Re: Hezbollah's victory increases chance of war


jmdrake_98@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

<snip>
Oh yes you would. And you're doing it again. Either provide evidence
where I blaimed 9/11 on "conservatives" or admit that you're lying.


False dilemma. I was making fun of you and it was not intended to be
taken laterally word for word.


I'm
making it easy on you. I'm not even asking you to prove that I said
9/11 was done by "thousands" of conservatives like you deceitfully
claimed. Just find one place where I blamed "conservatives" at all.


Like I said, I don't know if you blame the Illuminati, space aliens,
the stone cutters or KAOS from "Get Smart". The point is that like the
other moonbats you don't believe the official story. The proof is in
your response to the PM article.


<snip>
1) The Popular Mechanics article LIED when it
claimed it took 1 1/2 hours to intercept Payne
Stewart's plane. The GOVERNMENT website
that gave the official report of the Stewart
accident EXPOSES this as a lie.

Yep. P.M. was playing fast and loose with the facts


See what I mean? This is your position and you confirmed it.


<snip>
Still no evidence of me blaiming 9/11 on
"conservatives".


And still no evidence that you are even able to grasp the concept that
I was making fun of you.


<snip>
Yes. You'd rather believe obvious lies


No I reject the obvious lies and make fun of those who spread them.


. . . and not look at the response.
That tells a lot more about YOU than it does me. I'm interested in
both sides of an issue.


Oh I am interested in both sides of the issue. However kooks invent
sides to an issue that don't exist. I have no interest in those.


<snip>
LOL. So first you have me on record saying that I DON'T buy the
missle theory. Second you see that I'm posting actual mainstream
news links to back up what I'm saying.


The issue is what you are saying.


<snip>
There are plenty more but in the end you proved it for me. See below
where you mention Operation Northwoods.

Yep. I mention Operation Northwoods. Have you read that yet?


I read it before you mentioned it.


You
should.


Again? Why?


Now where's my claim that the general who penned this
treasonous document was a "conservative"?


What does that have to do with anything?


You didn't say that I "don't believe the official story".
(I don't, but then neither do the people that wrote the official
story.)
You crafted your own ridiculous tail about how I've blamed 9/11
on "thousands of conservatives". That is a lie. And you know it's
a lie.


It was a generalization about moonbats. If you believe the official
story then you are not a moonbat and I admit I was wrong about you.

LOL. Talk about the classic definition of a witchhunt! I just said
"I don't believe the official story, but then neither do the people
that wrote the official story".


The official story was not a novel.


Now, if the only way to not be a
"moonbat" is to believe the official story, then the people who
WROTE the official story are "moonbats".


You have not shown this to be the case.


But then that would
also make people like you who are gullible enough to believe
the official story WORSE than moonbats!


You have it all twisted around.


Otherwise while your personal conspiracy theory is just as unique as
you are I'm sure it is just as bad as any of the other fantastic 9-11
conspiracy theories.

Write. So it's better to believe the admitted lies written by
the 9/11 commission that according to YOUR definition are
made up by "moonbats". And what's funny is I'm sure that
in your little mind this makes sense.


This is smoke and mirrors leading to a straw man.


<snip>
I believe the official story cannot possibly be true. Now the people
who wrote the official story admit that it cannot possibly be true.


The people who "wrote" the official story did so with their actions and
are now dead or hiding in caves. This is history rather than fiction.
If you want to prove your personal theory does not match my
generalization they why don't you lay it out for everyone to laugh
at^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsee?

As you well know (or you should if you aren't a brain dead moron),
history is "written" by the winners.


History is a series of actions. You are talking about the recording of
history which may or may not be accurate. You are acting like those
who recorded this history were writing fiction. It is an assumption
you don't prove.


It's not "written" by the actors.
And I've already laid out much of what I believe. Why don't you
pick a point and actually debate it?


Been there and done that.


Here's a good starting place.
I think the fact that the 9/11 commission ignored the person who
helped FUND the attack by wiring $100,000 to Mohammed Atta
in April 2001 is a GLARING OMMISSION to the "history" that
was written that about that event.


What makes you think it has been ignored? If he funded AQ then he is a
supporter of AQ.


<snip>
So, let's see you "laugh" at that.


Nope - just you.


<snip>
Everyone is a conspiracy theorist. It just what "conspiracy theory"
they
believe.


Those who believe the real one about Al Qadea are not theorists.

Says those who believe it.


Look the ones who believe the truth are not chasing after something
false.


I take it you believe the official conspiracy theory put
forward
by the 9/11 commission. But they now say that it contains information
that is a lie.


Says who? That link you posted where SOME said they thought it MIGHT
be?

Right. And SOME constitutes a "they". I know English might not be
your
first language but try to keep up.

What are you talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They
"They is the English third person nominative plural personal pronoun."

But I can see why you want to get side tracked on to grammar.



That is a good one. Look you don't have to believe that everyone
in our government did everything right, true and honest in order to
think that Al Qaeda was behind the 9-11 attack. Our government playing
CYA is irrelevant.

And you don't have to DIS-believe that AQ was involved in the attack to
realize that the official story is a big porky.


Official story = AQ alone was behind the attack.

Do you believe that or not? If so then maybe you should have been a
bit more clear in your posts over the last few years. If not then well
you should expect to get grilled for it.


One of the MAIN facts
that
I KEEP bringing up is the money chain between Pakistani intelligence
and one of the "Al Qaeda" hijackers. That's not just our government
playing "CYA". The man that FUNDED the attack is alive and well
drinking tea in Pakistan. I want to know WHY!


Bad guys get away. It's all part of that mystery called human error.


So you believe a lie.


Prove it.

Already done. You believe the official report. The official report
clearly
contains lies.


Please point out the lies providing proof for "AQ alone was behind the
attack".


<snip>
Do you believe that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff once put
forward
a plan to blow up U.S. airplanes and blame it out our enemies? That's
part of the public record.


Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
And I also think only a moonbat would believe it is relevant.

And only a zombie would think that it wasn't relevant.


Look buddy if this is relevant then I can produce anything witen by
anybody and use it as evidence about you. That isn't valid. What some
guy did 25 or 30 years ago has *nothing* to do with what others did in
2001.


If Operation
Northwoods had been written by some Iraqi general you'd be holding
it up as the "smoking gun".


No I would not because I am not a conspiracy nut.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

If it's possible that someone at the TOP of the Pentagon was behind
something like that, then it's possible someone lower level could have
been involved in 9/11.


I rest my case. Thank you for proving it for me. Having one
psychopath in a position of power 30 years ago does not prove that had
thousands in power in 2001.

A) Where do you keep getting this "thousands" number from?


It would take at least that many conspirators to pull off the average
9-11 conspiracy weather the moonbats realize it or not.


B) It proves the possibility of a psychopath making he way up the
ranks.


So? I don't think that is contested. Certainly it wouldn't be by me.


C) It shows the brazeness of someone who thinks the plan is so
acceptable that he's willing to submit it to the president of the U.S.


It only shows the character of the guy who wrote it *and nobody else*.
Thus it is irrelevant.


<snip>
I love how you selectively snip out what I write


The post is way too long so I snip what is irrelevant. You can always
clarify or look at the archive.


<snip>
What you left out was where I said "Did someone inform the
terrorists about the NORAD exercises?"


Yeah if something is irrelevant it gets snipped. That was irrelevant
so there you go.


Now that wouldn't take
"thousands". It would only take ONE person to do that.


Ah but a lot of things happened on 9-11.


However I see that you might not
be able to grasp what it would take to pull off a fantastic 9-11
conspiracy so your own personal moonbattery may differ.

Informing Al Qaeda of the date of NORAD exercieses would only
take ONE mole.


Sure or maybe it was just a coincidence.


But now, here's the FUNNY part. You on the one
hand want to claim that everyone who did this is either "dead" or
"in caves" (blatantly ignoring people like Mahmood Ahmed who
funded the attack) yet you think the conspiracy required
"thousands" to pull it off. If I'm right and AQ was tipped off
to the exercises that's just "19 + 1" according to your reasoning.


Wrong. If you think this conspiracy was done by just 20 perps then by
my reasoning you believe the official story.


But you think that "19+1" is impossible and it would have to
be "19 + THOUSANDS".


For the US government to be behind it yes. That is the typical CT and
that is what the PM article debunked and you went ape over that. Now
if you believe that only AQ agents, moles, and sympathizers are behind
the 9-11 attack then you should have been a bit more clear over the
last several years instead of defending all the moonbats.


The important fact brought out by the Washington Post
story is that the drills being run that day helped the terrorists by
confusing NORAD. We're the terrorists aware of this?


Is this question evidence?

The question is simply a question. It's important,


It is not important. It might have just been a coincidence. When
moonbats see a coincidence they imagine a conspiracy.


however,
because you are holding fast to the fallacy that "thousands"
in government would have had to be involved in the conspiracy
for ANYONE in the government to have been involved.


Wrong. I hold that it would take thousands of players for the
government to be behind the attack which is they typical 9-11 CT.


The
question points out the clear possiblity that ONE mole working
inside the government could have provided KEY information


Or it was just a coincidence.


that, without it, the 9/11 attacks might not have been possible.
Had NORAD been in normal mode on 9/11 it's VERY unlikely
that all 3 attacks would have been successful.


Nonsense. We had cut defense spending for a decade. We were not ready
and that was *our* doing.


Evidence is the fact that Mahmood Ahmed wired $100,000
to Mohammed Atta in April 2001 and has never been held to
account for that.


And now you bring this up again even though it has nothing to do with
NORAD training. Conspiracies in place of coincidence.


And why
was Condi Rice apparently not? (After all, she said publicly that
no one ever conceived of "planes as bombs".


First prove that Dr. Rice is all knowing. If she isn't then you've got
nothing but human error.

My mom knew about that before 9/11. It was common knowlege.


That does not prove that every human knew about it or that Rice is all
knowing.


Maybe she should have been national security advisor? We know
for a fact that based on the presidential daily briefings that there
were warnings about AQ looking to hijack airplanes.


And sometimes people don't believe everything they hear because
sometimes intel gets it wrong.


Common
sense says that at that point you should cross reference previous
AQ plots involving airplanes.


No you are cherry picking using hindsight. Why don't you predict the
next big attack? The answer is that you don't have your hindsight
crutch. Without that you can do nothing but when the next attack comes
you will be all over it telling us who should have done what and how
they should have seen it coming.


<snip>
And now this gets to greater failure of the 9/11 commission. It
shouldn't be enough to just chalk something like this up to
"human error". If this was just human error (and I don't discount
that possibility) the commission should have delved into WHY.


It happened because we are human and live in an imperfect world. Get
over it. We collectively decided to cut our funding to defense. We as
a nation decided that it wasn't important to us. We are all
responsible for that.


Why was the national security advisor not informed of major
NORAD training drills?


Same reason whe wasn't informed about any other military unit's
training drills. If you fill the NSA's head will all kinds of things
that don't relate to her job then she won't be able to do her job.



Why was Bojinka apparently never
brought up to Condi Rice by anyone, if it indeed wasn't brought
up?


Look either you get this or you don't.


<snip>
So why weren't these people that came to her brought before
the 9/11 commission?


Why does that matter? It has nothing to do with who was behind the
attack.

<snip>
You don't really think this proves anything do you? Wow human error
happens! I never would have believed that. Thanks man.

This "human error" was never fully investigated.


It doesn't have anything to do with who was behind 9-11 either.


But,
of course, nobody's ever tried to get to the bottom of this.


That human error happens? There is no bottom to get to. You are
chasing after nothing and proving that you are a moonbat.

Yes there is zombie. Take the plane crash that just happened in
Kentucky. We know that "human error" caused the plane to take
off from the wrong runway. But why?


Chances are it isn't because of some fantastic conspiracy. Now
believing that a maintenance supervisor would doctor records to cover
his tail is reasonable. Thinking that it was done to convince the US
people to go to war to grab oil and make profit for company X is not.


More importantly, how can
you stop that from happening again? Now a zombie like you might
have just stopped at "human error".


As opposed to assuming the illuminati is behind it even if we can't
prove it?


But the investigators have gone
further. They've found out that the crew noted the runway wasn't
lit. But it wasn't lit because it wasn't meant to be used at night.
So finding out WHY the crew wasn't aware of that is important.


But it isn't evidence that the Free Masons are hiding the true Blood
Line of Christ from the Roman Catholic Church.


But you think once something can be (possibly in the case of Rice)
chalked up to "human error" that there's "no bottom to get to".
That proves your a brain dead zombie.


Wrong. One of my favorite shows is Seconds From Disaster where
investigators uncover the fatal chain of mistakes leading to tragedy.
It's interesting what little mistakes can lead to. It reenforces a
very important lesson.


Neither
has anyone tried to get to the bottom of the fact that the head of
Pakistani Intelligence, Mahmood Ahmed wired $100,000 to the lead
hijacker in April 2001. The FBI has CONFIRMED this.

Boy you are setting off all the kook alarms.

The FBI did confirm it.


Oh I don't doubt it happened. It's just funny watching how you use it
to spin your CT.


<snip>
But your
ownly interest seems to be in defending the official government
story, even after the panel that put it out openly says it contains
"lies".


How many times do I have to explain this to you? The government
playing CYA doesn't mean the government was behind the attack or
whatever other fantastic theory you believe.

And what does the head of Pakistani Intelligence wiring $100,000 to
Mohammed Atta have to do with "CYA"?


Nothing at all. That is why it is funny watching you spin your CT.

<snip>

Regards,

-Eric

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: UKSF XI vs. Australia - Team Announcement
    ... The best form of defence is attack, and with the power of our defence and the ruthlesness and style of our attack, we've got it sorted all ends up. ... Poleson Conlan Martin Nunn ...
    (uk.sport.football)
  • Re: [Gumband] Tales of the Boring
    ... to attack something unknown that really might have killed me in a single ... Another special level at 750', and a quest for 6 Sasquatches. ... Quest reward: ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.angband)
  • Re: Todays Quotes:
    ... snip a few good quotes ... I've never been the least bit afraid of -any- terrorist attack. ... What real justification was there for the invasion then? ...
    (rec.scuba)
  • Re: An epidemic of cannabis use?
    ... [snip unread] ... Then I write - and that process is not always so cold and chilly. ... respond in a fashion that's semi-pre-arranged: my standard policy when ... decided to go on the attack viciously when I meet that sort of thing. ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: Hezbollahs victory increases chance of war
    ... I was making fun of you and it was not intended to be ... other moonbats you don't believe the official story. ... Here goes your stupid circular reasoning. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
Loading