll take no lecture from you on ethics Anti-sophist
|
You spend every day of your life disgracing the dead. I wouldn't expect anything less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abandoned Ego
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:15 am Post subject: John......... |
|
|
John white......
You dont have a hope in hell of convincing people who, apparently, seriously believe that 19 Muslims with Stanley knives did 9/11, arent actually the TRUE "conspiracy theorists"
You see, according to their version of things, it is totally feasible that ;
A) we dont find indestructible black boxes in the twin towers, but we do find a cardboard passport belonging to one of the suspects.
B) That the U.S govnt, and the accompanying intelligence agencies were taken "completely by surprise" by these attacks, and yet know whodunnit 48 hours later.
C) That 3 High rise buildings truly CAN fall at virtually free fall speed, defying any universal laws of gravity or physics for the first time in recorded history.
D) that an islamic fundamentalist Jihadi, can also double as a pork chop eating, alcohol drinking, coke snorting, strip club frequentin, gambling sort , who also has a lap dancer for a girl friend !
I could go on and on, but why waste my time ?
I did try it once, in the hope that even a small percentage of the critics could be persuaded , by rational argument.
But, Look at this entire thread, or indeed this entire segment, and try believing anything other than that which would be my argument ;
Namely , that when we address such folks, We arent dealing with a rational segment of the populus in this particular segment of the board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I often wonder how much repeating these lies to yourself is a psychological defense. Does it really make you feel better to believe that _you_ are the rational one, and that everyone really does agree with you?
It must be the only thing that keeps you people sane (and I use that word in the loosest sense of the term) after you get done denying all the evidence and rationalizing away your disgracing of the 3000 people who died. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Graham
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 350
Location: bucks
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: |
It must be the only thing that keeps you people sane (and I use that word in the loosest sense of the term) after you get done denying all the evidence and rationalizing away your disgracing of the 3000 people who died. |
You are the one disgracing the dead. And those that 911 is still killing through resparitory diseases.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:58 am Post subject: Re: John......... |
|
|
| Abandoned Ego wrote: | John white......
You dont have a hope in hell of convincing people who, apparently, seriously believe that 19 Muslims with Stanley knives did 9/11, arent actually the TRUE "conspiracy theorists"
You see, according to their version of things, it is totally feasible that ;
A) we dont find indestructible black boxes in the twin towers, but we do find a cardboard passport belonging to one of the suspects.
B) That the U.S govnt, and the accompanying intelligence agencies were taken "completely by surprise" by these attacks, and yet know whodunnit 48 hours later.
C) That 3 High rise buildings truly CAN fall at virtually free fall speed, defying any universal laws of gravity or physics for the first time in recorded history.
D) that an islamic fundamentalist Jihadi, can also double as a pork chop eating, alcohol drinking, coke snorting, strip club frequentin, gambling sort , who also has a lap dancer for a girl friend !
I could go on and on, but why waste my time ?
I did try it once, in the hope that even a small percentage of the critics could be persuaded , by rational argument.
But, Look at this entire thread, or indeed this entire segment, and try believing anything other than that which would be my argument ;
Namely , that when we address such folks, We arent dealing with a rational segment of the populus in this particular segment of the board. |
Excellent points of course Abandoned Ego
I don't feel either "side" should be under any illusion that anyone is convincing anybody of anything
As I have said in the past, the only benefit in debating critics is gaining experience in arguments that one will encounter elsewhere: few are such hardcore deniers as this JREF crowd, and most debaters on most forums are far more reasonable, provided a campaigner can avoid becoming frustrated: on occasion though, I am dismayed by the emotional disconnect shown in the attitudes of critics, especially when they consider mass murder in the middle east against innocents to be serving the interests of the victims of this terrible crime: but then , that is the same shriveled and retarded empathy shown by the criminals themselves
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
There is conclusive evidance of "9/11 inside job" a plenty, but given your current inability to know even the rudimentary background to the situation, I'd have to say I would seriously ask yourself if your ready and able to handle it
|
Still waiting for a single shred of it. Let me know when you are ready to release it. |
| Anti-sophist wrote: | I'm not going to put in 5 hours doing all the research to debunk some stupid video just so you can ignore it all the answered I've lovingly provided, and post some new video next week.
|
Is it because you are frightened that these documentaries contain factual information? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scubadiver wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
There is conclusive evidance of "9/11 inside job" a plenty, but given your current inability to know even the rudimentary background to the situation, I'd have to say I would seriously ask yourself if your ready and able to handle it
|
Still waiting for a single shred of it. Let me know when you are ready to release it. |
| Anti-sophist wrote: | I'm not going to put in 5 hours doing all the research to debunk some stupid video just so you can ignore it all the answered I've lovingly provided, and post some new video next week.
|
Is it because you are frightened that these documentaries contain factual information? |
If it actually contained factual information you'd provide that information instead of link-dumping and refusing to think for yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Graham wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: |
It must be the only thing that keeps you people sane (and I use that word in the loosest sense of the term) after you get done denying all the evidence and rationalizing away your disgracing of the 3000 people who died. |
You are the one disgracing the dead. |
No you are!
Welcome to third grade. I've come to expect nothing less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject: Re: John......... |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | on occasion though, I am dismayed by the emotional disconnect shown in the attitudes of critics, especially when they consider mass murder in the middle east against innocents to be serving the interests of the victims of this terrible crime |
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:53 pm Post subject: Re: John......... |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
........ I am dismayed by the emotional disconnect shown in the attitudes of critics, especially when they consider mass murder in the middle east against innocents to be serving the interests of the victims of this terrible crime: but then , that is the same shriveled and retarded empathy shown by the criminals themselves |
And I am dismayed at your attempt to cloud the issue by bringing up emotionally intense but irrelevant topics such as the war in Iraq. Most critics would agree with you that 1) 9/11 was used as justification for the war, and 2) the war is ill advised and/or badly executed. What we don't agree is that 9/11 was part of a plan to allow the US to go to war.
I know you're upset about the fate of your hero, Saddam Hussein, but sheesh, try to stay on topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
