Saturday, September 09, 2006

Answering a Comment

Here's one that strikes me as good enough from the CT community to deserve a response on the front page. I'm going to respond paragraph by paragraph to this comment by FeltMountain:

Would anyone mind if I interrupted for a moment to ask this: Why is this conversation even taking place? (Not the conversation about Jews controlling Porn, the conversationg about 9/11 in general.) More to the point, why are people who believe in the official story, when your views are in line with every major media outlet and every official piece of documentation on the tragedy, even responding to whackos who talk about holographic planes and massive government conspiracies?


Because I got angry one afternoon when I watched Loose Change. Because we get hundreds of hits every day from people performing Google searches looking for "Loose Change Lies", "Loose Change Mistakes", etc., telling me that people are out there looking for the facts. Because every time there's a Looser spamming a forum, chances are that the next person will be telling them about Screw Loose Change (look in our referring logs for the evidence).

I'll tell you why. Because you're terrified of what's going on in this country right now. Shocked by the correlations between 1930s Germany and 2000s USA. Horrified by the fact that a fascist regime has taken over your government and is treading all over your constitution, destroying the democracy your forefathers shed blood and tears to create and igniting the fires of war the world over.


That's delusional. Many of the best debunkers are politically liberal, hate Bush and the Republicans. Take Perry Logan, please! ;)

So you think:
"Maybe if I shot my eyes hard enough, or if I scream loud enough... Maybe if I go to sleep tonight and the Bomb hasn't dropped by the time I wake up...


Mmmmm, the screaming is generally not recommended, nor is shotting the eyes. I'm 51 years old and the bomb has not dropped in my lifetime, so I'm not about to start sweating it.

Maybe if I debunk just one whacked-out 9/11 theory...


Hah! Show me one that isn't fairly easy to debunk!

Then this isn't actually happening.
It will be OK."

But, it is happening.
And you are not going to be OK.

Do something about THAT problem now, please, and twenty years on we'll all be able to write and read long-winded books about what actually did or did not happen on 9/11. (Assuming we'll all be alive to do so, which is becoming questionable.)

Thank you for your time.


Hysteria doesn't work with me; I have to be reasoned to. Nobody has reasoned to me anything about the supposed government conspiracy on 9-11 that didn't collapse faster than the Twin Towers.

67 Comments:

At 09 September, 2006 09:15, Blogger Thomas said...

I wasn't aware that Hitler allowed his political enemies to hang up their placards at the Reichstag and spread their opinions where ever they see fit. Neither did they appear on radio talk shows or were able to publish hundreds of books on their 'opinions' with the Gestapo idly standing by.

A country that allows its citizens to hang up 'statements' of which some accuse the victims of a major terror attack to be part of the conspiracy -- AT the very scene these people died at -- seems to go to great lengths to put free speech above anything else.

FeltMountain has no idea what he is talking about. But that's ok. We got used to it.

 
At 09 September, 2006 11:05, Blogger Alex said...

This doesn't have much to do with the article, however, I figured everyone should see this.

 
At 09 September, 2006 11:09, Blogger Rayzor said...

Cox & Forkum hit it on the head again. Those guys are great.

 
At 09 September, 2006 11:12, Blogger nesNYC said...

Because I got angry one afternoon when I watched Loose Change.

Anger screwed up your perception and the rest was history.

BTW, checkout this diagonally cut "gypsum" steel column, LOL!

Picture..

 
At 09 September, 2006 11:15, Blogger default.xbe said...

BTW, checkout this diagonally cut "gypsum" steel column, LOL!

Picture..


theres no way in hell thermite can cut that straight, so what may i ask do you think did that nessie?

 
At 09 September, 2006 11:20, Blogger dman said...

Column was cut by thermal lance
during cleanup/recovery. Lance is
pipe filled with aluminium or
magnesium rods connected to oxygen
supply. Lit by acetylene torch
the metal rods burn at 7000 F and
can cut throught anything. Was
program on cable this week "METAL
OF HONOR" profiling men of Iron
Worker Local 40 in New York who
built the towers and latter would
disassemble them.

 
At 09 September, 2006 11:24, Blogger nesNYC said...

theres no way in hell thermite can cut that straight, so what may i ask do you think did that nessie?

I'm saying it's thermite but I have never tried to cut a steel column with thermite so I'm not 100% sure, have you? Doubtful.

But look at it! How did that get cut so perfectly? Torches wouldn't leave that residue on the outside like that (not exactly perfect as you point out).

 
At 09 September, 2006 11:26, Blogger nesNYC said...

Column was cut by thermal lance
during cleanup/recovery.


Look below, what purpose did cutting that column right there accomplish?

 
At 09 September, 2006 11:33, Blogger shawn said...

Anger screwed up your perception and the rest was history.

Senor Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Sir Kettle.

I'm saying it's thermite

And you'd be wrong.

Thermite is controlled by gravity.

Gravity doesn't go sideways.

 
At 09 September, 2006 11:35, Blogger shawn said...

I figured everyone should see this.

It's unreal how the Democrats (and the nutroots) are reacting to the miniseries.

The lapses that allowed 9/11 to happen didn't just occur over the nine months Dubya was in office.

 
At 09 September, 2006 11:36, Blogger Alex said...

WTF? Hey, crackhead, it was part of the cleanup effort. When you're trying to cart away assloads of wreckage, it helps if you can cut it into manageable pieces first. How the FUCK can you be THIS retarded? Pull your head out of your ass before you choke on your own shit.

 
At 09 September, 2006 12:00, Blogger nesNYC said...

Gravity doesn't go sideways.

The pictures clearly shows gravity works! :D

 
At 09 September, 2006 12:03, Blogger nesNYC said...

When you're trying to cart away assloads of wreckage, it helps if you can cut it into manageable pieces first.

Thought you said is was part of the recovery effort? Regardless, even the location of the column would be hard to get any torch on it. Facts are facts, this piece shows how the building was fractured during the collapse and not the cleanup/recovery.

 
At 09 September, 2006 12:07, Blogger default.xbe said...

I'm saying it's thermite but I have never tried to cut a steel column with thermite so I'm not 100% sure, have you? Doubtful.

never tried to cut a collumn but ive used thermite before, it doesnt cut straight. (well, it doesnt "cut" at all)

Look below, what purpose did cutting that column right there accomplish?

without knowing what the top of the collumn looked liek you cant say why they should or shouldnt have cut it

The pictures clearly shows gravity works! :D

at a 45 degree angle?

 
At 09 September, 2006 12:08, Blogger shawn said...

The pictures clearly shows gravity works! :D

No, it would have gone straight down.

To a person with brain cells that looks an awful lot like someone cut it with a torch.

Might wanna find pictures from before the tower collapsed and clean up began.

 
At 09 September, 2006 12:26, Blogger Alex said...

Thought you said is was part of the recovery effort?

Cleanup, recovery, irrelevant, it was cut in order to make it easier to move/handle. Only a moron like you could insist that a steel column was cut with thermite on a 45 degree angle in order to demolish a building.

Facts are facts, this piece shows how the building was fractured during the collapse and not the cleanup/recovery.

Nazi retards are Nazi retards, this entire argument shows just how fractured your frontal lobes are.

 
At 09 September, 2006 12:32, Blogger shawn said...

Facts are facts

Unless you're nesnyc, where "facts" mean "any unsupported nonsense I happen to believe".

 
At 09 September, 2006 12:35, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

I see Nesync is stretching as usual.

Sieg Heil Nesync

 
At 09 September, 2006 12:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

at a 45 degree angle?

No the irregular residue on the sides of the column show how gravity pulled the molten steel down un-uniformly.

No, I hate to speculate, but that's exactly what you guys are asking me to do. So I will entertain the idea for a bit..

If the thermite charge was placed, say in a type of C4 type of plastic base and then ignited via electrical charges, wouldn't this putty type of material, if placed along a 45 degree angle like that, burn all the way through where it was placed? Now, I have speculated and conceptualized, I'm sure this principal is applicable in this case. Did it happen this way? I'm not sure, could have just been RDX or other type of cutter charges. Point is, the evidence is right there in your face yet you still want to believe the hogwash the government is trying to spin. Snap out of it.

 
At 09 September, 2006 12:58, Blogger nesNYC said...

BTW,

There is no such thing as "Al Qaeda"

There is no such thing as "Al Qaeda"

There is no such thing as "Al Qaeda"

There is no such thing as "Al Qaeda"

 
At 09 September, 2006 12:59, Blogger shawn said...

the evidence is right there in your face yet you still want to believe the hogwash the government is trying to spin.

So following unsupported speculation he continues with his religious hymn.

 
At 09 September, 2006 12:59, Blogger Alex said...

if you're gonna do that, you may as well do it right:

It should be "Nesnyc Heil" or "Heil Nesnyc".

The word "sieg" means "victory", so what you've been saying so far translates to roughly "victory hail nesync", which, while not exactly nonsensical, is certainly not the way it should be phrased.

 
At 09 September, 2006 12:59, Blogger shawn said...

Note he links the same retarded site over and over.

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:00, Blogger Alex said...


If the thermite charge was placed, say in a type of C4 type of plastic base and then ignited via electrical charges, wouldn't this putty type of material, if placed along a 45 degree angle like that, burn all the way through where it was placed?


Yeah, because thermite will burn through steel, but not plastic.

You really are an utter and complete moron.

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:04, Blogger Alex said...

Point is, the evidence is right there in your face yet you still want to believe the hogwash the government is trying to spin. Snap out of it.

Point is it's NOT FUCKING EVIDENCE IF YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN HOW IT WAS DONE!

We HAVE given you an explanation which MAKES SENSE. We KNOW that steel can be cut with a thermal lance and that the resulting steel will look exactly like the picture you've shown. We also know for a fact that thermite CANNOT do what you claim it has done! So how in the &*@)#*#($@!!!! can you claim it's proof WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN WHAT IT'S PROOF OF???!?!?!!!

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:09, Blogger Alex said...

Here, a thermal lance you f***ing idiot.

See how he's cutting on an angle? See the power of the lance? See the slagged metal flying all over the place? Is it clear now that I've drawn you a picture? Or do I need to get the KKK to come here and back me up before you'll beleive the truth?

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:12, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Geez...lately you can't come on here without having the comments section clogged with useless banter. Nessie is always the instigator, and we all seem to play along...but it is getting boring.

My comment, on the Blog Post:
I got involved in the 9/11 Debunking because I have friends who fell for the other side. I did it because I saw easily they fell. I did it because for my friend, and many others, "Loose Change" was the "gateway" drug that lead to the rest of the 9/11 conspiracy shit.

I also did it because I want to understand fully, what happened that day. I want to understand based on FACTS, SOLID ONES, and I want to hear from the REAL EXPERTS on what happened.

I also wanted to, as best as I could, contribute to the gathering of RESOURCES so that when the fence sitters, and the REAL TRUTH SEEKERS come looking for answers, they get some honest ones.

AND BEFORE YOU START NESSIE, just shut up and leave it alone.

TAM

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:30, Blogger Safe-Keeper said...

Anger screwed up your perception and the rest was history.

It's funny how the truthers use every tiniest scrap of wording, picture, or film that can be used, even when it makes them look completely moronic.

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:38, Blogger nesNYC said...

Note he links the same retarded site over and over.

And you guys aren't guilty of linking wild dot gov conspiracy theories? :D

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:40, Blogger shawn said...

And you guys aren't guilty of linking wild dot gov conspiracy theories? :D

It isn't a conspiracy theory, it's an actual conspiracy.

You link to a site whose poster and commenters believe in some vast Jew conspiracy that doesn't exist.

.gov is more reliable than wakeupfromslumber. Hell, the name alone betrays its idiocy.

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:40, Blogger nesNYC said...

Here, a thermal lance you f***ing idiot.

LOL! I'm an idiot??? Like I said, look at the heavy equipment used to power that thing. Now look at the picture and tell me where was the platform the worker was standing to do that cut! Go ahead; make yourself look even stupider than you just did.

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:43, Blogger nesNYC said...

and I want to hear from the REAL EXPERTS on what happened.

Real "PAID" experts.

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:44, Blogger nesNYC said...

It isn't a conspiracy theory, it's an actual conspiracy.

It's such a wild conspiracy theory the FBI has yet to charge the alleged main culprit! How's that for "theory?"

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:44, Blogger shawn said...

Real "PAID" experts.

I guess he missed how much money it'd cost to buy off every expert.

*nesnyc covers his ears*

"I'm not listening!

I'm not listening!

I'm not listening!

I'm not listening!"

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:45, Blogger shawn said...

It's such a wild conspiracy theory the FBI has yet to charge the alleged main culprit!

You think if they captured him (no, none of your "he actually works for us lolz!") they wouldn't charge him with it?

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

I guess he missed how much money it'd cost to buy off every expert.

Well, the NIST "report" cost 20 million so that buys a LOT of "experts" (paid liars) and I'm sure you'd be happy with a fraction of that.

 
At 09 September, 2006 13:57, Blogger nesNYC said...

You think if they captured him (no, none of your "he actually works for us lolz!") they wouldn't charge him with it?

He was charged with the Embassy bombings 3 months after the fact. Why is 911 so different?

 
At 09 September, 2006 14:08, Blogger apathoid said...

I can always tell when Nessie has pulled a big bukkaking of stupidness before I even click the comments link.

 
At 09 September, 2006 14:23, Blogger shawn said...

I'm sure you'd be happy with a fraction of that.

I can't be bought.

If you guys had the evidence I'd be right with you.

Unfortunately (for you anyway) you're all wrong on all counts.

 
At 09 September, 2006 14:55, Blogger Alex said...

LOL! I'm an idiot???

Yes. That's not even a question at this point. Put as many question marks on it as you want, it'll still be a statement.

Like I said, look at the heavy equipment used to power that thing. Now look at the picture and tell me where was the platform the worker was standing to do that cut!

How about this platform.

Or maybe this one.

Or maybe this one"?

How incompetent can you possibly get?

 
At 09 September, 2006 15:17, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Nessie;

Even if there were only 20 experts that worked on the WTC sites for NIST (and I am sure there were alot more) and they used every cent of that 20 Million to buy them off, that would only be 1Million each...not a whole lot to live off for a lifetime, and to bury the guilt of covering up the murder of 3000 people.

 
At 09 September, 2006 15:35, Blogger FeltMountain said...

First of all, I realize that my last post in the conversation you are referring to indicated that I would no longer be involved in this discussion ( at least the discussion that gets carried out in the comments section of this blog ). But, since you decided to put me on the front page and make me feel all special, I will respond. And I will do it point by point, as you did.

Here's one that strikes me as good enough from the CT community to deserve a response on the front page. I'm going to respond paragraph by paragraph to this comment by FeltMountain:

I'm not really aware of the CT community or it's goals. I am interested in 9/11 however, as I find the circumstances surrounding it somewhat suspect and the political implications of it terrifying.



Because I got angry one afternoon when I watched Loose Change. Because we get hundreds of hits every day from people performing Google searches looking for "Loose Change Lies", "Loose Change Mistakes", etc., telling me that people are out there looking for the facts. Because every time there's a Looser spamming a forum, chances are that the next person will be telling them about Screw Loose Change (look in our referring logs for the evidence).

I find that highly commendable. That's what a discussion requires, two sides. Which is also why I also admire Loose Change, because before it the national, public conversation was fairly one-sided.

I should note that as I was watching Screw Loose Change last night, I found some of the points raised incredibly valid and pertinent, and some not so much. Again, I suppose that's the point of a conversation. (Incidentally, I should also note that it was at this point -- 3 a.m. or so, trudging my way through yet another hours long movie on 9/11 -- that I decided I should maybe stop thinking about this for a while, for the sake of my health. So I hope you're finding time to lay off this subject here and there yourself. Just saying.)



That's delusional. Many of the best debunkers are politically liberal, hate Bush and the Republicans. Take Perry Logan, please! ;)

I'm sure they are and I don't care. I have no idea who that guy is, but from your link he seems quite strange indeed.

Am I a liberal? I sure many would classify me that way, I do not classify myself with labels like that. But, for what it's worth, if wanting to honor the constitution and protect America from the fascist takeover She is experiencing makes one a "liberal" then color me a liberal, any day.



Mmmmm, the screaming is generally not recommended, nor is shotting the eyes. I'm 51 years old and the bomb has not dropped in my lifetime, so I'm not about to start sweating it.

I am now, as I assume you were when you read my post, trying to imagine what "shotting" one's eyes looks like, and I admit it's funny.



Hah! Show me one that isn't fairly easy to debunk!

Sort of my point, actually. If these "CTers" throw out 1000 and 1 whacked out theories and five valid points (or even just valid questions that need answering), then you are in a nice position to rhetorically slay them, thereby justifying in your mind (on a small level) your entire world outlook, allowing you to take a deep sigh and say "See. It's all going to be Ok".

And as I have said before, in my humble opinion, things are NOT going to be Ok.



Hysteria doesn't work with me; I have to be reasoned to. Nobody has reasoned to me anything about the supposed government conspiracy on 9-11 that didn't collapse faster than the Twin Towers.

That's great. Truly. I have no idea wether anyone will be able to do that for you, though.



However it turns out, no hard feeling on this side.

 
At 09 September, 2006 15:43, Blogger shawn said...

That's what a discussion requires, two sides. Which is also why I also admire Loose Change, because before it the national, public conversation was fairly one-sided.

The idea that there are two sides to every story is childish.

if wanting to honor the constitution and protect America from the fascist takeover

There is no fascist takeover. This is why we don't respond to hysteria.

 
At 09 September, 2006 15:55, Blogger Alex said...

If these "CTers" throw out 1000 and 1 whacked out theories and five valid points (or even just valid questions that need answering), then you are in a nice position to rhetorically slay them, thereby justifying in your mind (on a small level) your entire world outlook, allowing you to take a deep sigh and say "See. It's all going to be Ok".

And as I have said before, in my humble opinion, things are NOT going to be Ok.


That's rather the point. When we take the time to "rhetorically slay" 996 points (1001 minus 5), and CT nuts STILL keep insisting on insisting that 9/11 was "an inside job", it's rather difficult to take them, or you, seriously. Because at that point all you're really going on is your "humble opinion". No fact. No logic. Not even a reasonable suspicion. Just a little voice somewhere in the back of your head which keeps insisting that the government did it.

So what it comes down to is basically...if you can't put forward a valid theory...if you can't provide evidence which truly provides a logical basis for some suspicion...then why are you trying to convert people to your point of view? It's one thing to ask questions, listen to the answer, and modify your theories based on those answers. It's quite something else when you demand questions, ignore the answers, and continue to tell anyone who will listen that your questions haven't been answered and you want "an impartial investigation". That's the sign of a truly imbalanced individual.

 
At 09 September, 2006 16:32, Blogger default.xbe said...

If the thermite charge was placed, say in a type of C4 type of plastic base and then ignited via electrical charges, wouldn't this putty type of material, if placed along a 45 degree angle like that, burn all the way through where it was placed?

once it ignites it will burn through whatever c4 type casing its in and fall on the floor, it wouldnt burn through the column

 
At 09 September, 2006 17:34, Blogger Alex said...

Besides which, since when does C4 have a "plastic base"? For some reason I originaly thought he was talking about a C19 Claymore (plastic casing). Now, reading it over, I understand what he's talking about:

The idiot thinks you could actually make a brick of thermite with the consistency of C4.

In other words, instead of a "plastic explosive" you'd have a "plastic incendiary" :p

Just another insight into the empty cavern that is Nazinyc's skull.

 
At 09 September, 2006 18:09, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

feltmountain:

You seem, from your reply to be a reasonable person. The tone in the posting here often has a little venom in it, and that is usually due to the number of people who visit the sites here, claiming to be "on the fence" wrt 9/11, or are "just asking questions", and then when you provide them with some facts, you soon discover they were a Conspiracy Theorist just looking to pick a fight.

If you are seriously looking for answers, than keep looking here, and on JREF...you will find them. There is no answer for every problem, or every "coincidence" or "inconsistency" but such it is with a scenario as complex as the attacks of 9/11.

Oh and Shawn, I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, but in my opinion, dealing with many people on opposite sides of things (do you know how many relationships I have helped people through) there are almost always 3 sides, as the cliche goes, yours, theirs, and the truth.

TAM

 
At 09 September, 2006 18:27, Blogger shawn said...

I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not

I wasn't. By "side" I mean the truth (or at least someone with some support to their contentions).

For instance there was once a Holocaust segment on some show (I believe on CNN) and to "balance" it they had a Holocaust denier on.

It's why I say the idea that there are two sides to every story is childish.

 
At 09 September, 2006 21:25, Blogger Blind Avocado said...

Horrified by the fact that a fascist regime has taken over your government and is treading all over your constitution, destroying the democracy your forefathers shed blood and tears to create and igniting the fires of war the world over.

Interesting bit of turnspeak that. In my lifetime the loss of rights and destruction of democracy has almost always come from the left, not the right. Also anybody who calls this administration "fascist" does so out of a complete ignorance of history of even of the definition of the word fascist. And finally, we ignite the fires of war the world over by defending ourselves from aggressors that wish to destroy us? Turnspeak at it's finest.

 
At 09 September, 2006 21:29, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Fascist is totally inappropriate to label what is going on in the US. It's just business as usual. Fascism has outlived its usefulness to the powers that be many decades ago.

@Blind Avocado: Saddam Hussein was going to destroy the US?

 
At 09 September, 2006 21:39, Blogger Alex said...

@Blind Avocado: Saddam Hussein was going to destroy the US?

Global Islamism supported by tyranical regimes will. Saddam's just a small part of the equation.

 
At 09 September, 2006 22:43, Blogger FeltMountain said...

Interesting bit of turnspeak that. In my lifetime the loss of rights and destruction of democracy has almost always come from the left, not the right.

"Turnspeak"? That's not accurate. To use turnspeak would be to deliberately contrive my language or distort facts in a way that I know in my heart to be underhanded in attempt to bring you around to my side of the argument. What I said there I meant. It is my honest assessment of my country and government at this moment. The fact that you disagree with me does not make it turnspeak.

To refer to your lifetime gives me no context, on the account of the fact that I am unaware of your age. If it is the case that you are older than twenty-two, then I am unqualified to speak on what you may have witnessed or learned while I haven't been alive.

But we're both alive now, aren't we? And we must be seeing the same things when we look out the window. Is what you see not, as I said, a takeover -- fascist, in it's style and nature -- of the U.S. government?

This administration came into power through a coup de'tat (well, a coup de'tat of sorts, and there isn't a word that more accurately describes the circumstances, or if there is I am unaware of it.) Then, just months into it's tenure, an unprecedented terror attack (one whose orchestration and origins I openly admit to wondering at) leads literally to changes in our Bill of Rights and a completely unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

And again, when I say "changes to our Bill of Rights" I am not attempting to mislead. Because, to me, a "stipulation which may need to be enacted on account of extenuating circumstances" is just as good as a "change". It's exactly what Hitler did. And, I'll say it before you get the chance: It's exactly what Lincoln did (which does not make it OK, at all.)

So how is this not fascism? How is this not so correlative to the events that lead us to world war two, that you can't just put down whatever it is that's holding you back from saying "fuck this. something has to change." It will be to the benefit of yourself and the world at large.



Also, sorry for getting so political. Politics aren't meant for polite conversation, I know.

 
At 10 September, 2006 00:04, Blogger Blind Avocado said...


This administration came into power through a coup de'tat


People are entitled to their opinions but not their own facts. Bush was fairly elected. Get used to it. BTW, what changes to the bill of rights? You mean Bush Is trampling all over private property rights? Oh, that’s right, it is Democrats doing that. I know, he has been going around imposing speech codes on collage campuses. Oh wait, that is democrats again. I know! Bush is trying to censor a TV movie that is very critical of him. Oops, democrats again. I know, they are denying free speech to political candidates through "campaign Finance reform" Ok I concede that one, as that was a bipartisan effort. The only thing I can think of is that he is monitoring the phone calls of foreign nationals calling foreign nationals overseas only. What a bastard!




"Turnspeak"? That's not accurate. To use turnspeak would be to deliberately contrive my language or distort facts in a way that I know in my heart to be underhanded in attempt to bring you around to my side of the argument. What I said there I meant.

You got me there. I was assuming a level of intelligence high enough to manipulate people. Apparently you are just stupid.

 
At 10 September, 2006 02:04, Blogger FeltMountain said...

People are entitled to their opinions but not their own facts. Bush was fairly elected. Get used to it.

...



You assume that I care for the practices of the Democrats in our government. I don't. I am not registered Democrat, I am registered no affiliation. I didn't vote for Kerry in 2004. Or Nader. Or Bush. I wrote my own name in on the ballot, because they're ALL full of shit, and frankly I was the best man for the job.

Now, if that tid-bit isn't enough to completely discredit me and any opinions I may express in your eyes, I'm not sure what would be. Which is fine. I don't answer to you.


As for the Bush administration, is it even fair to call them Republicans? I mean, is it fair to normal, benevolent Republicans who do not have designs on bringing about the Rapture on their own schedule? Or nice, normal Republicans who believe that a human being and his interests may be of more value to society than a corporation's? Or what about an average anti big government Republican who doesn't want an increasingly militarized police force -- or the military itself -- watching his every move?

No, it probably isn't.

So stop considering this as a Republican - Democrat issue, or a Left - Right issue. And stop classifying me as coming from the Left. I don't. Unless you consider me so far Left that I've actually Left the building. Which is probably closer to the truth, anyway.




You got me there. I was assuming a level of intelligence high enough to manipulate people. Apparently you are just stupid.

You didn't misjudge my intelligence. Just my character.

 
At 10 September, 2006 02:56, Blogger Smilodon said...

Global Islamism supported by tyranical regimes will. Saddam's just a small part of the equation.

Are you saying Saddam Hussein is a global islamist?

This administration came into power through a coup de'tat

Proof? Details? Sources?

 
At 10 September, 2006 03:07, Blogger Thomas said...

So stop considering this as a Republican - Democrat issue, or a Left - Right issue. And stop classifying me as coming from the Left. I don't. Unless you consider me so far Left that I've actually Left the building. Which is probably closer to the truth, anyway.

That's what I thought. Anyone who would apply the word 'fascist' in the sweeping manner you do, must be beyond any political label.

 
At 10 September, 2006 04:15, Blogger FeltMountain said...

Proof? Details? Sources?

Since you're the second person in a row to cut that quote off mid-sentence, allow me to pull a somewhat tacky move and quote myself. What I said was:

This administration came into power through a coup de'tat (well, a coup de'tat of sorts, and there isn't a word that more accurately describes the circumstances, or if there is I am unaware of it.)

Proof? - not providable.
Details? - prevalent.
Sources? - everyone and everything.

What I mean is that we all witnessed the 2000 election and the circumstances surrounding it. The responsibility of interpreting what was seen falls on the individual. You have your world outlook, I have mine. You rationalize and interpret the things you see so that they make sense to you, I do the same. Like I said, coup de'tat was not excatly the correct phrase, but until I come up with -- or someone gives me -- a better one, it will stand.

On second thought, how's this for a phrase to describe the '00 election: "fucked up".
That covers it quite nicely, actually.


That's what I thought. Anyone who would apply the word 'fascist' in the sweeping manner you do, must be beyond any political label.

I don't understand. Should I have more respect for the term, or the people I'm applying it to?

Does this administration -- and anyone behind the scenes, or on the other side of the fence -- not have fascist ideals? Or a fascist ethic? And if they are now subjecting the American people to these ideals does that not make them fascists? Am I that crazy to see it this way?

Don't answer that.

 
At 10 September, 2006 04:19, Blogger FeltMountain said...

*...behind the scenes, or on the other side of the fence who is in line with them...

Sorry, it's late. Or early. Or whatever.

 
At 10 September, 2006 04:51, Blogger shawn said...

I wrote my own name in on the ballot, because they're ALL full of shit, and frankly I was the best man for the job.

Spooky, I did the exact same thing for the exact same reason.

 
At 10 September, 2006 05:09, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Well I hate to be a dick Alex, but WHAT part of the "equation" does Saddam Hussein represent in this Global Islamic conspiracy? As for tyrannical regimes, do the tyrannical regimes SUPPORTED by the US count? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan ring a bell?

Let's look at Pakistan for a sec. Pakistan spends an enormous amount of its budget on defense products, in the persecution of an ongoing conflict with India over an area that is basically a wasteland. The Pakistani government is a firm ally of the US for all intents and purposes.

Spending all that money on defense means there is little left for education and social programs. So guess what deep-pocketed "investors" go into Pakistan to set up free schools to indoctrinate the youth?

That's right, Wahhabist nutcases. There's one reason why those who have damaged us the most come from states that are allies, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia- propping up these regimes is leading America deeper into war and literally recruiting enemies on a daily basis.

Saddam and the Baathist party could have stopped that. The monarchs and Mullahs were scarred to death of this party that wanted to create a modern, secular Pan-Arab nation.

 
At 10 September, 2006 05:16, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

The fact that Hitler made some changes to his nation's constitution and that Bush is pushing for different interpretations of the US Bill of Rights(regardless of your position on the issue) does not make the US administration Fascist.

Fascism is a general set of ideals, part of a worldview(and the National Socialist worldview differed from Fascism by some extent). Bush represents Western Liberalism, despite his traditional conservative values. This worldview maintains that it there is only one "truth"- one way for all nations and all peoples.

Fascism is very different- it may seek to conquer other lands but it is non-universal like liberalism.

 
At 10 September, 2006 08:31, Blogger Alex said...

Are you saying Saddam Hussein is a global islamist?

No.

Well I hate to be a dick Alex, but WHAT part of the "equation" does Saddam Hussein represent in this Global Islamic conspiracy?

It's not a conspiracy so much as a movement. As to what part, the "have WMD's, will sell to highest bidder part". At least, that's the image he went out of his way to project pre-invasion, and everyone bought it.

I'm not going to debate the issue with you because we've gone over it before. The invasion of Iraq was fully justified based on their violation of the ceasefire alone.

Were they the best target? No. I'd rather have hit Iran or possibly Pakistan. However, a full out invasion of those two countries could never be justified. If we wanted to overturn a tyrannical government, create a new battleground to face the terrorists, and have a shot at creating a second democracy in the middle east, all without losing all international and homefront support on day 1 of the invasion, what other country could the US have attacked? Would YOU have supported an invasion of Iran or Pakistan? How many people do you suppose would have? maybe 15% of the population? How many governments? 1?

propping up these regimes is leading America deeper into war and literally recruiting enemies on a daily basis.

No shit, really? Wow. I would never have guessed.

Show me where I claimed US foreign policy is perfect.

Saddam and the Baathist party could have stopped that. The monarchs and Mullahs were scarred to death of this party that wanted to create a modern, secular Pan-Arab nation.

Bullshit. Saddam had no capacity to carry out such pipe dreams, and the Mullahs had no reason to fear him. With religious extremism on the rise, and the extremists being convinced that the heathanism of the west would cause our downfall, you're telling me Saddam could have turned the Middle East into a secular nation? That's gotta be the biggest load of crap I've heard yet.

 
At 10 September, 2006 12:41, Blogger default.xbe said...

Well, the NIST "report" cost 20 million so that buys a LOT of "experts" (paid liars) and I'm sure you'd be happy with a fraction of that.

its a general agreement among CTers that everyone has their price, and generally its assumed that prise is pathetically low

so ill ask a question ive asked before:

whats your price nessie? how much to buy you out so you never speak of the "truth" again?

if everyone has their price you must have one too, and if you are "above" that, why do you assume no one else is?

 
At 11 September, 2006 04:20, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

No Alex, no matter how much you wish, the attack was not justified. If such a thing constituted justification, WHY oh WHY would the Bush administration make asses of themselves talking about WMDs and the "threat" he posed to the world when they could have just cited the violation of the ceasefire?

Also would you care to cite the source for that "WMDs to the highest bidder bit"? The idea that Saddam would do something like this is ridiculous. Once you sell those weapons to terrorists, you lose control over whether or not those weapons are used as well as who they are used on. If Saddam were that stupid he might have sold WMDs to the very people plotting to kill him(e.g. Ansar Al Islam).

Next you asked which country would I have preferred the US to attack? Let's try NONE. The Afghanistan invasion at least had some kind of justification, but there was nothing to justify the attack on Iraq and the idea that he plays some kind of role it the threats the US was facing at the time before and after 9-11 is simply ludicrous.

Attacking Pakistan won't happen because it's a US ally, and attack Iran will be a complete bloodbath. Of course that probably doesn't matter to you because you won't have to fight that war. Obviously neither do I, the difference is that I don't advocate wars that I won't be involved in.

Lastly, as for the Baathist record, one cannot look at Saddam Hussein alone because it was an international movement. However, the massive reforms made in Iraq when Saddam was vice-president made him the enemy of radical theocrats in the region and radically changed Iraqi society compared to its neighbors. Seems they didn't like him letting girls go to school and work in technical fields.

You don't think the radical Islamists were afraid of Saddam? Well one fellow named Osama Bin Laden was afraid enough to warn the Saudis that Saddam would invade Kuwait- BEFORE HE ACTUALLY DID. (Source: Through Our Enemies Eyes, Scheuer)

 
At 11 September, 2006 09:46, Blogger Alex said...

No Alex, no matter how much you wish, the attack was not justified. If such a thing constituted justification, WHY oh WHY would the Bush administration make asses of themselves talking about WMDs and the "threat" he posed to the world when they could have just cited the violation of the ceasefire?

That's not a logical line of argument. Imagine you've got a convict in court charged with both rape and murder. He gets convicted of rape, but found not guilty of murder. Well, by your logic, he shouldn't serve time for rape either. After all, "WHY oh WHY would the prosecutors make asses of themselves talking about murder when they could have just cited the rape", right?

If you'd actually been paying attention you would have noticed that the Bush admin talked about a LOT more reasons for invading Iraq. Unfortunately, WMD were "sexy" to the media. What sells more papers:

1) Pictures of a mushroom cloud on the front page with the text saying "IRAQ HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!"

or

2) An article saying "well, it turns out that Iraq hasn't been following the terms of the 1991 ceasefire agreement....something we've known for, oh, about EIGHT YEARS NOW...but NOW we're going to do something about it".

What do you think? Which of those justifications do you think the newspapers and television networks would be more likely to latch on to?

Also would you care to cite the source for that "WMDs to the highest bidder bit"?

We know he supported terrorist organizations in Palestine. Even you should be aware of that so I'm not going to go looking for specific info unless you ask for it. We also had some intel tying him to Al Qaeda, although it wasn't conclusive. So, while there's no specific intel to indicate he would have sold NBC weapons to terrorists, it's a small step to go from supporting them with money to supporting them with weaponry. No, there was no direct evidence it was going to happen, but it was a valid concern.

Next you asked which country would I have preferred the US to attack?

Straw man. That's not what I asked.

You don't think the radical Islamists were afraid of Saddam? Well one fellow named Osama Bin Laden was afraid enough to warn the Saudis that Saddam would invade Kuwait- BEFORE HE ACTUALLY DID.

I'm aware of that, and if you're talking about their fears back in the 1980's then yeah, you're correct. On the other hand, by 2002 he'd become irrelevant, and that's what I was referring to. You really need to qualify your statements by specifying whether you're talking about the past, ancient past, or the present. Your arguments always jump all over the timeline, which gets rather confusing.

 
At 13 September, 2006 03:55, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Nice try Alex, but I have plenty of video footage(in addition to a good memory) of Bush and co. talking CONSTANTLY about weapons of mass destruction. They gave estimates, talked about mushroom clouds, and so on. In fact I have VIDEO footage of Bush in the rose garden claiming that: "Saddam Hussein could launch a chemical/biological attack ON THE UNITED STATES within 45 MINUTES of giving the order." That is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE. In addition to this I religiously listened to the conservative talk-radio and noticed an obvious shift in the "real motive" after the search for WMDs started to wane.

Now as for your "terrorist" support argument: It is known that Saddam paid insurance to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Questionable charity? Definitely, however- Saddam knew better than to work with terrorist organizations. In his history he has dedicated great time and resources to fighting terrorist organizations and keeping them out of the country, particularly Al Qaeda and Al Dawa. Ironically many of his most brutal actions were done for that purpose.

As for Saddam being "irrelevent" in 2002, I would agree wholeheartedly- which is why I would be forced to ask WHY invade and conquer a country that had basically been rendered impotent.

 
At 15 September, 2006 07:06, Blogger Rad Dawg said...

Well, one thing ''Loose Change'' has working for it that this site doesn't, is a straight title without pejorative. So it comes across in more neutral, fair and uncomplicated way.

It's actually more damaging to attack elementary physical evidence with specious demerits, only works to the advantage of its cleaner presentation.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home