Can someone explain how 9/11 deniers damage america?

[GepperRankins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPeAGZt2BCA

i gotta be honest now, after seeing jesus camp with kids that were saying they'd sacrifice them self for christ and all that stuff: the idea that a few dozen people in a country where TV is banned could fuck up or intentionally get their country occupied isn't so hard to believe any more. i don't care for the apparent physics anomalies of the towers, just the conspiracy behind the attack is what should be looked at.


anyway.... how does rosie o'donnell asking questions, even insinuating the US government did it, damage america. why would it matter to terrorists abroad. surely the idea that people believe they're incapable of anything is more of an anti al-qaeda propaganda victory :ermm:

[bigboab]

aPeAGZt2BCA

i gotta be honest now, after seeing jesus camp with kids that were saying they'd sacrifice them self for christ and all that stuff: the idea that a few dozen people in a country where TV is banned could fuck up or intentionally get their country occupied isn't so hard to believe any more. i don't care for the apparent physics anomalies of the towers, just the conspiracy behind the attack is what should be looked at.


anyway.... how does rosie o'donnell asking questions, even insinuating the US government did it, damage america. why would it matter to terrorists abroad. surely the idea that people believe they're incapable of anything is more of an anti al-qaeda propaganda victory :ermm:

There are conspiracy theories abound, like the Moon landings and the Alien that landed in area 51? If you ask them for tangible truth all you get in reply is 'flannel'.:)

Incidentally I don't believe that you posted this thread. It was done by someone else using your account.

[MaxOverlord]

Bob. It's simply a matter of propaganda. The 9/11 deniers says foolish things,television over the pond pick them up and run them. If you were a radical Islamist and every day when you sat down for your dinner you saw someone in America(whom they "over there" portray as main stream) saying 9/11 was an inside job wouldn't you start to believe it too?
The constant feeding of deception and lies eventually become facts in the minds of those who are fed. If Goebbels were alive today he would be salivating at the chance to use these views.
It is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason.

[j2k4]

Actually, they don't.

[MaxOverlord]

Actually, they don't.

Please explain......

[GepperRankins]

Bob. It's simply a matter of propaganda. The 9/11 deniers says foolish things,television over the pond pick them up and run them. If you were a radical Islamist and every day when you sat down for your dinner you saw someone in America(whom they "over there" portray as main stream) saying 9/11 was an inside job wouldn't you start to believe it too?
The constant feeding of deception and lies eventually become facts in the minds of those who are fed. If Goebbels were alive today he would be salivating at the chance to use these views.
It is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason.
a great deal of the middle east thought it was an inside job on september the 12th. whether america attacked itself in order to start wars all over the place, or radical islamists did it doesn't really matter to them...

to them, their civilians are being killed because of something that has nothing to do with them. most people believe that the iraq war and to a lesser extent the afghan war have done nothing but inspire terrorism. not because of propaganda in america propagated by america, but simply because we're on their land, killing their dudes.

[MaxOverlord]

a great deal of the middle east thought it was an inside job on september the 12th. whether america attacked itself in order to start wars all over the place, or radical islamists did it doesn't really matter to them...

to them, their civilians are being killed because of something that has nothing to do with them. most people believe that the iraq war and to a lesser extent the afghan war have done nothing but inspire terrorism. not because of propaganda in america propagated by america, but simply because we're on their land, killing their dudes.


I don't agree that 9/12,as you put it,was an inside job.
I do,however, give you kudos for your sensible approach to the question.

[vidcc]

It doesn't damage America. The suggestion is purely political spin to try to silence open debate

[j2k4]

Actually, they don't.

Please explain......

Because their numbers constitute a minority of microscopic proportions, and it is a minority lacking the requisite "victim" status (apart from the obvious intellectual deficit) which typically gives minority groups their voice.

When such a periodical as Popular Science has sundered your argument to a fare-thee-well, the NYT is not likely to offer a do-over.

Neither are we likely to influence the opinion of the Arab street, relative to their misapprehension of events, so what, oh what, are we to do?

Ask me if I care at all (at all).

[j2k4]

It doesn't damage America. The suggestion is purely political spin to try to silence open debate

Quite true.

Why should we shrink from open debate, no matter how unrelentingly silly, misleading and stupid it might be.

Spin/context must be stamped out at all costs.

I hereby announce my entrepeneurial entry into spin management; I am now offering Logic Credits as an aid to those suffering any and all argumentive impairments.

[vidcc]

It doesn't damage America. The suggestion is purely political spin to try to silence open debate

Quite true.

Why should we shrink from open debate, no matter how unrelentingly silly, misleading and stupid it might be.

Spin/context must be stamped out at all costs.

I hereby announce my entrepeneurial entry into spin management; I am now offering Logic Credits as an aid to those suffering any and all argumentive impairments.

It doesn't matter if the talk is silly or misleading one bit. The point is that to suggest that such opinions damage america is nothing more than an effort to silence instead of actually refuting the statements.

It doesn't just happen with conspiracy theories, look at the rhetoric over the Iraq war debate.

Disagree with the white house and you are accused of emboldening the enemy, hurting the troops and being a traitor. This isn't just from the talking heads but from the administration and the minority in both houses. Oddly enough the things they are saying are emboldening/ hurting/treasonous are the same things the accusers did to Clinton.

[j2k4]

Quite true.

Why should we shrink from open debate, no matter how unrelentingly silly, misleading and stupid it might be.

Spin/context must be stamped out at all costs.

I hereby announce my entrepeneurial entry into spin management; I am now offering Logic Credits as an aid to those suffering any and all argumentive impairments.

It doesn't matter if the talk is silly or misleading one bit. The point is that to suggest that such opinions damage america is nothing more than an effort to silence instead of actually refuting the statements.

It doesn't just happen with conspiracy theories, look at the rhetoric over the Iraq war debate.

Disagree with the white house and you are accused of emboldening the enemy, hurting the troops and being a traitor. This isn't just from the talking heads but from the administration and the minority in both houses. Oddly enough the things they are saying are emboldening/ hurting/treasonous are the same things the accusers did to Clinton.

Hmmm.

Would that be at all like, uh, Bush, who is supposed to be the most intellectually bereft individual to ever occupy the White House, insisting that we invade Iraq because Saddam had WMD, when the smug liberal contingent now maintains that they were misled?

If that is true, then I beg you, please describe for us what Clinton was feeding us all those years, and why that should not be considered to be, uh....spin?

Would you care to change your mind as to the question of whether or not such things matter?

Spare me.

Spare us all, actually.

[MaxOverlord]

I hereby announce my entrepeneurial entry into spin management; I am now offering Logic Credits as an aid to those suffering any and all argumentive impairments.

Will there be an open debate on whether or not your Logic Credits are logical?

[vidcc]

Hmmm.

Would that be at all like, uh, Bush, who is supposed to be the most intellectually bereft individual to ever occupy the White House, insisting that we invade Iraq because Saddam had WMD, when the smug liberal contingent now maintains that they were misled?

If that is true, then I beg you, please describe for us what Clinton was feeding us all those years, and why that should not be considered to be, uh....spin?

Would you care to change your mind as to the question of whether or not such things matter?

Spare me.

Spare us all, actually.

What does anything of that have to do with what I said or about accusing people that disagree of "hurting america"?

Here's an example on point of what I am talking about

Tom DeLay thinks Democrats’ criticism of the war borders, literally, on treason.

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial board yesterday, former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) of “getting very, very close to treason” by opposing the war in Iraq. When a member of the editorial board noted that treason is a “pretty serious charge,” DeLay shot back, “And I’m serious about it.” He added that he had looked up the definition on his way to the interview (probably a good idea), and it meant “the betrayal of trust.”

DeLay specifically attacks Reid, saying that “in the time of war, with soldiers dying on the ground, announcing that we had lost the war, is very close to treasonous.”

TP noted that “none of this should come as a surprise. DeLay, who is currently under criminal indictment for money laundering and criminal conspiracy, has a long history of attacking the patriotism of progressives.”

That’s true, but let’s take a moment to delve into what, exactly, amounts to treason.

Borrowing liberally from Slate’s William Saletan, let’s provide some context for DeLay’s concerns.

If you’re sympathetic to a far-right worldview, you can probably muster some understanding for the former Majority Leader throwing around words like “treason.” After all, Harry Reid called the war in Iraq a “quagmire” and compared it to Vietnam. He said it would “drag on” indefinitely, costing billions. He accused the president of failing to specify how long our troops would have to stay, and he urged the administration to withdraw. When “the body bags start coming home,” Reid said, it’s time to cut our losses.

Reid kept going, talking about the need for peace. “The White House has bombed its way around the globe,” he sneered. “International respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.” As for the current war plan, Reid complained that “no one wants us to be there” and that the president’s crusade “has harmed [our] standing in the world.”

And given the climate, I suppose Reid was pushing his luck when he urged Congress to de-fund the war and “pull out the forces we now have in the region.” What’s worse, Reid basically made the United States look like the bad guy. Once a U.S.-led coalition “starts meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, where does it stop?” Reid asked. He charged that we were “starting to resemble a power-hungry imperialist army” and portrayed our mission as an “occupation by foreigners.”

Are all of these comments harsh? Do they undermine the troops while they’re in harm’s way? Do they amount, literally, to “treason”?

Before our friends on the right answer these questions, they should keep one minor detail in mind: all of these quotes I attributed to Harry Reid weren’t said by Reid at all — they came from Tom DeLay, on the House floor, about President Clinton’s war in Kosovo. It never occurred to him then, as it does now, that criticizing a war and questioning a military campaign is an unpatriotic attack on the country and its military.

I could dig up loads of republicans saying the democratic party is hurting America and emboldening the enemy with their timeline policy, then show that the same critics were calling for timelines when clinton was in power.


here's the administration


I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake. … I will strongly reject an artificial timetable withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job. [President Bush, 4/23/07] (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070423-2.html)

“The…attempt to micromanage our commanders is an unwise and perilous endeavor. It is impossible to argue that an unconditional timetable for retreat could serve the security interests of the United States or our friends in the region.” [Vice President Cheney, 4/13/07] (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070413-2.html)

“He’s also in denial that a surrender date he thinks is a good idea. It is not a good idea. It is defeat. It is a death sentence for the millions of Iraqis who voted for a constitution, who voted for a government, who voted for a free and democratic society.” [Dana Perino, 4/23/07] (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070423-5.html)



Flashback to 1999, when George W. Bush was governor of Texas. Then, Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99, Houston Chronicle:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99, Scripps Howard/Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

Despite his past statements, Bush now refuses to apply the same standard to his war and smears those who want a similar timetable for Iraq.

source (http://thinkprogress.org/bush-in-1999/)

[bigboab]

The only thing about 9/11 I have a problem with is the plane that crashed. I think it was shot down by the Air Force and if so, IMO rightly so.

If that was the case it should be made public to warn any other potential terrorist that they will be shot down whatever the consequences.

[j2k4]

I hereby announce my entrepeneurial entry into spin management; I am now offering Logic Credits as an aid to those suffering any and all argumentive impairments.

Will there be an open debate on whether or not your Logic Credits are logical?

Debate all you like, for I will soon be rich, just like AlGore.


What does anything of that have to do with what I said or about accusing people that disagree of "hurting america"?


I could dig up loads of republicans saying the democratic party is hurting America and emboldening the enemy with their timeline policy, then show that the same critics were calling for timelines when clinton was in power.


Slight difference.

The Republicans are largely correct, and the Democrats are not.

Also, could you tell me at all (at all) which Islamic terrorist organizations were represented in the various armed conflicts in which Clinton involved us.

[thewizeard]

Point is, and anyone could see it. Bush knew nothing. He shit a brick. He took off in his status symbol and looked down .So that rules him out. The rest of the the administration? Perhaps it would be wise to check them out, later.

To be honest, it was not a big deal. The targets made it a big deal. They were conspicuous. The loss of life was what made it so terribly terribly sad.

How do we deal with those that are planning the utter destruction of our western civilization, our innocent mothers and their children
Whether this was a conspiracy or not. We have a problem that needs to be addressed, sooner rather later.
We need a leader that will talk to them in their language.

[vidcc]

Slight difference.

The Republicans are largely correct, and the Democrats are not.

Don’t forget to mop that up before you go, not only will it attract flies but someone could slip in it and break their neck.


Also, could you tell me at all (at all) which Islamic terrorist organizations were represented in the various armed conflicts in which Clinton involved us.

What does that have to do with anything? A war is a war.

Now can you tell us at all (at all) just what Iraq had to do with AQ and 911?

If you use the old AQ was in Iraq I will point out that Saddam was their enemy. Iraq is a distraction that hinders our fight against the terrorists.

If you say AQ is operating in Iraq now I will point out that the fighting involving AQ is a tiny percentage, nearly all the violence is civil war infighting. I will also point out that if they are in Iraq today that this occurred because of the invasion…….oh and world wide terror attacks were up 25% last year……so we must be safer. And once you have done that you could perhaps get back on thread.

Nice distraction from the subject though. Back on point. The crying out “traitor/troop undermine /emboldened/aide and comforters” is nothing more than trying to silence instead of debate

[GepperRankins]

Will there be an open debate on whether or not your Logic Credits are logical?

Debate all you like, for I will soon be rich, just like AlGore.


What does anything of that have to do with what I said or about accusing people that disagree of "hurting america"?


I could dig up loads of republicans saying the democratic party is hurting America and emboldening the enemy with their timeline policy, then show that the same critics were calling for timelines when clinton was in power.


Slight difference.

The Republicans are largely correct, and the Democrats are not.

Also, could you tell me at all (at all) which Islamic terrorist organizations were represented in the various armed conflicts in which Clinton involved us.
:glag:


it's a scientific fact that republicans are always wrong

[bigboab]

I thought that Republicans were always right.:blink:

[MaxOverlord]

I thought that Republicans were always right.:blink:

I'm always right everyone else is always wrong...oh wait.....;)

[Mr JP Fugley]

We need a leader that will talk to them in their language.

I think that's exactly what they got.

In other news, if you have a group of people who hate everyone who isn't one of them.

If they declare that you have two options, join them or die.

Talking about it isn't one of my top options.

[brotherdoobie]

We need a leader that will talk to them in their language.

I think that's exactly what they got.

In other news, if you have a group of people who hate everyone who isn't one of them.

If they declare that you have two options, join them or die.

Talking about it isn't one of my top options.

Bush...mumbles more than,he verbalizes.
:fightorflightsyndrome:

-bd

[MaxOverlord]

We need a leader that will talk to them in their language.

I think that's exactly what they got.

In other news, if you have a group of people who hate everyone who isn't one of them.

If they declare that you have two options, join them or die.

Talking about it isn't one of my top options.

I second that motion Mr JP

[Mr JP Fugley]

I think that's exactly what they got.

In other news, if you have a group of people who hate everyone who isn't one of them.

If they declare that you have two options, join them or die.

Talking about it isn't one of my top options.

I second that motion Mr JP

Warmonger.

[brotherdoobie]

I second that motion Mr JP

Warmonger.

It's just Kevin.

-bd

[j2k4]

Don’t forget to mop that up before you go, not only will it attract flies but someone could slip in it and break their neck.

Only a liberal would "slip in it and break their neck", but that danger is easily overcome by affixing a ""DANGER!" sticker, which step I've taken to keep you out of trouble.


Also, could you tell me at all (at all) which Islamic terrorist organizations were represented in the various armed conflicts in which Clinton involved us.


What does that have to do with anything? A war is a war.

No, no it's not, and to say that it is reeks of that special brand of silliness that is practiced exclusively by liberals.


Now can you tell us at all (at all) just what Iraq had to do with AQ and 911?

If you use the old AQ was in Iraq I will point out that Saddam was their enemy. Iraq is a distraction that hinders our fight against the terrorists.

It has never been proven that Al Qaeda was not there before Saddam was deposed, but, in any case, I've never hinged any of my arguments on that point.


If you say AQ is operating in Iraq now I will point out that the fighting involving AQ is a tiny percentage, nearly all the violence is civil war infighting. I will also point out that if they are in Iraq today that this occurred because of the invasion…….oh and world wide terror attacks were up 25% last year……so we must be safer. And once you have done that you could perhaps get back on thread.

Point being that Al Qaeda is there now, in whatever numbers, and fomenting others, as well as promoting civil strife, which effectively and greatly expands violence which can be attributed directly to them, you see.

As to the issue of increased terror attacks, you seem to have kept that tidbit close to hand.

Will you tell us now how many of these attacks were Al Qaeda affairs?

They only count for purposes of debate if they are Al Qaeda-sponsored, so I believe I'll disallow your point.


Nice distraction from the subject though. Back on point. The crying out “traitor/troop undermine /emboldened/aide and comforters” is nothing more than trying to silence instead of debate

And anyone who attempts to make hay saying that a "date certain" for withdrawal does not favor the enemy is (please forgive the lack of polysyllabic content in the following word; no other word is properly descriptive) stupid.

[vidcc]

What does that have to do with anything? A war is a war.

No, no it's not, and to say that it is reeks of that special brand of silliness that is practiced exclusively by liberals.

Yes it is. The enemy may be different but war is war. And to try to excuse the behavior of the republicans as being somehow different reeks of that special brand of silliness that is practiced exclusively by conservatives.



It has never been proven that Al Qaeda was not there before Saddam was deposed, but, in any case, I've never hinged any of my arguments on that point. :glag: A faith based war :glag:


Ok let me say that it has been shown that there were some AQ in Iraq, BUT they were not there under a safe haven, and Saddam made efforts to stamp out/kill them in the same way he did with all threats to his power




Point being that Al Qaeda is there now, in whatever numbers, and fomenting others, as well as promoting civil strife, which effectively and greatly expands violence which can be attributed directly to them, you see.

And this is a direct result of this administrations actions. Yes???????

Yet the ones who were right about this before the war are somehow deemed less credible.




As to the issue of increased terror attacks, you seem to have kept that tidbit close to hand.

Will you tell us now how many of these attacks were Al Qaeda affairs?

They only count for purposes of debate if they are Al Qaeda-sponsored, so I believe I'll disallow your point.

look here I made a mistake, the figure is 29% (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17145574.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation)


Nice distraction from the subject though. Back on point. The crying out “traitor/troop undermine /emboldened/aide and comforters” is nothing more than trying to silence instead of debate


And anyone who attempts to make hay saying that a "date certain" for withdrawal does not favor the enemy is (please forgive the lack of polysyllabic content in the following word; no other word is properly descriptive) stupid.

Then by the standards the are trying to place on the those that disagree with Bush now the republicans were "defeatist, wave the white flag cowards" while Clinton was in office. This "stupid" description also includes bush...remember he was quite clear about the need for timetables when it was Clinton in charge

Added This "date certain" is just a talking point, not what the bill said. I know you don't do "details" but the bill required the withdrawal from standing in the middle of the iraqis shooting at each other. It did not say withdraw all (or for that matter any) troops from fighting AQ in Iraq. Troops would remain for the reasons we have been given all along by Bush as to why we went there.....training Iraqi troops and actively combat the terrorists.
I will add that "bringing the troops home and ending this war" is also a talking point because of the same details.

But again this is all off thread.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=j2k4;1962048]
No, no it's not, and to say that it is reeks of that special brand of silliness that is practiced exclusively by liberals.

Yes it is. The enemy may be different but war is war. And to try to excuse the behavior of the republicans as being somehow different reeks of that special brand of silliness that is practiced exclusively by conservatives.



It has never been proven that Al Qaeda was not there before Saddam was deposed, but, in any case, I've never hinged any of my arguments on that point. :glag: A faith based war :glag:


Ok let me say that it has been shown that there were some AQ in Iraq, BUT they were not there under a safe haven, and Saddam made efforts to stamp out/kill them in the same way he did with all threats to his power




Point being that Al Qaeda is there now, in whatever numbers, and fomenting others, as well as promoting civil strife, which effectively and greatly expands violence which can be attributed directly to them, you see.

And this is a direct result of this administrations actions. Yes???????

Yet the ones who were right about this before the war are somehow deemed less credible.




As to the issue of increased terror attacks, you seem to have kept that tidbit close to hand.

Will you tell us now how many of these attacks were Al Qaeda affairs?

They only count for purposes of debate if they are Al Qaeda-sponsored, so I believe I'll disallow your point.

look here I made a mistake, the figure is 29% (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17145574.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation)


Nice distraction from the subject though. Back on point. The crying out “traitor/troop undermine /emboldened/aide and comforters” is nothing more than trying to silence instead of debate


And anyone who attempts to make hay saying that a "date certain" for withdrawal does not favor the enemy is (please forgive the lack of polysyllabic content in the following word; no other word is properly descriptive) stupid.


Then by the standards the are trying to place on the those that disagree with Bush now the republicans were "defeatist, wave the white flag cowards" while Clinton was in office. This "stupid" description also includes bush...remember he was quite clear about the need for timetables when it was Clinton in charge

You miss (for perhaps the thousandth time in your history on this board) the rather salient fact that 9/11 had not yet occurred, and the sea-change it occasioned had not taken place, either.

Unless you deny that it changed U.S. foreign policy significantly.

Perhaps you would prefer to argue that while it did, it should not have?


Added This "date certain" is just a talking point, not what the bill said. I know you don't do "details" but the bill required the withdrawal from standing in the middle of the iraqis shooting at each other. It did not say withdraw all (or for that matter any) troops from fighting AQ in Iraq. Troops would remain for the reasons we have been given all along by Bush as to why we went there.....training Iraqi troops and actively combat the terrorists.
I will add that "bringing the troops home and ending this war" is also a talking point because of the same details.

Sounds like backpedaling to me...;)


But again this is all off thread.

It's not off-topic until the author of this thread says so, and that's not you, is it.

[vidcc]

You miss (for perhaps the thousandth time in your history on this board) the rather salient fact that 9/11 had not yet occurred, and the sea-change it occasioned had not taken place, either.

Unless you deny that it changed U.S. foreign policy significantly.

Perhaps you would prefer to argue that while it did, it should not have?


Another talking point and another shining example of distraction comments made in the hope of silencing debate instead of substantiative reasoning.

Why is it that every time the Iraq war is discussed the right wing always brings up 911 as if Iraq had one thing to do with it and then suggest those that disagree with their view have somehow forgotten it? :rolleyes:


I will say that American foreign policy did change significantly..... some incompetent republican president uses it to justify bad policy in a war that had nothing to do with it leading us into far more danger.

BTW. 911 hadn't occurred but we had been attacked, wasn't that attack big enough for those republicans to "change the way the world is viewed"?

Here's a scoop...... the "Iraq war" was won 4 years ago by the troops. What happened after that was a failed neo con ideological experiment at the end of a gun. That is what has led to the situation we see today. ( a shining example of your sig except nobody promised I will not say "told you so")

AQ are going to come after us if we are in Iraq or not. Iraq is hindering our fight against AQ

[MaxOverlord]

Warmonger.

It's just Kevin.

-bd

MaxOverlord does not = Kevin. If thats what you were implying.

[brotherdoobie]

It's just Kevin.

-bd

MaxOverlord does not = Kevin. If thats what you were implying.

No,I believe thats what you inferred,Max.


-bd

[MaxOverlord]

MaxOverlord does not = Kevin. If thats what you were implying.

No,I believe thats what you inferred,Max.


-bd

I am clueless to what your talking about. Never said anything remotely close to me being kevin..whoever that is.

[brotherdoobie]

j2k4 = Kevin. I wasn't implying you were him. (just politcally,similar.) :dabs:


Peace,Paul

[j2k4]

AQ are going to come after us if we are in Iraq or not.

But Rosie O'Donnell says terrorists are just like us; that they're not to be feared.

Now I'm confused. :dry:
































I think it's a question of where this occurs, actually, and haven't we said "better there than here" at all (at all).

[vidcc]

AQ are going to come after us if we are in Iraq or not.

But Rosie O'Donnell says terrorists are just like us; that they're not to be feared.

Now I'm confused. :dry:
What has that got to do with anything?

But think about it. We all start off the same. What changes the way we act ? Do other view us the way we view ourselves. Do we view others the way they view themselves.

A lot of the problems in the world are because we take a one dimensional viewpoint. We don't try to understand them and they don't try to understand us. It then become a question of who is going to "have it up to here" first.


Interesting though that Bush has "lowered the bar" now to define success in the same way that they condemned kerry for.
































I think it's a question of where this occurs, actually, and haven't we said "better there than here" at all (at all).

Oh in that case Clinton was a success, because after the first bombing at wtc we had no other attacks here while he was in office..... just the ones "over there".

Success is defined as raising terror attacks worldwide (American targets included) as long as we haven't been attacked (YET) in downtown USA. Great foreign policy. The world will love it and as families bury their loved ones the cries of "thank goodness the Americans weren't hurt" will fill the air and we our popularity will soar :rolleyes:

[MaxOverlord]

j2k4 = Kevin. I wasn't implying you were him. (just politcally,similar.) :dabs:


Peace,Paul


Geez. Now I'm wondering if I am Kevin.:huh:

[thewizeard]

We need a leader that will talk to them in their language.

I think that's exactly what they got.

In other news, if you have a group of people who hate everyone who isn't one of them.

If they declare that you have two options, join them or die.

Talking about it isn't one of my top options.

I did say talk in their own language.

Talking you may take literally or metaphorically..I am referring to the metaphorical option.

If we wish to survive, we have no other option.

[j2k4]

But Rosie O'Donnell says terrorists are just like us; that they're not to be feared.

Now I'm confused. :dry:
What has that got to do with anything?

But think about it. We all start off the same. What changes the way we act ? Do other view us the way we view ourselves. Do we view others the way they view themselves.

A lot of the problems in the world are because we take a one dimensional viewpoint. We don't try to understand them and they don't try to understand us. It then become a question of who is going to "have it up to here" first.

We most certainly do not start out "the same".

This bit about us understanding them and them understanding us is just blather, and if you ask them, they'll tell you the same thing.
































I think it's a question of where this occurs, actually, and haven't we said "better there than here" at all (at all).

Oh in that case Clinton was a success, because after the first bombing at wtc we had no other attacks here while he was in office..... [/QUOTE]

No other attacks under Clinton?

News to me...:huh:

[vidcc]

We most certainly do not start out "the same".

This bit about us understanding them and them understanding us is just blather, and if you ask them, they'll tell you the same thing.
How do we not start out the same? Are they somehow born fully grown with a view?

And if you are going to call the rest "blather" explain why. Otherwise the comment is pointless.

I suggest that any attempt to understand is usually just a way to find something we can use to further our agenda, and vice versa





No other attacks under Clinton?

News to me...:huh:



Originally Posted by j2k4
I think it's a question of where this occurs, actually, and haven't we said "better there than here" at all (at all).

Your insinuation here is that it doesn't matter if the attacks are elsewhere. Well we weren't attacked again on the mainland while clinton was in office.

Now I could point out several domestic terrorist incidents but you made it clear earlier that it has to be AQ to count

[j2k4]

How do we not start out the same? Are they somehow born fully grown with a view?

For the most part, babies do not fight wars, and the idea that it matters that Muslim babies are the same as (I assume you refer to) western babies has no bearing whatsoever on any conversation we have had, are having, or ever will have.

You have constructed a rhetorical device with utterly no value.

And if you are going to call the rest "blather" explain why. Otherwise the comment is pointless.

The "blather" content is obvious and needs no explanation.

I suggest that any attempt to understand is usually just a way to find something we can use to further our agenda, and vice versa

Huh?




No other attacks under Clinton?

News to me...:huh:



Originally Posted by j2k4
I think it's a question of where this occurs, actually, and haven't we said "better there than here" at all (at all).

Your insinuation here is that it doesn't matter if the attacks are elsewhere. Well we weren't attacked again on the mainland while clinton was in office.

Now I could point out several domestic terrorist incidents but you made it clear earlier that it has to be AQ to count

I was referring to attacks on American assets, as opposed to Spanish trains or British buses and tubes.

Would you care to argue that attacks on American embassies or ships aren't aimed at us?

[thewizeard]

Anyway the answer is, it breaks the Unity. I could expand on that too.

[j2k4]

Anyway the answer is, it breaks the Unity. I could expand on that too.

No need; you've ruined the thread. :dabs:

[MaxOverlord]

Oh you guys!!

Don't fear the terrorists. They're mothers and fathers.

[j2k4]

Oh you guys!!

Don't fear the terrorists. They're mothers and fathers.


'Tis true...of children they are willing to sacrifice as homicide bombers.

The early Christian "fanatics" never did this.

Would that Rosie had a talk show during the Crusades, eh? :dabs:

[gratex]

Hi,

There's one main reason why these conspiracies hurt America: increasing apathy.

9/11 conspiracy is so utterly ridiculous, not as ridiculous as shape-shifting reptiles enslaving mankind, but both have the same net effect, which is turning moderates away from looking into the real issues at hand. There are real conspiracies and crimes committed by our governments that go unpunished, and when people are subjected to information about such crimes they write it off as more conspiracy theory based on their reaction to 9/11 conspiracies. Chasing dreams of proving the unprovable only seeks to increase apathy, I think people should have learned that from JFK... people literally waste their entire lives trying to prove these theories rather than looking at the real causes of the issues and working towards raising the awareness of the issues involved.

That's my take on it.

[j2k4]

Hi,

There's one main reason why these conspiracies hurt America: increasing apathy.

9/11 conspiracy is so utterly ridiculous, not as ridiculous as shape-shifting reptiles enslaving mankind, but both have the same net effect, which is turning moderates away from looking into the real issues at hand. There are real conspiracies and crimes committed by our governments that go unpunished, and when people are subjected to information about such crimes they write it off as more conspiracy theory based on their reaction to 9/11 conspiracies. Chasing dreams of proving the unprovable only seeks to increase apathy, I think people should have learned that from JFK... people literally waste their entire lives trying to prove these theories rather than looking at the real causes of the issues and working towards raising the awareness of the issues involved.

That's my take on it.

You are quite correct, but the fact is that a certain percentage of the population will always be susceptible to conspiracy-thought, and this is, as such, the norm.

The media suffers this malady in similar proportion.

[Solo]

I think a simple declaration that we now are prepared, to do things "their" way. Beginning with their immediate, close family. The location, of whom ( or witch) is already programed into my newest Nintento Game Console. (NGC for short after this) :)

What is great about my new game, is that it's is real live entertainment. You can already play if you have an Xbox :( which of course is :sick: ... still we disallowed Sony , because they complained they are too close to North Korea, whose status in the game is still in the virtual stadium. Also we don't trust them any more, remember The Dell incident and the spyware incident on that lovely artist's Sony cd, that prompty took over control of their computer, who was also univited. Also later this week Iran joins the game. All the missiles are real live misiles, so dont aim at your neighbours house ;)

You will also need to register as a member of FST here http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/register.php

Have fun, and remember the Taliban is elusive, and the Osama Prize is still the main prize and will be paid out on ( google Earth) proof of the actual..burial site of http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden favourite great great grand-daughter. :yup:

[thewizeard]

..this time, I am lost for words. erm really, I saw a photo of her and she's cute, with dark brown eyes and long eye-lashes and she is hoping to become a nurse when she grows up.

[GepperRankins]

Hi,

There's one main reason why these conspiracies hurt America: increasing apathy.

9/11 conspiracy is so utterly ridiculous, not as ridiculous as shape-shifting reptiles enslaving mankind, but both have the same net effect, which is turning moderates away from looking into the real issues at hand. There are real conspiracies and crimes committed by our governments that go unpunished, and when people are subjected to information about such crimes they write it off as more conspiracy theory based on their reaction to 9/11 conspiracies. Chasing dreams of proving the unprovable only seeks to increase apathy, I think people should have learned that from JFK... people literally waste their entire lives trying to prove these theories rather than looking at the real causes of the issues and working towards raising the awareness of the issues involved.

That's my take on it.

You are quite correct, but the fact is that a certain percentage of the population will always be susceptible to conspiracy-thought, and this is, as such, the norm.

The media suffers this malady in similar proportion.
so what you're saying is conspiracies don't exist?


oh and gratex, i think you're right that we focus on the wrong things. i don't think the 9/11 conspiracy is too rediculous, though. think about the official story, it's pretty backwards.

[j2k4]

You are quite correct, but the fact is that a certain percentage of the population will always be susceptible to conspiracy-thought, and this is, as such, the norm.

The media suffers this malady in similar proportion.

so what you're saying is conspiracies don't exist?

How do you gather that?

Of course they exist, but in wee tiny numbers that have need of such a word; they don't lurk around every bloody corner like you think. :rolleyes: